DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO-1449) filed 01/18/2023, 11/08/2023, 01/03/2025, and 08/08/2025. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carrott et al., (hereafter Carrott) (US 6,080,994), of record.
With respect to Claim 12, Carrott discloses an optical artificial neural network system comprising: a light insertion unit (74, Figure 4) configured to receive an incident light; a first spatial light modulator (54, Figure 4) configured to modulate the incident light (inherent on how SLMs function) received by the light insertion unit (74, Figure 4) to generate a first light (73 leaving 54, Figure 4) having a first optical image (SLM patterns image information, column 2, lines 49-54); a light Fourier transform device (56, 60 and 64, Figure 4; see also column 3, lines 41-45) configured to transmit the first light (73 leaving 54, Figure 4) to generate a second light (73 leaving 58, Figure 4) having a second optical image (SLM patterns image information, column 2, lines 49-54); a second spatial light modulator (58, Figure 4) configured to reflect the second light (73 leaving 58, Figure 4) to generate a third light (73 leaving 62, Figure 4) having a third optical image (SLM patterns image information, column 2, lines 49-54); and a first quarter wave-plate disposed between the light Fourier transform device (56, 60 and 64, Figure 4) and the second spatial light modulator (58, Figure 4), and wherein the light Fourier transform device (56, 60 and 64, Figure 4) is configured to transmit the third light (73 leaving 62, Figure 4) to generate a fourth light (73 leaving 64, Figure 4) having a fourth optical image (SLM patterns image information, column 2, lines 49-54).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrott (US 6,080,994), of record, in further in view of Kessler et al., (hereafter Kessler) (US 2020/0400943 A1).
With respect to Claim 1, Carrott teaches an optical artificial neural network system (Figure 4) comprising: a light insertion unit (74, Figure 4) configured to receive an incident light; a first spatial light modulator (54, Figure 4) configured to modulate (inherent on being an SLM 54, Figure 4) the incident light (see path from 74 to 54, Figure 4) received by the light insertion unit (74, Figure 4) to generate a first light (73 leaving 54, Figure 4) having a first optical image (SLM patterns image information, column 2, lines 49-54); a first light path adjustment device (66, Figure 4) configured to transmit the first light (73 leaving 54, Figure 4); a second light path adjustment device (68, Figure 4) configured to polarize (66 and 68 are polarizers which polarize light, Figure 4) the first light (73 leaving 54, Figure 4) passing through the first light path adjustment device (66, Figure 4); a light Fourier transform device (56, Figure 4; see also column 3, lines 41-45) configured to reflect the first light (73 leaving 54, Figure 4) polarized (via 66, Figure 4; see also column 3, lines 41-45), to generate a second light (73 leaving 58, Figure 4) having a second optical image (SLM patterns image information, column 2, lines 49-54); and a second spatial light modulator (58, Figure 4) configured to modulate the second light (73 leaving 58, Figure 4) to generate a third light (73 leaving 62, Figure 4) having a third optical image (SLM patterns image information, column 2, lines 49-54), wherein the second light (73 leaving 58, Figure 4) generated by the light Fourier transform device (56, Figure 4) travels to the second spatial light modulator (58, Figure 4) through the second light path adjustment device (68, Figure 4), wherein the third light (73 leaving 62, Figure 4) generated by the second spatial light modulator (58, Figure 4) travels to the light Fourier transform device (56, Figure 4) through the second light path adjustment device (68, Figure 4), wherein the light Fourier transform device (56, Figure 4) is configured to reflect the third light (73 leaving 62, Figure 4) to generate a fourth light (73 leaving 64, Figure 4) having a fourth optical image (SLM patterns image information, column 2, lines 49-54), and wherein the first light path adjustment device (66, Figure 4) is configured to change a light path of the fourth light (73 leaving 64, Figure 4).
Carrott fails to teach a circular polarizer.
Carrott teaches an optical correlator system and Kessler teaches a wearable display in which the optical correlator system can used in.
Kessler teaches a circular polarizer (230, Figure 2A).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Carrott having the optical artificial neural network system with the teachings of Kessler having the circular polarizer for the purpose of preventing light interference.
With respect to Claim 2, Carrott teaches the optical artificial neural network system of claim 1, the light insertion unit (74, Figure 4), the first spatial light modulator (54, Figure 4), and the first light (73 leaving 54, Figure 4).
Carrott fails to teach a polarized beam splitter and a quarter wave-plate.
Carrott teaches an optical correlator system and Kessler teaches a wearable display in which the optical correlator system can used in.
