DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the original filing on February 10, 2023 and the Remarks and Amendments filed on May 5, 2026. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-10, 12-15, and 17-19 are pending and have been considered below. Claims 1, 3, 8, 15, and 18 are amended. Claims 2, 5, 11, and 16 are canceled.
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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such claim limitations are:
“…an optical linear process unit configured to generate a processed light” in claim 1. Here, optical linear process unit is a generic placeholder (prong 1), modified by the function “configured to generate a processed light” (prong 2) and not modified by sufficient structure to perform the claimed function (prong 3). Specifically, the claimed optical linear process unit is not sufficient structure to perform the function of generating a processed light. The optical linear process unit “may include opto-electric devices, such as a light modulator” (¶64).
“…an optical nonlinear process unit configured to generate the output light” in claim 1. Here, optical nonlinear process unit is a generic placeholder (prong 1), modified by the function “configured to generate the output light” (prong 2) and not modified by sufficient structure to perform the claimed function (prong 3). Specifically, the claimed optical nonlinear process unit is not sufficient structure to perform the function of generating the output light. The optical nonlinear process unit “may include an optical device… the optical device may include a nonlinear optical material” (¶72).
“…light distributing unit is configured to distribute the output light received from the optical fiber” in claim 1. Here, light distributing unit is a generic placeholder (prong 1), modified by the function “configured to distribute the output light received from the optical fiber” (prong 2) and not modified by sufficient structure to perform the claimed function (prong 3). Specifically, the claimed light distributing unit is not sufficient structure to perform the function of distributing the output light. The light distributing unit “may include an optical splitter 321 and a lens 322” (¶99, Fig. 5 – 321-322).
“…an output unit configured to provide a portion of the output light generated from the optical hidden layer to the light transfer unit and to reflect and output the remaining portion thereof” in claim 6. Here, output unit is a generic placeholder (prong 1), modified by the function “configured to provide a portion of the output light generated from the optical hidden layer to the light transfer unit and to reflect and output the remaining portion thereof” (prong 2) and not modified by sufficient structure to perform the claimed function (prong 3). Specifically, the claimed output unit is not sufficient structure to perform the function of providing a portion of the output light to the light transfer unit and reflecting and outputting the remaining portion thereof. The output unit “may include a beam splitter” (¶75).
“…an optical linear process unit configured to receive an input light and to generate a first processed light by performing a linear process on input data” in claim 8. Here, optical linear process unit is a generic placeholder (prong 1), modified by the function “configured to receive an input light and to generate a first processed light by performing a linear process on input data” (prong 2) and not modified by sufficient structure to perform the claimed function (prong 3). Specifically, the claimed optical linear process unit is not sufficient structure to perform the function of receiving an input light and generating a first processed light by performing a linear process on input data. The optical linear process unit “may include opto-electric devices, such as a light modulator” (¶64).
“…an optical nonlinear process unit configured to receive the second processed light and to generate an output light by performing a nonlinear process on the second processed light” in claim 8. Here, optical nonlinear process unit is a generic placeholder (prong 1), modified by the function “configured to receive the second processed light and to generate an output light by performing a nonlinear process on the second processed light” (prong 2) and not modified by sufficient structure to perform the claimed function (prong 3). Specifically, the claimed optical nonlinear process unit is not sufficient structure to perform the function of receiving the second processed light and generating an output light by performing a nonlinear process on the second processed light. The optical nonlinear process unit “may include an optical device… the optical device may include a nonlinear optical material” (¶72).
“…light distributing unit is configured to distribute the output light received from the optical fiber for each wavelength” in claim 8. Here, light distributing unit is a generic placeholder (prong 1), modified by the function “configured to distribute the output light received from the optical fiber for each wavelength” (prong 2) and not modified by sufficient structure to perform the claimed function (prong 3). Specifically, the claimed light distributing unit is not sufficient structure to perform the function of distributing the output light. The light distributing unit “may include an optical splitter 321 and a lens 322” (¶99, Fig. 5 – 321-322).
“…an optical linear process unit configured to receive an input light including input data and to generate a processed light including first processing data obtained by performing a linear process on the input data” in claim 15. Here, optical linear process unit is a generic placeholder (prong 1), modified by the function “configured to receive an input light including input data and to generate a processed light including first processing data obtained by performing a linear process on the input data” (prong 2) and not modified by sufficient structure to perform the claimed function (prong 3). Specifically, the claimed optical linear process unit is not sufficient structure to perform the function of receiving an input light including input data and generating a processed light including first processing data obtained by performing a linear process on the input data. The optical linear process unit “may include opto-electric devices, such as a light modulator” (¶64).
“…a first time delay unit configured to generate a time-delayed processed light based on the processed light” in claim 15. Here, first time delay unit is a generic placeholder (prong 1), modified by the function of “configured to generate a time-delayed processed light based on the processed light” (prong 2) and not modified by sufficient structure to perform the claimed function (prong 3). Specifically, the claimed first time delay unit is not sufficient structure to perform the function of generating a time-delayed processed light. The first time delay unit “may be implemented with an element or a material, which is capable of making transfer speeds of optical signals different for respective nodes, such as a photonic crystal or a meta material, in addition to the optical fiber” (¶117).
“…an optical nonlinear process unit configured to output an output light by performing a nonlinear process on the first processing data based on the time-delayed processed light” in claim 15. Here, optical nonlinear process unit is a generic placeholder (prong 1), modified by the function “configured to output an output light by performing a nonlinear process on the first processing data based on the time-delayed processed light” (prong 2) and not modified by sufficient structure to perform the claimed function (prong 3). Specifically, the claimed optical nonlinear process unit is not sufficient structure to perform the function of outputting an output light by performing a nonlinear process on the first processing data based on the time-delayed processed light. The optical nonlinear process unit “may include an optical device… the optical device may include a nonlinear optical material” (¶72).
“…light distributing unit is configured to distribute the output light received from the optical fiber” in claim 15. Here, light distributing unit is a generic placeholder (prong 1), modified by the function “configured to distribute the output light received from the optical fiber” (prong 2) and not modified by sufficient structure to perform the claimed function (prong 3). Specifically, the claimed light distributing unit is not sufficient structure to perform the function of distributing the output light. The light distributing unit “may include an optical splitter 321 and a lens 322” (¶99, Fig. 5 – 321-322).
