DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 7/22/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s argument, “In contrast to the above features, Eshaghi pertains to the field of optical computation for performing a multiplication operation…”Examiner respectfully asserts that the structure of Eshaghi anticipates the claimed structure as recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding applicant’s argument, “Eshaghi further teaches with respect to the PN-Junction based phase shifter 705 in Figure 7c, "if the center of a Bragg grating is doped with a PN-junction, it can be modulated such that an input signal having a specific wavelength will undergo a controllable phase shift" that can result in the Bragg-grating acting as two adjoining
Bragg-gratings" (see, Eshaghi, paragraphs [00123] and 00124] and Figure 7c).
Based upon the above, Applicant submits Eshaghi fails to teach the above- discussed and recited structure of Applicant's independent claims 1, 11, and 17”, Examiner respectfully asserts that a Bragg segment as claimed is a segment of gratings as cited in the rejection set forth below, on either side of a phase shifter as cited in the rejection set forth below and seen in at least fig. 7c. Thus, Eshaghi meets the claimed limitations.
Regarding applicant’s argument, “Eshaghi, however, provides no teaching regarding a length of a phase shifter segment or any relationship between the phase shifter and Bragg-grating segments of at least one of a first waveguide arm or a second waveguide arm that would provide teaching or motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Eshaghi's teachings with any expectation of obtaining "a ratio of a length of the phase- shifter segment to a length of a single Bragg-grating segment is 0.08" as recited in Applicant's claim 20”, Examiner has amended the rejection based on the new combination of limitations of base claim 17 and also addressed the fact that the applicant has not provided criticality for such a feature.
Accordingly, the office action is made final.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: standard error of 0.02 as claimed has no units. For examining purposes examiner shall interpret the prior art of record to meet the claimed standard error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1, 3 – 11 and 13 - 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ESHAGHI et al. (WO 2022/256905 A1).
In Re claim 1, ‘905 teaches a Mach-Zehnder interferometer (MZI) (figs. 5a, 5f, 6, 7a, 7c) comprising: a first waveguide arm (top arm); and a second waveguide arm (bottom arm) coupled to the first waveguide arm via a pair of optical couplers (510 and 2x2 coupler), wherein at least one of the first waveguide arm or the second waveguide arm comprises: a plurality of Bragg-grating segments (par. 000118, 00123) formed along a length of the at least one of the first waveguide arm or the second waveguide arm; and a phase-shifter segment (between other Bragg grating segments, par. 00036, 00123, 00125 fig. 7c) formed between an end of each adjacent Bragg-grating segment of the plurality of Bragg-grating segments to induce a predefined phase-shift in an optical signal propagating through respective at least one of the first waveguide arm or the second waveguide arm, wherein each of the first waveguide arm, the second waveguide arm, and the optical couplers form an optical waveguide having alternately arranged first sections (755, 915 or 945) and second sections (760, 910 or 937), and wherein the optical waveguide has a first width (W1) along the first sections and the phase-shifter segment, and a second width (W2) along the second sections, where W2 is smaller than W1 (as seen in figs. 7c, fig. 9).
In Re claim 3, ‘905 teaches wherein each of the plurality of Bragg-grating segments comprises a plurality of parallel ridges formed in the first sections along a length of the optical waveguide (figs. 7b, 7c, 8, 9).
In Re claim 4, ‘905 teaches wherein a spacing between adjacent ridges of the plurality of parallel ridges is uniform (figs. 7b, 7c, 8, 9).
In Re claim 5, ‘905 teaches wherein the phase-shifter segment is designed with a predetermined length to induce the predefined phase-shift of π (fig. 7c).
In Re claim 6, The patentability of an apparatus depends only on the claimed structural limitations. ‘905 teaches a structure that is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention, therefore the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The burden is on the applicant to show that the ‘905 device does not possess these functional characteristics. See MPEP 2112.01.
In Re claim 7, ‘905 teaches wherein at least one of the first waveguide arm and the second waveguide arm further defines a waveguide-integrated capacitor (a pn junction forms a capacitor, par. 0036, 00138, fig. 6, 8, 10b), wherein the plurality of Bragg-grating segments causes a slow light effect and causes an optical mode to align substantially in a middle of the waveguide-integrated capacitor thereby resulting in an enhanced modulation efficiency via the waveguide-integrated capacitor.
Furthermore, an apparatus claim must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); See MPEP 2114 [R-1]). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); See MPEP 2114 [R-1]).
In Re claim 8, an apparatus claim must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); See MPEP 2114 [R-1]). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); See MPEP 2114 [R-1]).
In Re claims 9 and 10, The examiner notes that the claims are directed to an MZI and that the limitation of "disposed in an optical neural network that is also disposed in a one or more of a server, a storage device, a router, a network switch, or an access point “ is an intended use of the MZI. It has been held that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)); that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)); and that if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). See MPEP § 2111.02, II and MPEP § 2114, II.
