DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-16 have been examined.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification (e.g. in at least paragraphs [006]-[009]) is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, “the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper.” Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following minor informalities:
The last sentence is grammatically incorrect and must be reworded. Does applicant mean --a digital signal-- or --digital signals--?
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [004], line 2, it appears that “dependent” should be replaced with
--depended--.
In paragraphs [050]-[051], replace all three instances of “308M-N” with
--308M-1-- to match FIG.3.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
All FIGs are objected to for failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(a)(1) and 37 CFR 1.84(l), which requires that all drawings be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, solid black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. The examiner asserts that the FIGs are blurry and pixelated, and include non-uniform lines.
The FIGs are objected to because the text is too small (in some locations). 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3) requires that all numbers, letters, and reference characters measure at least 1/8 inches in height. The examiner asserts that at least some of the text does not satisfy this requirement. Applicant is asked to print the drawings, measure the text, and enlarge the text where appropriate. For instance, multiple words in FIG.1 appear to be below the required size.
The FIGs are objected to for failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3), which states that “Numbers, letters, and reference characters…should not be placed in the drawing so as to interfere with its comprehension. Therefore, they should not cross or mingle with the lines.” For example, in FIG.1, the words to the left and right of 106/108 overlap lines, making them harder to read.
FIGs.4-6 are objected to for failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(i), which requires that words appear in a horizontal, left-to-right fashion when the page is either upright or turned so that the top becomes the right side. Note, from 37 CFR 1.84(f), that the top of the sheet is regarded as one of the shorter sides. In these FIGs, the text “MD-MUX” must be rotated 180 degrees. Additionally, in FIGs.5-6, the text “406A” and “406B” must be similarly rotated.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 4, insert --wherein-- after the comma (or delete “is”) for improved grammar.
In the 2nd to last paragraph, “photodetectors which converts” is grammatically incorrect.
In the last line, insert --and-- before “the” to improve grammar.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, spell out “VPU” prior to using the abbreviation.
In line 1, insert a hyphen before “implemented” (e.g. --A Vector Processing Unit (VPU)-implemented--).
In line 4, insert --to-- before “the”.
In line 10, replace “transmit” with --transmitting--.
In line 13, replace “Optical” with --optical--.
In line 13, spell out “AU” prior to using the abbreviation.
In line 15, replace “transmit” with --transmitting--.
In the 2nd to last paragraph, “photodetectors which converts” is grammatically incorrect.
Claims 10-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1 of each claim, insert a hyphen between “VPU” and “implemented”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims recite the following limitations for which there is a lack of antecedent basis:
In claim 1, lines 8-9, “the at least one of the plurality of core clusters”. It appears applicant should delete the first instance of “the”.
In claim 1, line 13, “the input”. Applicant could claim --convert the digital input vectors to an input in analog form, and transmit the input in analog form…--.
In claim 1, 3rd to last line, “the result”. Is this the demultiplexed result or the non-demultiplexed result? It appears applicant should insert --demultiplexed-- prior to “result”.
In claim 1, last paragraph, “the result in the analog form”. The examiner recommends replacing “to an analog form” in the 3rd to last line with --to a result in analog form--.
In claim 1, last line, “the VPU slave” and “the VPU master”, both of which were never previously set forth. The examiner recommends replacing both instances of “the” with --a--.
In claim 2, “the determined information”, which could refer to the information in claim 1, line 6, or claim 1, line 10. The examiner recommends inserting --the-- before “determined information” in claim 1, line 10.
In claim 2, “the plurality of cores”. Applicant only previously sets forth “a plurality of core clusters” and “multiple SIMD cores”. It appears that applicant isn’t referring to the former as this would result in claim 2 being not further limiting as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(d). If applicant means --the multiple SIMD cores--, then such language should be used. For purposes of prior art examination, the examiner will interpret this as --a plurality of cores--.
In claim 7, “the VPU slave” since such also lacks basis in claim 1.
In claim 9, lines 5-6, “the at least one of the plurality of core clusters”. It appears applicant should delete the first instance of “the”.
In claim 9, line 10, “the input”. Applicant could claim --converting the digital input vectors to an input in analog form, and transmitting the input in analog form…--.
In claim 9, 3rd to last line, “the result”. Is this the demultiplexed result or the non-demultiplexed result? It appears applicant should insert --demultiplexed-- prior to “result”.
In claim 9, last paragraph, “the result in the analog form”. The examiner recommends replacing “to an analog form” in the 3rd to last line with --to a result in analog form--.
In claims 11-15, each instance of “the plurality of core clusters”.
All dependent claims are rejected due to their dependence on an indefinite claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Specifically, at least one core cluster is claimed to transmit the result in digital form to the VPU slave in claim 1 (see claim 1, lines 8-9 and last two lines). Claim 7 only repeats this limitation as opposed to adding anything beyond that already claimed. As such, claim 7 is an improper dependent. Applicant may cancel claim 7, amend it to be in proper dependent form, or present a sufficient showing that it complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 9-12, 15-16, 1-4, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bunandar et al., U.S. 2019/0356394 A1.