“…second time delay unit is configured to time-delay the distributed output light” in claim 15. Here, second time delay unit is a generic placeholder (prong 1), modified by the function of “configured to time-delay the distributed output light” (prong 2) and not modified by sufficient structure to perform the claimed function (prong 3). Specifically, the claimed second time delay unit is not sufficient structure to perform the function of time-delaying the distributed output light. The second time delay unit “may be implemented with an element or a material, which is capable of making transfer speeds of optical signals different for respective nodes, such as a photonic crystal or a meta material, in addition to the optical fiber” (¶117).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1 and 4 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carolan et al. (US 20170351293 A1, hereinafter Carolan) in view of Amoah et al. (US 20170068052 A1, hereinafter Amoah).
Regarding claim 1:
Carolan teaches an optical artificial neural network system comprising: an optical hidden layer (Fig. 4B, ¶14 “FIG. 4B shows a schematic of a hidden layer in the optical neural network”) configured to receive an input light including input data (¶34 “Generally, computations in the neuromorphic computing technique can be decomposed into a series of linear and nonlinear transformations to input optical signals,” wherein “input optical signals” encompasses input light including input data) and to generate an output light by performing a linear process and a nonlinear process on the input data (Fig. 4B – 420, ¶53 “in each layer (e.g., 420), information propagates by linear combination (e.g. matrix multiplication) followed by the application of a nonlinear activation function,” Fig. 4B depicts “Input Optical Signal” passing through an optical hidden layer which produces an “Output Result” or output light), wherein the optical hidden layer includes: an optical linear process unit (Fig. 2B – 220a, ¶42 “the optical interference unit 200 can include one photonic crystal 220a. In other cases, the optical interference unit 200 can include an array of photonic crystals that can receive an array of N optical modes, perform a linear transformation on the received optical modes, and then output an array of N optical modes,” ¶44 “photonic crystal 220a can be coated with a phase change material to change the optical path length of the photonic crystal 220a. The change of the optical path length can in turn change the interference of the optical signals propagating in the photonic crystal 220a,” wherein the “photonic crystal(s)” encompasses opto-electric devices, such as a light modulator, as explained in the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)) configured to generate a processed light including first processing data by performing the linear process on the input data based on the input light (Fig. 2A – 200, ¶40 “the optical interference unit 200 functions to perform a matrix multiplication to an array of optical signals,” Fig. 2A depicts “Light In,” which encompasses input data based on the input light, and “Light Out,” which encompasses a processed light including first processing data).
Carolan teaches and an optical nonlinear process unit (Fig. 6A – 600, ¶67 “FIGS. 6A and 6B illustrate optical bistability that can be used for the optical nonlinearity unit. FIG. 6A shows a schematic of a photonic crystal 600 that has optical bistability,” wherein “a photonic crystal… that has optical bistability” encompasses an optical device… the optical device may include a nonlinear optical material, as explained in the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)) configured to generate the output light including second processing data by performing the nonlinear process on the first processing data (Fig. 1 – 105c-d, 126, ¶39 “The optical nonlinearity unit 126 is configured to perform a nonlinear activation function on the optical signals 105c and generate optical signals 105d”).
Regarding the limitation and a light transfer unit configured to provide the output light to an input of the optical hidden layer, wherein the light transfer unit includes an optical fiber configured to provide the output light to a light distributing unit, the light distributing unit configured to distribute the output light received from the optical fiber, and a coupler configured to provide the distributed output light to the optical hidden layer, Carolan teaches a configuration to provide the output light to an input of the optical hidden layer (Fig. 10 – 1000-1030, ¶75 “The optical neural network 1000 includes an optical interference unit 1010 and an optical nonlinearity unit 1020 to form a hidden layer… At the output, the optical signals are transmitted to a switch 1030, which… sends another part of the received signals back to the optical interference unit 1010”) and to provide a distributed output light to the optical hidden layer (Fig. 10 – 1010-1040, ¶75 “a switch 1030, which sends part of the received signals to a readout unit 1040 for detection and sends another part of the received signals back to the optical interference unit 1010”). However, Carolan fails to teach and a light transfer unit configured to provide the output light to an input of the optical hidden layer, wherein the light transfer unit includes an optical fiber configured to provide the output light to a light distributing unit, the light distributing unit configured to distribute the output light received from the optical fiber, and a coupler configured to provide the distributed output light…
Amoah, in the same field of endeavor, teaches and a light transfer unit configured to provide an output light (Fig. 1 – 15, D1-D2, ¶17 “the optical fiber 15 is configured such that light travels primarily in a first direction D1, and the waveguide 25 is configured such that light travels primarily in a second direction D2,” Figure 1 depicts input light D1 and output light D2, which encompasses light transfer), wherein the light transfer unit includes an optical fiber configured to provide the output light to the light distributing unit (Fig. 1 – 10, 15, 20, ¶16 “the lens 10 receives light 20 from an optical fiber 15”), the light distributing unit configured to distribute the output light received from the optical fiber (Fig. 1 – 10, 20, ¶16 “the lens 10 may be a binary diffractive grating lens… the lens 10 receives light 20 from an optical fiber 15… and focuses the light 20 to the waveguide 25,” wherein “a binary diffractive grating lens,” which is both a “diffractive grating” and a “lens,” encompasses may include an optical splitter… and a lens, as explained in the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)), and a coupler configured to provide the distributed output light (Fig. 1 – 10-30, ¶16 “the lens 10 receives light 20 from an optical fiber 15… and focuses the light 20 to the waveguide 25, e.g., via the coupler 30,” ¶17 “the coupler 30 alters the primary direction of travel of the light by about 90° between the fiber 15 and the waveguide 25”)…
Carolan teaches wherein the optical hidden layer is configured to perform the linear process and the nonlinear process based on the received output light (Fig. 10 – 1010-1020, ¶75 “At the output, the optical signals are transmitted to a switch 1030, which… sends another part of the received signals back to the optical interference unit 1010 for another round of linear transformation (and then to the optical nonlinearity unit 1020 for nonlinear activation)”).
Carolan and Amoah are analogous to the claimed invention as both are from the same field of endeavor of optics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the light transfer unit of Amoah with the configuration of Carolan. The motivation to do so is to reduce “the angle at which the light 20 changes direction, and hence, minimizing optical loss” (Amoah, Fig. 1 – 20, ¶16).