Kessler teaches a polarized beam splitter (polarization beam splitter PBS 110, Figure 8A; see also ¶[0121]) and a quarter wave-plate (246, Figure 8A).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Carrott having the optical artificial neural network system with the teachings of Kessler having a polarized beam splitter configured to reflect a first direction component of the incident light toward the first spatial light modulator and a quarter wave-plate configured to circularly polarize the first direction component of the first light reflected by the polarized beam splitter for the purpose of correcting keystone distortion and reduce light losses, ¶[0121].
With respect to Claim 6, Carrott teaches the optical artificial neural network system of claim 1, the second light path adjustment device (68, Figure 4), and the first light (73 leaving 54, Figure 4).
Carrott fails to teach a polarized beam splitter and a quarter wave-plate.
Carrott teaches an optical correlator system and Kessler teaches a wearable display in which the optical correlator system can used in.
Kessler teaches a polarized beam splitter (polarization beam splitter PBS 110, Figure 8A; see also ¶[0121]) and a quarter wave-plate (246, Figure 8A).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Carrott having the optical artificial neural network system with the teachings of Kessler having a polarized beam splitter wherein the polarized beam splitter is configured to: transmit a first direction component of the first light; and reflect a second direction component of the first light, and wherein the quarter wave-plate is configured to circularly polarize the first direction component of the first light passing through the polarized beam splitter for the purpose of correcting keystone distortion and reduce light losses, ¶[0121].
With respect to Claim 7, Carrott further teaches wherein the light Fourier transform device (56, Figure 4) includes a concave mirror (mirror has two radii of curvature, the radius of curvature with respect to the meridian plane being different from the radius of curvature along the sagittal plane, column 3, lines 38-41).
With respect to Claim 10, Carrott further teaches an imaging device (60, Figure 4) configured to pick up the fourth light (73 leaving 64, Figure 4) whose light path is changed by the first light path adjustment device (66, Figure 4).
With respect to Claim 13, Carrott teaches the optical artificial neural network system of claim 12, the light insertion unit (74, Figure 4), the first spatial light modulator (54, Figure 4), and the first light (73 leaving 54, Figure 4).
Carrott teaches an optical correlator system and Kessler teaches a wearable display in which the optical correlator system can used in.
Kessler teaches a polarized beam splitter (polarization beam splitter PBS 110, Figure 8A; see also ¶[0121]) and a quarter wave-plate (246, Figure 8A).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Carrott having the optical artificial neural network system with the teachings of Kessler having a polarized beam splitter and a second quarter wave-plate, wherein the polarized beam splitter is configured to reflect a first direction component of the incident light toward the first spatial light modulator, and wherein the second quarter wave-plate is configured to circularly polarize the first direction component of the first light reflected by the polarized beam splitter for the purpose of correcting keystone distortion and reduce light losses, ¶[0121].
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrott (US 6,080,994) in view of Kessler (US 2020/0400943 A1), as applied to claim 2, above, and in further view of Ellwood (US 2005/0201715 A1).
With respect to Claim 3, Carrott in view of Kessler teach the optical artificial neural network system of claim 2, the first light path adjustment device (66, Figure 4, of Carrott) and the polarized beam splitter (polarization beam splitter PBS 110, Figure 8A; see also ¶[0121], of Kesser).
Carrott in view of Kessler fail to teach a Faraday rotator configured to rotate a polarization direction of a transmitted light by 45 degrees.
Carrott in view of Kessler teach an optical correlator system and Ellwood teaches a radiation switching array that can be used in the optical correlator system.
Ellwood teaches a Faraday rotator (Figure 1; see also ¶[0009]) configured to rotate a polarization direction of a transmitted light by 45 degrees (Faraday rotator to rotate by 45°, ¶[0005]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Carrott in view of Kessler having the optical artificial neural network system with the teachings of Ellwood having a Faraday rotator configured to rotate a polarization direction of a transmitted light by 45 degrees and having the fourth light passing through the Faraday rotator reflected by the polarized beam splitter for the purpose of controlling the polarization angle of the light, ¶[0112].
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrott (US 6,080,994) in view of Kessler (US 2020/0400943 A1), as applied to claim 1, above, and in further view of Li et al., (hereafter Li) (US 2021/0123853 A1).
With respect to Claim 4, Carrott in view of Kessler teach the optical artificial neural network system of claim 1, the light insertion unit (74, Figure 4, of Carrott) wherein the second light (73 leaving 58, Figure 4, of Carrott) is reflected by the first spatial light modulator (54, Figure 4, of Carrott).