In Re claim 11, ‘905 teaches a photonic integrated circuit, comprising: an optical neural network comprising a weight bank, the weight bank comprises a first MZI (figs. 5a, 5f, 6, 7a, 7c), wherein the first MZI comprises: a first waveguide arm (top arm); and a second waveguide arm (bottom arm) coupled to the first waveguide arm via a pair of optical couplers (510, and 2x2 coupler), wherein at least one of the first waveguide arm or the second waveguide arm comprises: a plurality of Bragg-grating segments (par. 000118, 00123) formed along a length of the at least one of the first waveguide arm or the second waveguide arm; and a phase-shifter segment (709, par. 0036, 00123, fig. 7c) formed between an end of each adjacent Bragg-grating segment of the plurality of Bragg-grating segments to induce a predefined phase-shift in an optical signal propagating through respective at least one of the first waveguide arm or the second waveguide arm, wherein each of the first waveguide arm, the second waveguide arm, and the optical couplers form an optical waveguide having alternately arranged first sections (755, 915 or 945) and second sections (760, 910 or 937), and wherein the optical waveguide has a first width (W1) along the first sections and the phase-shifter segment, and a second width (W2) along the second sections, where W2 is smaller than W1 (as seen in figs. 7c, fig. 9).
In Re claim 13, ‘905 teaches wherein each of the plurality of Bragg-grating segments comprises a plurality of parallel ridges formed in the first sections along a length of the optical waveguide, wherein a spacing between adjacent ridges of the plurality of parallel ridges is uniform (figs. 7b, 7c, 8, 9).
In Re claim 14, ‘905 teaches wherein a length of the phase-shifter segment is selected to induce the predefined phase-shift of π (fig. 7c) increasing linearity of an optical output of the first MZI causing a bit precision of the first MZI to increase.
Furthermore, an apparatus claim must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); See MPEP 2114 [R-1]). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); See MPEP 2114 [R-1]).
In Re claim 15, ‘905 teaches wherein at least one of the first waveguide arm and the second waveguide arm further defines a waveguide-integrated capacitor (a pn junction forms a capacitor, par. 0036, 00138, fig. 6, 8, 10b), wherein the plurality of Bragg-grating segments causes a slow light effect and causes an optical mode to align substantially in a middle of the waveguide-integrated capacitor thereby resulting in an enhanced modulation efficiency via the waveguide-integrated capacitor.
Furthermore, an apparatus claim must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); See MPEP 2114 [R-1]). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); See MPEP 2114 [R-1]).
In Re claim 16, ‘905 teaches wherein the optical neural network (fig. 14) further comprises an input section (at 1205) receiving optical signals, wherein the input section comprises a second MZI (let 1450 be the first MZI and 1455 or 1460 be the second MZI) similar to the first MZI).
In Re claim 17, ‘905 teaches a computing system comprising: a photonic integrated circuit comprising an optical neural network, wherein the optical neural network comprises an input section (1210 of fig. 12) and a weight bank coupled to the input section, wherein one or both of the input section and the weight bank comprises an MZI (claim is defining a weight bank to be an MZI so 1255 of fig .12 is the claimed weight bank), wherein the MZI comprises: a first waveguide arm (top arm); and a second waveguide arm (bottom arm) coupled to the first waveguide arm via a pair of optical couplers (2x2 couplers seen in fig. 12), wherein at least one of the first waveguide arm and the second waveguide arm comprises: a plurality of Bragg-grating segments (par. 000118, 00123) formed along a length of the at least one of the first waveguide arm or the second waveguide arm; and a phase-shifter segment (709, par. 0036, 00123, fig. 7c) formed between an end of each adjacent Bragg-grating segment of the plurality of Bragg-grating segments to induce a predefined phase-shift in an optical signal propagating through respective at least one of the first waveguide arm or the second waveguide arm wherein each of the first waveguide arm, the second waveguide arm, and the optical couplers form an optical waveguide having alternately arranged first sections (755, 915 or 945) and second sections (760, 910 or 937), and wherein the optical waveguide has a first width (W1) along the first sections and the phase-shifter segment, and a second width (W2) along the second sections, where W2 is smaller than W1 (as seen in figs. 7c, fig. 9).
In Re claim 18, ‘905 teaches wherein a length of the phase-shifter segment is selected to induce the predefined phase-shift of π (fig. 7c) increasing linearity of an optical output of the first MZI causing a bit precision of the first MZI to increase.
Furthermore, an apparatus claim must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); See MPEP 2114 [R-1]). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); See MPEP 2114 [R-1]).
In Re claim 19, ‘905 teaches wherein at least one of the first waveguide arm and the second waveguide arm further defines a waveguide-integrated capacitor (a pn junction forms a capacitor, par. 0036, 00138, fig. 6, 8, 10b), wherein the plurality of Bragg-grating segments causes a slow light effect and causes an optical mode to align substantially in a middle of the waveguide-integrated capacitor thereby resulting in an enhanced modulation efficiency via the waveguide-integrated capacitor.
Furthermore, an apparatus claim must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); See MPEP 2114 [R-1]). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); See MPEP 2114 [R-1]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ESHAGHI et al. (WO 2022/256905 A1).
’905 teaches the phase shifter segment and Bragg grating segments as seen in at least fig. 7c, but fails to teach or suggest a ratio of 0.08 as claimed. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of ‘905 to have a ratio as claimed so as to allow for a long Bragg grating segment, so as to allow for the coupling strength k between the Bragg grating and the waveguide to be tuned to the desired the resonant peak at a specific wavelength and to have a specific stopband range, to have a specific quality factor, and to have a specific extinction ratio (ER), whereby the phase shifter takes up minimal space between the Bragg grating segments, meeting the claimed ratio of 0.08 thus helping to maintain a small overall device, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. Furthmore, applicant has not provided criticality to the claimed ratio.
he desired optical output based on the intended optical input wavelengths into the system, a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. Furthermore, applicant has not provided criticality to said value.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHAD SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1294. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at 1-571-272-2397. 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.
/CHAD H SMITH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874