Regarding claim 4, Carolan in view of Amoah teaches the optical artificial neural network system of claim 1 (and thus the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated).
Carolan teaches wherein the optical nonlinear process unit includes a nonlinear optical material or an optical fiber having nonlinearity (Fig. 6A, ¶67, as explained above with respect to claim 1).
Claim 3 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carolan in view of Amoah, and further in view of MacFaden (US 20210056358 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Carolan in view of Amoah teaches the optical artificial neural network system of claim 1 (and thus the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated).
Regarding the limitation wherein the optical linear process unit includes a vector matrix multiplication (VMM) system capable of performing a matrix calculation and a 4F system performing convolution, Carolan teaches wherein the optical linear process unit includes a vector matrix multiplication (VMM) system capable of performing a matrix calculation (Fig. 1 – 105b, 124, ¶37 “the array of optical signals 105b is treated as a vector (e.g., X) and the optical interference unit 124 functions as a matrix (e.g., M) that multiplies the vector, i.e., MX”). However, Carolan fails to teach and a 4F system performing convolution.
MacFaden, in the same field of endeavor, teaches …and a 4F system performing convolution (Fig. 6, ¶89 “FIG. 6 illustrates the principle by which convolution is evaluated optically, with reference to a 4f correlator. The input is optically Fourier transformed, optically multiplied by a filter, and then optically Fourier transformed back to produce the convolution”).
Carolan and MacFaden are analogous to the claimed invention as both are from the same field of endeavor of optics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the 4F system of MacFaden with the optical linear process unit of Carolan. The motivation to do so is so that “the 4f optical correlator may be employed to speed up the inference process of a ConvNet” (MacFaden, ¶16).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carolan in view of Amoah, and further in view of Bunandar et al. (US 20190356394 A1, hereinafter Bunandar).
Regarding claim 6, Carolan in view of Amoah teaches the optical artificial neural network system of claim 1 (and thus the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated).
Carolan teaches further comprising: an output unit configured to provide a portion of the output light generated from the optical hidden layer to the light transfer unit and to reflect and output the remaining portion thereof (Fig. 10 – 1030, ¶75 “At the output, the optical signals are transmitted to a switch 1030, which sends part of the received signals to a readout unit 1040 for detection and sends another part of the received signals back to the optical interference unit 1010 for another round of linear transformation (and then to the optical nonlinearity unit 1020 for nonlinear activation),” wherein “a switch” functions in substantially the same manner as an output unit). However, Carolan fails to teach wherein the output unit may include a beam splitter, as explained in the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Bunandar, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a beam splitter (Fig. 1-2 – 1-205, ¶112 “a variable beam splitter may be used as an amplitude modulator 1-205, where only one output of the variable beam splitter is kept and the other output is discarded or ignored”).
Carolan and Bunandar are analogous to the claimed invention as both are from the same field of endeavor of optics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the beam splitter Bunandar with the output unit of Carolan. The motivation to do so is “to accurately encode a particular amplitude… into an optical pulse output” (Bunandar, ¶114).
Regarding claim 7, Carolan in view of Amoah teaches the optical artificial neural network system of claim 1 (and thus the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated).
Carolan fails to teach further comprising: a light source configured to generate the input light. However, Bunandar teaches this limitation (Fig. 1-2 – 1-201, 1-203, ¶103 “The light source 1-201 may be any suitable source of coherent light,” ¶108 “The power tree 1-203 is configured to divide a single optical pulse from the light source 1-201 into an array of spatially separated optical pulses. Thus, the power tree 1-203 has one optical input”).
Carolan and Bunandar are analogous to the claimed invention as both are from the same field of endeavor of optics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the light source of Bunandar with the input light of Carolan. The motivation to do so is “to accurately encode a particular amplitude… into an optical pulse output” (Bunandar, ¶114).
Claims 8, 9, 12, and 14 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carolan in view of Amoah and further in view of Mohseni (US 20240302709 A1), and further in view of Kawahara et al. (US 20230254611 A1, hereinafter Kawahara).
Regarding claim 8:
Carolan teaches an optical artificial neural network system (Fig. 1 – 100, ¶36 “FIG. 1 shows a schematic of an optical neural network 100”) comprising: an optical linear process unit (Fig. 2B – 220a, ¶42 “the optical interference unit 200 can include one photonic crystal 220a. In other cases, the optical interference unit 200 can include an array of photonic crystals that can receive an array of N optical modes, perform a linear transformation on the received optical modes, and then output an array of N optical modes,” ¶44 “photonic crystal 220a can be coated with a phase change material to change the optical path length of the photonic crystal 220a. The change of the optical path length can in turn change the interference of the optical signals propagating in the photonic crystal 220a,” wherein the “photonic crystal(s)” encompasses opto-electric devices, such as a light modulator, as explained in the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)) configured to receive an input light and to generate a first processed light by performing a linear process on input data (Fig. 1 – 105b-c, 120-124, ¶37 “optical signals 105b are guided to a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) 120 via an array of input waveguides 122… The PIC 120 includes an optical interference unit 124 (also referred to as a matrix product unit 124) to perform a linear transformation of the array of the optical signals 105b… The matrix multiplication generates optical signals 105c”).
Regarding the limitation a wavelength converter configured to receive the first processed light and to generate a second processed light having different wavelengths for respective pixel areas, Carolan teaches the first processed light (Fig. 1 – 105c, ¶37 “optical signals 105c”). However, Carolan fails to teach a wavelength converter configured to receive the first processed light and to generate a second processed light having different wavelengths for respective pixel areas.
Mohseni, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a wavelength converter configured to receive a light and to generate a second processed light having different wavelengths for respective pixel areas (Fig. 2C, ¶35 “In the multiple wavelength converting system of FIG. 2C, different pixels have different photodiodes and light sources that are designed to handle radiation of varying wavelengths… a first pixel is configured to receive invisible light λA1 and to output visible light λB1… the system can include a plurality of pixels corresponding to each of the different wavelengths converted by the system,” wherein “different pixels” receiving “invisible light” and outputting “visible light” encompasses to generate a second processed light having different wavelengths for respective pixel areas).