Referring to claim 9, Bunandar has taught a VPU implemented method comprising:
receiving instructions as digital input vectors (from paragraphs 102 and 112, bit strings (input vectors) are received and sent to amplitude modulation circuitry (including DAC) of optical encoder 1-101 (FIGs.1-1 and 1-2). These bit strings are instructions instructing how to control amplitude or an optical signal);
determining information related to light intensities and arithmetic operations corresponding the received digital input vectors (information is also determined to control light sources 1-201a and 1-201b, which transmit light having some intensity (paragraph 110). Additionally, information is also determined to control phase, which represents positive/negative data (paragraph 115). Positive/negative relates to signs of data used in matrix multiply operations performed by the photonic processor 1-103 on the optical data. The phase and light source control are sent along with the amplitude instructions such that they are all related to generate light signals);
transmitting the digital input vectors and the determined information to the at least one of the plurality of core clusters (see FIG.2. All of the data is transmitted from the controller to core cluster 1-101 (other core clusters may be 1-103 and 1-105)) for:
receiving the digital input vectors and determined information related to the light intensities and arithmetic operations corresponding to the digital input vectors (again, cluster 1-101 receives the aforementioned data);
converting the digital input vectors to analog form (from FIG.1-2, DAC 1-209 (of which there may be multiple) converts the input vectors to analog signals) and transmit the input in analog form to a laser array for generating corresponding light beams (the laser array is deemed to be the combination of components in 1-101 other than DACs. There is also an array of amplitude modulators (paragraph 102), which is used with lasers (paragraph [0187]) and is such at least part of a laser array to generate the overall optical signals (light beams));
multiplexing the light beams to generate an operand (there may be multiple optical encoders to generate multiple light beams, which are multiplexed by 1-1213 (FIG.1-12B) to generate matrix data to be multiplied (operand(s)). This allows for parallel processing of multiple vectors (paragraph [0184]));
processing the operand using the at least one Optical AU to generate a result (The encoded optical operand is sent to the photonic processor (optical AU) (1-201, 1-103) to generate a matrix multiplication result (abstract));
demultiplexing the result (see paragraph [0188] and FIG.1-12C, demultiplexer 1-1221, which receives result data from processor 1-1201 (see FIG.1-12A)) and transmit the demultiplexed result to photodetectors (paragraph [0188] and FIG.1-1223. These detectors may also be part of homodyne 1-901) which converts the result to an analog form (optical receiver 1-105 (FIG.1-1 and FIG.1-9), which contains homodyne/photodetectors converts the result to analog form, which is input into ADC 1-905 (FIG.1-9));
converting the result in the analog form to a digital form (FIG.1-9, 1-905 converts an analog signal to digital signal) and transmitting the result in the digital form to the VPU (the digital result is sent to the VPU (controller) (FIG.1-9).
Referring to claim 10, Bunandar has taught the VPU implemented method of claim 9, wherein the VPU transmits the digital input vectors and the determined information to at least one of the plurality of cores over a serial communications protocol (when there is only one DAC and amplitude modulator, the data is sent serially over the buses so that first signals can control the components in FIG.1-2. Data would only be sent in parallel when there are parallel components in the optical encoder (paragraph [0102])).
Referring to claim 11, Bunandar has taught the VPU implemented method of claim 9, wherein at least one of the plurality of core clusters converts the digital input vectors to analog form using an array of Digital to Analog Converters (DACs) (see paragraph [0102]). When there are multiple amplitude modulators, there are multiple DACs, one for each modulator).
Referring to claim 12, Bunandar has taught the VPU implemented method of claim 9, wherein at least one of the plurality of core clusters converts the result in analog form to digital form using an array of Analog to Digital Converters (ADCs) (see paragraph [0161], where there may be multiple ADCs).
Referring to claim 15, Bunandar has taught the VPU implemented method of claim 9, wherein at least one of the plurality of core clusters transmits the result in digital form to the VPU over a serial communications protocol (when there is only one ADC 1-905, the data is sent serially, with respect to previous and/or subsequent data) from the ADC to the VPU/controller. Data would only be sent in parallel when there are parallel components in the optical receiver; however, there may be just one ADC (paragraph [0161]). Alternatively, even if there must be multiple ADCs, each will individually send one digital output at a time; thus, a single ADC outputs data corresponding to different results serially).
Referring to claim 16, Bunandar has taught the VPU implemented method of claim 9, wherein the VPU determines information related to light intensities and arithmetic operations corresponding to the received digital input vectors by toggling an array of laser light with an amplitude of each beam corresponding to an element in the received digital input vectors (from FIG.1-2, light sources (array of laser light (paragraph [0187])), are toggled with an amplitude for each beam by 1-205).