Carrott in view of Kessler fail to teach a digital micro-mirror device where light is vertically reflected.
Carrott in view of Kessler teach an optical correlator system and Li teaches an apparatus including a DMD module that can be used in the optical correlator system.
Li teaches a digital micro-mirror device (Figure 1; see also ¶[0059]) where light is vertically reflected (the DMD can reflect to light back in a vertical upward direction, ¶[0059]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Carrott in view of Kessler having the optical artificial neural network system with the teachings of Li having a digital micro-mirror device where light is vertically reflected and using the digital micro-mirror device configured such that the second light is vertically reflected by the first spatial light modulator for the purpose of controlling the intensity of the light, ¶[0059]).
With respect to Claim 5, Carrott in view of Kessler teach the optical artificial neural network system of claim 1, the first light path adjustment device (66, Figure 4, of Carrott) and the fourth light (73 leaving 64, Figure 4, of Carrott).
Carrott in view of Kessler fail to teach a beam splitter.
Carrott in view of Kessler teach an optical correlator system and Li teaches an apparatus including a light path module that can be used in the optical correlator system.
Li teaches a beam splitter (Figure 1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Carrott in view of Kessler having the optical artificial neural network system with the teachings of Li having a beam splitter configured to reflect the fourth light to change the light path of the fourth light for the purpose of allowing light to travel in various directions.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrott (US 6,080,994), as applied to Claim 12 above, in further view of Li et al., (hereafter Li) (US 2021/0123853 A1)
With respect to Claim 14, Carrott teaches the optical artificial neural network system of claim 12, the light insertion unit (74, Figure 4), and the second light (73 leaving 58, Figure 4) is reflected by the first spatial light modulator (54, Figure 4).
Carrott fails to teach a digital micro-mirror device where light is vertically reflected.
Carrott teaches an optical correlator system and Li teaches an apparatus including a DMD module that can be used in the optical correlator system.
Li teaches a digital micro-mirror device (Figure 1; see also ¶[0059]) where light is vertically reflected (the DMD can reflect to light back in a vertical upward direction, ¶[0059]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Carrott having the optical artificial neural network system with the teachings of Li having a digital micro-mirror device where light is vertically reflected and using the digital micro-mirror device configured such that the second light is vertically reflected by the first spatial light modulator for the purpose of controlling the intensity of the light, ¶[0059]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrott (US 6,080,994) in further in view of Preciado (US 2021/0093195 A1).
With respect to Claim 15, Carrott teaches the optical artificial neural network system of claim 12 and the light Fourier transform device (56, 60 and 64, Figure 4).
Carrott fails to teach wherein the light Fourier transform device includes a convex lens.
Carrott teaches an optical correlator system and Preciado teaches ophthalmic device for imaging an eye where the optical correlator system can be used in the optical correlator system.
Preciado teaches the light Fourier transform device includes a convex lens (convex lens 270 implements Fourier transform of the SLO light returned by the scanning element, ¶[0041]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Carrott having the optical artificial neural network system with the teachings of Preciado having the light Fourier transform device includes a convex lens for the purpose of refocusing the light in order to compensate for diffraction errors, ¶[0042].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 9, 11, 16 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to Claim 8, the prior art fails to teach “wherein a distance between the concave mirror and the first spatial light modulator is determined in consideration of refractive indices of components included in the light insertion unit, the first light path adjustment device, and the second light path adjustment device disposed on a traveling path of the first light, such that a light path of the first light is identical to a focal length of the concave mirror.”
With respect to claim 9, this claim depends on claim 8 and is allowable at least for the reasons stated supra
With respect to Claim 11, the prior art fails to teach “wherein a distance between the imaging device and the first light path adjustment device is determined in consideration of refractive indices of components included in the first light path adjustment device and the second light path adjustment device disposed on a traveling path of the fourth light, such that the light path of the fourth light is identical to a focal length of the concave mirror.”
With respect to Claim 16, the prior art fails to teach “wherein a distance between the convex lens and the first spatial light modulator is determined in consideration of refractive indices of components included in the light insertion unit disposed on a traveling path of the first light, such that a light path of the first light is identical to a focal length of the convex lens.”
With respect to Claim 17, the prior art fails to teach “wherein a distance between the convex lens and the second spatial light modulator is determined in consideration of a refractive index of the first quarter wave-plate disposed on a traveling path of the second light, such that a light path of the second light is identical to a focal length of the convex lens.”
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMARA Y WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3887. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 730-530 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TYW/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872