Regarding the limitation an optical nonlinear process unit configured to receive the second processed light and to generate an output light by performing a nonlinear process on the second processed light, Carolan teaches an optical nonlinear process unit (Fig. 6A – 600, ¶67 “FIGS. 6A and 6B illustrate optical bistability that can be used for the optical nonlinearity unit. FIG. 6A shows a schematic of a photonic crystal 600 that has optical bistability,” wherein “a photonic crystal… that has optical bistability” encompasses an optical device… the optical device may include a nonlinear optical material, as explained in the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)) configured to receive a processed light and to generate an output light by performing a nonlinear process on the processed light (Fig. 1 – 105c-d, 126, ¶37 “The matrix multiplication generates optical signals 105c, which are guided via an array of output waveguides 128 to an optical nonlinearity unit 126,” ¶39 “The optical nonlinearity unit 126 is configured to perform a nonlinear activation function on the optical signals 105c and generate optical signals 105d”). However, Carolan fails to teach the second processed light.
Mohseni teaches the second processed light (Fig. 2C, ¶35 “a first pixel is configured to receive invisible light λA1 and to output visible light λB1, a second pixel is configured to receive invisible light λA2 and to output visible light λB2, a third pixel is configured to receive invisible light λA3 and to output visible light λB3, etc.”).
Regarding the limitation and a light transfer unit configured to provide the output light to an input of the optical linear process unit, wherein the light transfer unit includes an optical fiber configured to provide the output light to a light distributing unit, the light distributing unit configured to distribute the output light received from the optical fiber for each wavelength, and a coupler configured to provide the distributed output light to the optical linear process unit, Carolan teaches and a light transfer unit configured to provide the output light to an input of the optical linear process unit (Fig. 10 – 1010, 1030, ¶75 “At the output, the optical signals are transmitted to a switch 1030, which sends part of the received signals… back to the optical interference unit 1010,” wherein “a switch” functions in substantially the same manner as a light transfer unit) and to provide a distributed output light to the optical linear process unit (Fig. 10 – 1010-1040, ¶75 “a switch 1030, which sends part of the received signals to a readout unit 1040 for detection and sends another part of the received signals back to the optical interference unit 1010”). However, Carolan fails to teach …wherein the light transfer unit includes an optical fiber configured to provide the output light to a light distributing unit, the light distributing unit configured to distribute the output light received from the optical fiber for each wavelength, and a coupler configured to provide the distributed output light…
Amoah teaches a light transfer unit, wherein the light transfer unit includes an optical fiber configured to provide the output light to the light distributing unit (Fig. 1 – 10, 15, 20, ¶16 “the lens 10 receives light 20 from an optical fiber 15”), the light distributing unit configured to distribute the output light received from the optical fiber (Fig. 1 – 10, 20, ¶16 “the lens 10 may be a binary diffractive grating lens… the lens 10 receives light 20 from an optical fiber 15… and focuses the light 20 to the waveguide 25,” wherein “a binary diffractive grating lens,” which is both a “diffractive grating” and a “lens,” encompasses may include an optical splitter… and a lens, as explained in the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f))…, and a coupler configured to provide the distributed output light (Fig. 1 – 10-30, ¶16 “the lens 10 receives light 20 from an optical fiber 15… and focuses the light 20 to the waveguide 25, e.g., via the coupler 30,” ¶17 “the coupler 30 alters the primary direction of travel of the light by about 90° between the fiber 15 and the waveguide 25”)… However, Amoah fails to teach the light distributing unit configured to distribute the output light received from the optical fiber for each wavelength,…
Kawahara, in the same field of endeavor, teaches distributing light received from an optical fiber for each wavelength (Fig. 3 – 61, 65, ¶40 “FIG. 3 includes an input fiber collimator (also referred to as a collimator) 61… a grating (diffraction grating) 65 that demultiplexes an optical signal subjected to wavelength division multiplexing,” ¶41 “the optical signal B1 from the optical fiber is incident on the grating 65 via the collimator 61 as indicated by an arrow i1,” wherein demultiplexing “an optical signal subjected to wavelength division multiplexing” encompasses splitting a single signal into multiple signals of different wavelengths or to distribute light received from an optical fiber for each wavelength).
Carolan, Amoah, Mohseni, and Kawahara are analogous to the claimed invention as all are from the same field of endeavor of optics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the light transfer unit of Amoah, the wavelength converter of Mohseni, and the light distribution of Kawahara with the optical artificial neural network system of Carolan. The motivation to do so is to design a system that “allows for sub-diffraction imaging with a far larger number of points per second, and across a far wider optical bandwidth than the state-of-the-art systems and techniques” (Mohseni, ¶41) and to reduce “the angle at which the light 20 changes direction, and hence, minimizing optical loss” (Amoah, Fig. 1 – 20, ¶16) while being able “to appropriately determine the abnormality of the optical path set between the optical node devices and to appropriately perform the optical path tracing” (Kawahara, ¶15, “Advantageous Effects of Invention”).
Regarding claim 9, Carolan in view of Amoah and further in view of Mohseni, and further in view of Kawahara teaches the optical artificial neural network system of claim 8 (and thus the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated).
Carolan fails to teach wherein the wavelength converter further includes a smart pixel array, and wherein the smart pixel array includes smart pixels respectively corresponding to the pixel areas. However, Mohseni teaches this limitation (Fig. 2A – 200, 205, 215, 220, ¶30 “FIG. 2A is an expanded view of a wavelength converting system 200,” ¶31 “the first optical layer 205 is designed to receive incident invisible light 220, and to direct the incident invisible light 220 to a specific point on the pixel array 215… Once the incident invisible light 220 is directed to the appropriate pixel on the pixel array 215, the pixel converts the incident invisible light 220 into an electrical signal and generates visible light corresponding to the electrical signal,” wherein a “pixel” in the “pixel array” that converts light “into an electrical signal” and “generates visible light corresponding to the electrical signal” encompasses a smart pixel when given its broadest reasonable interpretation of a device that performs a computation on optical data).
Carolan and Mohseni are analogous to the claimed invention as both are from the same field of endeavor of optics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the wavelength converter and smart pixel array of Mohseni with the optical neural network system of Carolan. The motivation to do so is to design a system that “allows for sub-diffraction imaging with a far larger number of points per second, and across a far wider optical bandwidth than the state-of-the-art systems and techniques” (Mohseni, ¶41).
Regarding claim 12, Carolan in view of Amoah and further in view of Mohseni, and further in view of Kawahara teaches the optical artificial neural network system of claim 8 (and thus the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated).