Claim 1 is mostly rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1. Bunandar has further taught a Vector Processing Unit (VPU) (FIG.1-1 + the connected external processor from paragraph [0093]) comprising:
a plurality of core clusters (see FIGs.1-12A-C, where each core cluster would comprise a frontend, a portion of a photonic processor, and a backend), wherein each of the plurality of core clusters comprises multiple Single Instruction Multiple DataStream (SIMD) cores (see paragraph [0184] and note that Bunandar is performing the same matrix multiplication on different data (vectors) via multiplexing. Thus, the cores are effectively SIMD cores since they are all performing the single instruction of matrix multiplication on different data. Alternatively, paragraph [0385] refers to reorganizing data for SIMD, which means the cores are related to SIMD, i.e., SIMD cores), wherein each SIMD core comprises at least one Optical Arithmetic Unit (OAU) (the OAU is the circuitry that carries out the matrix multiplication on optical signals), the VPU is configured to:
transmit the result in the digital form to the VPU slave (from FIG.1-9, the digital result is sent to the VPU slave (controller)), then back to the VPU master (from paragraph [0093], the digital output is sent from the controller/slave to the external processor (VPU master), e.g. via the “bit string” line at the right of FIG.1-1).
Referring to claim 2, Bunandar has taught the VPU of claim 1, wherein the VPU is configured to transmit the digital input vectors and the determined information to at least one of the plurality of cores (sending the data as shown in FIG.1-2 constitutes sending the data to a core 1-101).
Claims 3-4 and 7-8 are rejected for similar reasoning as claims 11-12, 9, and 16, respectively.
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.
Claims 13-14 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bunandar in view of Wu, “Mode-Division Multiplexing for Silicon Photonic Network-on-Chip”.
Referring to claim 13, Bunandar has taught the VPU implemented method of claim 9, but has not taught wherein at least one of the plurality of core clusters multiplexes the light beams using silicon photonic mode division (MD) multiplexers. Instead, Bunandar uses wavelength division multiplexing (WDM) (see paragraphs [0184]+). Wu has taught that WDM has limitations while mode-division multiplexing (MDM) allows for increased capacity/bandwidth density, cost-effectiveness, and more freedom (see the abstract and section I, 2nd paragraph). As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bunandar to use MDM instead of WDM.
Referring to claim 14, Bunandar has taught the VPU implemented method of claim 9, but has not taught wherein at least one of the plurality of core clusters demultiplexes the result using mode division (MD) demultiplexers. Instead, Bunandar uses wavelength division de-multiplexing (WDM) (see paragraphs [0188] and FIG.1-12C). For reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 13, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bunandar to use MDM instead of WDM for its demultiplexing.
Claims 5-6 are rejected for similar reasoning as claims 13-14, respectively.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Stevens, US 8,316,073, which has taught an optical processor that converts digital inputs to optical signals, performs arithmetic function(s) on the signals, and converts the result back to a digital signal.
Carolan, US 2017/0351293, which has taught an optical neural network that receives data from, and sends data to, an electronic interface (through DAC and ADC).
Chin, which has taught multiple processors (that can operate in SIMD configuration) that are sent instructions and data from memory across an optical interconnect. However, the optical signals are converted to electrical signals for processing.
Shen, CA 3101026, which has taught converting electronic input to optical input using DAC, laser unit, and modulator array, for processing by an optical matrix multiplication unit and converting the results using an ADC, where the converted data is sent to a controller.
Liang, US 12,112,205, which has taught an accelerator that converts data from a processor in as first format to an accelerator format, processes the resulting data, and converts the output back to the first format for the processor.
Sakurai, US 4,941,206, which has taught a loop-type optical fiber transmission system with master and slave.
Launay, which has taught using a photonics co-processor for scalable training of neural networks.
Sunny, “CrossLight: A Cross-Layer Optimized Silicon Photonic Neural Network Accelerator”, which has taught a controller whose output data is converted to light for processing by a photonic accelerator.
Xu, which has taught an 11 TOPS photonic convolutional accelerator for optical neural networks.
Mehrabian, which has taught “A Winograd-based Integrated Photonics Accelerator for Convolutional Neural Networks” whose architecture is shown in FIG.5.
Mehrabian, which has taught “PCNNA: A Photonic Convolutional Neural Network Accelerator”, whose architecture is shown in FIG.4.
Sunny, which has taught “ROBIN: A Robust Optical Binary Neural Network Accelerator”, whose architecture is shown in FIG.5.
Chandler, which has taught optical deep learning.
Reddit, which has taught a hybrid optical/electrical system and conversion between signals.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David J. Huisman whose telephone number is 571-272-4168. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jyoti Mehta, can be reached at 571-270-3995. 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.
/David J. Huisman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2183