Carolan fails to teach wherein the light distributing unit includes a diffractive grating. However, Amoah teaches this limitation (Fig. 1 – 10 ¶16 “the lens 10 may be a binary diffractive grating lens”).
Carolan and Amoah are analogous to the claimed invention as both are from the same field of endeavor of optics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the light transfer unit of Amoah with the configuration of Carolan. The motivation to do so is to reduce “the angle at which the light 20 changes direction, and hence, minimizing optical loss” (Amoah, Fig. 1 – 20, ¶16).
Regarding claim 14, Carolan in view of Amoah and further in view of Mohseni, and further in view of Kawahara teaches the optical artificial neural network system of claim 8 (and thus the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated).
Carolan teaches wherein the optical nonlinear process unit includes a nonlinear optical material or an optical fiber having nonlinearity (Fig. 6A, ¶67, as explained above with respect to claim 8).
Claim 10 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carolan in view of Amoah and further in view of Mohseni, and further in view of Kawahara, and further in view of Fehr et al. (US 20120021525 A1, hereinafter Fehr).
Regarding claim 10, Carolan in view of Amoah and further in view of Mohseni, and further in view of Kawahara teaches the optical artificial neural network system of claim 9 (and thus the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated).
Carolan fails to teach wherein each of the smart pixels includes a first unit device and a second unit device connected in series. However, Mohseni teaches this limitation (Fig. 2A – 215, 225, 230, ¶32 “each pixel in the pixel array 215 includes a first device 225 and a second device 230… the first device 225 converts the incident invisible light 220 into an electrical signal, while preserving the directionality of the incident invisible light 220. The second device 230 is a visible light source and is used to convert the electrical signal generated by the first device 225 into visible light,” wherein the second device, which is configured to process the output of the first device, encompasses connected in series).
Regarding the limitation and wherein each of the first and second unit devices includes an N-type semiconductor layer, an intrinsic semiconductor layer, and a P-type semiconductor layer sequentially formed, Mohseni teaches each of the first and second unit devices (Fig. 2A –225, 230, ¶32 “a first device 225 and a second device 230”). However, Mohseni fails to teach and wherein each of the first and second unit devices includes an N-type semiconductor layer, an intrinsic semiconductor layer, and a P-type semiconductor layer sequentially formed.
Fehr, in the same field of endeavor, teaches and wherein a device includes an N-type semiconductor layer, an intrinsic semiconductor layer, and a P-type semiconductor layer sequentially formed (Fig. 4B-C – 35A, ¶108 “detector 35a may have a generally square configuration including a relatively thick intrinsic semiconductor (I) between an upper p-type semiconductor (P) and n-type semiconductor regions (N) positioned at the four lower corners of the detector,” Figures 4B and 4C depict each semiconductor layer positioned in a stack, which encompasses an N-type semiconductor layer, an intrinsic semiconductor layer, and a P-type semiconductor layer sequentially formed).
Carolan, Mohseni, and Fehr are analogous to the claimed invention as all are from the same field of endeavor of optics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the first and second unit devices of Mohseni and the semiconductor layers of Fehr with the optical neural network system of Carolan. The motivation to do so is to design a system that “allows for sub-diffraction imaging with a far larger number of points per second, and across a far wider optical bandwidth than the state-of-the-art systems and techniques” (Mohseni, ¶41) while improving the efficiency between optical signals and their detectors (Fehr, Fig. 1 – 32, ¶81 “a reaction cell 32, in which the reactants are disposed and from which the detector optical signals emanate,” ¶88 “The devices of the invention… include relatively low volumes between the reaction cell and the detector, thereby reducing the noise contributions from those components and provide few or no free space interfaces that can contribute to the noise profile of the system”).
Claim 13 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carolan in view of Amoah and further in view of Mohseni, and further in view of Kawahara, and further in view of MacFaden.
Regarding claim 13, Carolan in view of Amoah and further in view of Mohseni, and further in view of Kawahara teaches the optical artificial neural network system of claim 8 (and thus the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated).
Regarding the limitation wherein the optical linear process unit includes a VMM system capable of performing a matrix calculation and a 4F system performing convolution, Carolan teaches wherein the optical linear process unit includes a VMM system capable of performing a matrix calculation (Fig. 1 – 105b, 124, ¶37 “the array of optical signals 105b is treated as a vector (e.g., X) and the optical interference unit 124 functions as a matrix (e.g., M) that multiplies the vector, i.e., MX”). However, Carolan fails to teach …and a 4F system performing convolution.
MacFaden teaches and a 4F system performing convolution (Fig. 6, ¶89 “FIG. 6 illustrates the principle by which convolution is evaluated optically, with reference to a 4f correlator. The input is optically Fourier transformed, optically multiplied by a filter, and then optically Fourier transformed back to produce the convolution”).
Carolan and MacFaden are analogous to the claimed invention as both are from the same field of endeavor of optics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the 4F system of MacFaden with the optical linear process unit of Carolan. The motivation to do so is that “the 4f optical correlator may be employed to speed up the inference process of a ConvNet” (MacFaden, ¶16).
Claims 15 and 18-19 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carolan in view of Amoah and further in view of Issa et al. (US 20200209020 A1, hereinafter Issa).
Regarding claim 15:
Carolan teaches an optical artificial neural network system (Fig. 1 – 100, ¶36 “FIG. 1 shows a schematic of an optical neural network 100”) comprising: an optical linear process unit (Fig. 2B – 220a, ¶42 “the optical interference unit 200 can include one photonic crystal 220a. In other cases, the optical interference unit 200 can include an array of photonic crystals that can receive an array of N optical modes, perform a linear transformation on the received optical modes, and then output an array of N optical modes,” ¶44 “photonic crystal 220a can be coated with a phase change material to change the optical path length of the photonic crystal 220a. The change of the optical path length can in turn change the interference of the optical signals propagating in the photonic crystal 220a,” wherein the “photonic crystal(s)” encompasses opto-electric devices, such as a light modulator, as explained in the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)) configured to receive an input light including input data and to generate a first processed light including first processing data obtained by performing a linear process on the input data (Fig. 1 – 105b-c, 120-124, ¶37 “optical signals 105b are guided to a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) 120 via an array of input waveguides 122… The PIC 120 includes an optical interference unit 124 (also referred to as a matrix product unit 124) to perform a linear transformation of the array of the optical signals 105b… The matrix multiplication generates optical signals 105c”).
Regarding the limitation a first time delay unit configured to generate a time-delayed processed light based on the processed light, Carolan teaches a time delay unit which may be implemented with an element or a material, which is capable of making transfer speeds of optical signals different for respective nodes, such as a photonic crystal as explained in the claim interpretation under 112(f) (Fig. 1 – 105c, 124-128, ¶37 “the term “waveguides” can include any structure that can guide optical signals in a confined manner. For example, a waveguide can include… a photonic crystal structure configured to guide optical signals… The matrix multiplication generates optical signals 105c, which are guided via an array of output waveguides 128 to an optical nonlinearity unit 126,” wherein a “waveguide” that can include “a photonic crystal structure” encompasses a time delay unit which may be implemented with… a photonic crystal) and the processed light (Fig. 1 – 105c, ¶37 “optical signals 105c”). However, Carolan fails to teach a first time delay unit that "may be implemented with an element or a material… such as a photonic crystal… in addition to the optical fiber” configured to generate a time-delayed processed light based on the processed light.
Issa, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an optical fiber first time delay unit configured to generate a time-delayed processed light based on a light (Fig. 1 – 107a, 151-152, ¶160 “a first optical delay means 107a which, for example may be an optical fiber delay line of predetermined length in order to impart a known delay time, τ1, onto a first portion 152 of the split output signal and thereby to generate a delayed output signal 151”).
Regarding the limitation an optical nonlinear process unit configured to output an output light by performing a nonlinear process on the first processing data based on the time-delayed processed light, Carolan teaches an optical nonlinear process unit (Fig. 6A – 600, ¶67 “FIGS. 6A and 6B illustrate optical bistability that can be used for the optical nonlinearity unit. FIG. 6A shows a schematic of a photonic crystal 600 that has optical bistability,” wherein “a photonic crystal… that has optical bistability” encompasses an optical device… the optical device may include a nonlinear optical material, as explained in the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)) configured to output an output light by performing a nonlinear process on the first processing data based on the processed light (Fig. 1 – 105c-d, 126, ¶37 “The matrix multiplication generates optical signals 105c, which are guided via an array of output waveguides 128 to an optical nonlinearity unit 126,” ¶39 “The optical nonlinearity unit 126 is configured to perform a nonlinear activation function on the optical signals 105c and generate optical signals 105d”). However, Carolan fails to teach the time-delayed processed light.
Issa teaches the time-delayed processed light (Fig. 1 – 151, ¶160 “a delayed output signal 151”).
Regarding the limitation and a light transfer unit configured to provide the output light to an input of the optical linear process unit, wherein the light transfer unit includes an optical fiber configured to provide the output light to a light distributing unit, the light distributing unit configured to distribute the output light received from the optical fiber, a second time delay unit configured to time-delay the distributed output light, and a coupler configured to provide the time-delayed output light to the optical linear process unit, Carolan teaches and a light transfer unit configured to provide the output light to an input of the optical linear process unit (Fig. 10 – 1010, 1030, ¶75 “At the output, the optical signals are transmitted to a switch 1030, which sends part of the received signals… back to the optical interference unit 1010,” wherein “a switch” functions in substantially the same manner as a light transfer unit) and to provide a distributed output light to the optical linear process unit (Fig. 10 – 1010-1040, ¶75 “a switch 1030, which sends part of the received signals to a readout unit 1040 for detection and sends another part of the received signals back to the optical interference unit 1010”). However, Carolan fails to teach …wherein the light transfer unit includes an optical fiber configured to provide the output light to a light distributing unit, the light distributing unit configured to distribute the output light received from the optical fiber, a second time delay unit configured to time-delay the distributed output light, and a coupler configured to provide the time-delayed output light…
Amoah teaches a light transfer unit, wherein the light transfer unit includes an optical fiber configured to provide the output light to the light distributing unit (Fig. 1 – 10, 15, 20, ¶16 “the lens 10 receives light 20 from an optical fiber 15”), the light distributing unit configured to distribute the output light received from the optical fiber (Fig. 1 – 10, 20, ¶16 “the lens 10 may be a binary diffractive grating lens… the lens 10 receives light 20 from an optical fiber 15… and focuses the light 20 to the waveguide 25,” wherein “a binary diffractive grating lens,” which is both a “diffractive grating” and a “lens,” encompasses may include an optical splitter… and a lens, as explained in the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f))… the distributed output light (Fig. 1 – 10-20, ¶16 “the lens 10 receives light 20 from an optical fiber 15… and focuses the light 20”)… and a coupler configured to provide a distributed output light (Fig. 1 – 10-30, ¶16 “the lens 10 receives light 20 from an optical fiber 15… and focuses the light 20 to the waveguide 25, e.g., via the coupler 30,” ¶17 “the coupler 30 alters the primary direction of travel of the light by about 90° between the fiber 15 and the waveguide 25”)… However, Amoah fails to teach a second time delay unit configured to time-delay the distributed output light, and a coupler configured to provide the time-delayed output light…
Issa teaches a second time delay unit configured to time-delay a light (Fig. 1 – 107b, 161, 163, ¶161 “a second optical delay means 107b which, for example may be an optical fiber delay line of predetermined length in order to impart a known delay time, τ2, onto a first portion of each of the backscatter return signals 161 and 163”) and the time-delayed output light (Fig. 1 – 107b, 161, 163, ¶162 “The second optical delay means 107b is adapted to delay at least one portion of each the received backscatter signals 161 and 163… to produce a delayed backscatter signal”).
Carolan, Amoah, and Issa are analogous to the claimed invention as all are from the same field of endeavor of optics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the light transfer unit of Amoah and the first and second time delay units of Issa with the optical artificial neural network system of Carolan. The motivation to do so is “reducing the angle at which the light 20 changes direction, and hence, minimizing optical loss” (Amoah, Fig. 1 – 20, ¶16) while designing a system that “allows accurate determination of the rate and magnitude of optical path length changes… with very high sensitivity” (Issa, ¶256).
Regarding claim 18, Carolan in view of Amoah and further in view of Issa teaches the optical artificial neural network system of claim 15 (and thus the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated).
Regarding the limitation wherein the first time delay unit and the second time delay unit each includes an optical signal speed control device including a photonic crystal, a meta structure, or a meta material, Carolan teaches wherein a time delay unit includes an optical signal speed control device including a photonic crystal, a meta structure, or a meta material (Fig. 1 – 105c, 124-128, ¶37 “a waveguide can include… a photonic crystal structure”). However, Carolan fails to teach the first time delay unit and the second time delay unit each…
Issa teaches the first time delay unit and the second time delay unit each (Fig. 1 – 107a-b, ¶160 “a first optical delay means 107a,” ¶161 “second optical delay means 107b”).
Carolan and Issa are analogous to the claimed invention as all are from the same field of endeavor of optics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the first and second time delay units of Issa with the waveguide including a photonic crystal structure of Carolan. The motivation to do so is to design a system that “allows accurate determination of the rate and magnitude of optical path length changes… with very high sensitivity” (Issa, ¶256).
Regarding claim 19, Carolan in view of Amoah and further in view of Issa teaches the optical artificial neural network system of claim 15 (and thus the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated).
Carolan teaches wherein the optical nonlinear process unit includes a nonlinear optical material or an optical fiber having nonlinearity (Fig. 6A, ¶67, as explained above with respect to claim 15).
Claim 17 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carolan in view of Amoah and further in view of Issa, and further in view of MacFaden.
Regarding claim 17, Carolan in view of Amoah and further in view of Issa teaches the optical artificial neural network system of claim 15 (and thus the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated).
Regarding the limitation wherein the optical linear process unit includes a VMM system and a 4F system, Carolan teaches wherein the optical linear process unit includes a VMM system (Fig. 1 – 105b, 124, ¶37 “the array of optical signals 105b is treated as a vector (e.g., X) and the optical interference unit 124 functions as a matrix (e.g., M) that multiplies the vector, i.e., MX”). However, Carolan fails to teach and a 4F system.
MacFaden, in the same field of endeavor, teaches and a 4F system (Fig. 6, ¶89 “FIG. 6 illustrates the principle by which convolution is evaluated optically, with reference to a 4f correlator. The input is optically Fourier transformed, optically multiplied by a filter, and then optically Fourier transformed back to produce the convolution”).
Carolan and MacFaden are analogous to the claimed invention as both are from the same field of endeavor of optics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the 4F system of MacFaden with the optical linear process unit of Carolan. The motivation to do so is that “the 4f optical correlator may be employed to speed up the inference process of a ConvNet” (MacFaden, ¶16).
Response to Amendment
In review of Applicant’s amendments, filed May 5, 2026, the rejections of claims 2, 11, 16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the previous office action is withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims.
The “light transfer unit” of claims 1, 6, 8, and 15 is no longer being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) in view of applicant’s amendments to the claims and remarks filed May 5, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, see page 2 under section II, filed May 5, 2026 regarding the rejections from the previous office action made under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
On pages 3-4 of the Remarks, under section 1, Applicant asserts that “The Office Action maps Amoah’s lens (10) to the claimed light distributing unit, relying on a § 112(f) broadest reasonable interpretation that a binary diffractive grating lens “may include an optical splitter and a lens.” Applicant respectfully submits that this mapping is incorrect.” Applicant cites as reasoning paragraph 16 from Amoah and paragraphs 80-81 of the specification, and submits that “The function of Amoah’s lens is therefore convergence of light into a single point. In contrast, the claimed light distributing unit performs the opposite function. It distributes the output light received from the optical fiber to a plurality of paths corresponding to the respective nodes of the optical hidden layer… The Office Action’s reliance on § 112(f) broadest reasonable interpretation to conflate these two structurally and functionally distinct optical elements is not appropriate.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the previous Office Action, “the light distributing unit” was interpreted under § 112(f) to mean a unit which “may include an optical splitter and a lens” as supported in paragraph 99 of the specification. Given its broadest reasonable interpretation, “may include” is interpreted to mean a non-encompassing list of possible items, and has substantially the same meaning as a light distributing unit “including an optical splitter or a lens.” In response to applicant's argument that Amoah’s lens fails to show the light distributing unit of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., distributing a received output light to a plurality of paths corresponding to respective nodes of an optical hidden layer) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
On pages 4-5 of the Remarks, Applicant asserts that “Amoah’s overall system context is entirely different from that of the claimed invention.” Applicant further argues that “Amoah does not disclose, teach, or suggest a system in which output light from a neural network hidden layer is fed back to the input of the same hidden layer for iterative computation. The combination of Carolan and Amoah therefore fails to teach the claimed light transfer unit functioning as a feedback path for iterative neural network computation.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the overall system of Amoah is different from the optical neural network architecture of Carolan, as explained in the previous Office Action, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the recurrent neural network architecture of Carolan with the structure taught by Amoah to minimize optical loss when coupling an optical fiber to a waveguide (Amoah, ¶3 “the diameter of fiber, and a beam of light output by the fiber, can be substantially larger, e.g., by a factor of 200, than the diameter of a waveguide. Because of this large difference in diameter, substantial optical loss often occurs when coupling the fiber to the waveguide,” Fig. 1 – 5, 20, ¶16 “wafer 5 has a thickness T that is relatively large, thus reducing the angle at which the light 20 changes direction, and hence, minimizing optical loss”). Furthermore, Carolan discloses an optical recurrent neural network architecture (Carolan, Fig. 10, ¶76 “the optical signals at the output layer are sent directly back to the input layer for another round of transformations”) that uses input waveguides to receive optical signals (Carolan, Fig. 1 – 105b, 120, 122, 124, ¶37 “The array of the optical signals 105b are guided to a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) 120 via an array of input waveguides 122. As used herein, the term “waveguides” can include any structure that can guide optical signals in a confined manner,” ¶38 “the optical interference unit 124 connects each input waveguide 122…” Fig. 2 – 200, 220b, ¶45 “the optical interference unit 200 includes an array of interconnected Mach-Zehnder Interferometers (MZIs) 220b,” Fig. 13B – 1300, 1305, 1310, ¶81 “The optical neural network 1300 includes an array of input waveguides 1305 to receive input modes and transmit the input modes to an SU(4) core 1310, which includes an array of interconnected MZIs”). Hence, it would have been it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the structure of Amoah into Carolan’s optical recurrent neural network architecture to minimize the optical loss when coupling the output light of Carolan as an input back into the input waveguides of Carolan.
On page 5 of the Remarks, under section 2, Applicant argues that “Even assuming arguendo that the individual limitations could be found across Carolan and Amoah, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the teachings of Carolan and Amoah in the manner proposed by the Office Action.” Examiner respectfully disagrees for substantially the same rationale as explained above.
On page 6 of the Remarks, Applicant asserts that “MacFaden’s 4f correlator is employed for optical Fourier transform-based convolution in a different system context. The combination of Carolan, Amoah, and MacFaden does not cure the deficiencies identified above with respect to amended claim 1.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I) provides that “A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Note that "same field of endeavor" and "reasonably pertinent" are two separate tests for establishing analogous art; it is not necessary for a reference to fulfill both tests in order to qualify as analogous art. See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212." Despite the differing system context, as noted in the previous Office Action, Carolan and MacFaden are still analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of optics (See Carolan, Abstract; See MacFaden, Abstract). As also discussed in the previous Office Action, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine MacFaden’s 4f correlator component with the optical interference unit of Carolan, as doing so speeds up the inference processes of performing an optical convolution in a neural network (MacFaden, ¶87 “An optical 4f correlator may be used to evaluate convolutions, and in particular to accelerate ConvNet inference applications”), which is also reasonably pertinent to the inventor’s issue of performing convolution calculations in an optical neural network as reflected in the present application’s specification (¶63 “The linear process may include, for example, assigning a weight or a bias to input data and performing matrix calculation, convolution calculation, etc.” ¶66 “The 4F system may be configured to perform convolution calculation on the input data”).
Furthermore, on page 6 of the Remarks, Applicant asserts that “Bunandar’s beam splitter and light source are employed in a different system context unrelated to the iterative feedback architecture of the claimed invention. The combination of Carolan, Amoah, and Bunandar does not cure the deficiencies identified above with respect to amended claim 1.” Examiner respectfully disagrees for similar rationale as explained above (See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I) “A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem)”). Despite the differing system context, as noted in the previous office action, Carolan and Bunandar are still analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of optics (See Carolan, Abstract; See Bunandar, Abstract). As also discussed in the previous Office Action, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Bunandar’s beam splitter component with the switch of Carolan, as doing so can more accurately encode a particular amplitude into an optical pulse output (Bunandar, Fig. 1-2 – 1-101, 1-205, 1-207, ¶114 “While FIG. 1-2 illustrates the amplitude modulator 1-205 and phase modulator 1-207 as two separate components, they may be combined into a single element that controls both the amplitudes and phases of the optical pulses… to accurately encode a particular amplitude and phase into an optical pulse output from the optical encoder 1-101, the settings of both the amplitude modulator 1-205 and the phase modulator 1-207 should be taken into account”). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Bunandar’s light source to generate the input light of Carolan, as doing so can allow redundancy in case one light source fails while also allowing multiple optical calculations to be performed simultaneously (Bunandar, Fig. 1-2 – 1-201a-b, ¶105 “The light source 1-201 is illustrated as two light sources 1-201a and 1-201b, but embodiments are not so limited. Some embodiments may include a single light source. Including multiple light sources 201a-b, which may include more than two light sources, can provide redundancy in case one of the light sources fails,” ¶107 “each separate light source may be associated with light of different wavelengths. Using multiple wavelengths of light allows some embodiments to be multiplexed such that multiple calculations may be performed simultaneously using the same optical hardware”).
On pages 6-7 of the Remarks, under section C, Applicant argues that “Mohseni is directed to a vision system and discloses pixels that convert invisible light into electrical signals and then into visible light. Mohseni does not disclose a wavelength converter… for purposes of optical neural network computation. The technical context and purpose of Mohseni’s wavelength conversion are entirely different from those of the claimed wavelength converter, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to incorporate Mohseni’s vision system structure into Carolan’s neural network architecture.” Examiner respectfully disagrees for similar rationale as explained above (See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I) “A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem)”). Despite the differing technical context and purpose of Mohseni’s wavelength conversion, as noted in the previous office action, Carolan and Mohseni are still analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of optics (See Carolan, Abstract; See Mohseni, Abstract). As also discussed in the previous office action, one of ordinary sill in the art would have been motivated to combine the wavelength converting system of Mohseni with the optical neural network architecture of Carolan, as doing so may result in a system that can receive light across a wider optical bandwidth (¶41 “The proposed system allows for sub-diffraction imaging with a far larger number of points per second, and across a far wider optical bandwidth than the state-of-the-art systems and techniques”).
On pages 7-8 of the Remarks, under section D, Applicant argues that “Issa discloses an optical fiber delay line used for path length measurement in a sensing/interferometry context… Issa does not disclose, teach, or suggest a time delay unit configured to generate a time-delayed processed light for the purpose of enabling iterative neural network computation, or for adjusting the iterative period of linear and nonlinear processing in an optical neural network. The technical purpose of Issa’s time delay is entirely different from that of the claimed first time delay unit.” Examiner respectfully disagrees for similar rationale as explained above (See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I) “A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention)”). Despite the differing technical purpose of Issa’s time delay, as noted in the previous office action, Carolan and Issa are still analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of optics (See Carolan, Abstract; See Issa, Abstract). As also discussed in the previous office action, one of ordinary sill in the art would have been motivated to combine the optical fiber delay line of Issa with the output waveguides from the optical interference unit to the optical nonlinearity unit of Carolan, as doing so may result in a system that can accurately determine the rate and magnitude of optical path length changes (Issa, ¶256 “Direct phase and amplitude measurement allows accurate determination of the rate and magnitude of optical path length changes in the sensing fiber with very high sensitivity”), which is also reasonably pertinent to the inventor’s issue of adjusting the iterative period of linear and nonlinear processing in an optical neural network as reflected in the present application’s specification (¶79 “an iterative period of the linear process and the nonlinear process may be adjusted by adjusting the length of the optical fiber”).
In consideration of these conclusions, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 still stand for independent claims 1, 8, and 15, and their associated dependent claims 3-4 and 6-7, 9-10 and 12-14, and 17-19, respectively.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM M LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-4761. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8am-5pm.
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, Cesar Paula can be reached at (571)272-4128. 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.
/WILLIAM MICHAEL LEE/
Examiner, Art Unit 2145
/CHAU T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2145
Prosecution Insights