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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/24//2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office action is in response to Applicant’s response of 2/24/2026. In that response, Applicant amended claim 4 and cancelled claims 9, 16 and 17.
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/256,211 filed on 6/7/2023 is presented for examination by the Examiner.
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 4-7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozcan et al. (US 2022/0327371, hereinafter, “Ozcan”) in view of Ozcan et al. (US 2021/0142170, hereinafter, “Ozcan1”).
Regarding claim 4, Ozcan discloses an optical computing device (Fig. 1D) comprising:
a substrate 18 (Fig. 1D, [0036]); and
planar light diffraction elements 16 (Fig, 1D, [0035]), wherein
each of the planar light diffraction elements is fixed to the substrate (Fig. 1D, [0036]),
each of the planar light diffraction elements is fixed to the substrate such that an entrance surface of each of the planar light diffraction elements and an exit surface of each of the planar light diffraction elements intersect a main surface of the substrate (Fig. 1D, [0036]),
the planar light diffraction elements include:
a planar light diffraction element (first 16 in the sequence of five 16’s in diffractive optical network 14A of Fig. 1D) disposed on a first optical path, and
a planar light diffraction element (first 16 in the sequence of five 16’s in diffractive optical network 14B of Fig. 1D) disposed on a second optical path, the first optical path and the second optical path are distinct optical paths such that signal light incident to one of the first optical path and second optical path is not incident to the other of the first optical path and the second optical path (Fig. 1D).
Ozcan does not disclose each of the planar light diffraction elements includes microcells that have respective thicknesses or refractive indices set independently.
Ozcan1 discloses an all-optical diffractive neural network (Abstract, Fig. 2). In one embodiment, the network comprises planar light diffraction elements 16 fixed to a substrate, each including microcells that have respective thicknesses or refractive indices set independently (Fig. 2, 3, 4, 5, [0009], [0103]).
Both Ozcan and Ozcan1 disclose neural networks using diffractive optical elements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Ozcan so that the diffractive elements 16 comprise microcells that have respective thicknesses or refractive indices set independently, as taught by Ozcan1, for making a deep neural network with desired properties.
Ozcan/Ozcan1 does not disclose the optical computing device carries out separate types of optical computing in the first optical path and the second optical path, respectively.
However, Ozcan/Ozcan1 discloses “the number of substrate layers 16 may vary depending on the particular function or task that is to be performed”, see [0101] in Ozcan1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Ozcan/Ozcan1 so that the first diffractive element 16 in the first path is different than the first diffractive element 16 in the second path (causing the optical computing in the first and second optical path being different), for achieving a particular desired function/task in the neural network, as taught by Ozcan1.
Regarding claim 5, Ozcan/Ozcan1 discloses the optical computing device as set forth in claim 4, further comprising: an optical element 38 that branches an optical path of signal light into the first optical path and the second optical path (Fig. 1D, [0045] in Ozcan).
Regarding claim 6, Ozcan/Ozcan1 discloses the optical computing device as set forth in claim 4.
Ozcan/Ozcan1 does not disclose further comprising: an optical element that guides signal light to the first optical path or the second optical path and varies an optical path of the signal light.
Ozcan1 discloses that the optical diffraction element 10 (comprising a series of optical diffraction elements 16) is a Diffractive Deep Neural Network (D2NN) that demonstrates inference capabilities through simulations and experiments. In particular, a D2NN can be physically created by using several transmissive and/or reflective substrate layers, where individual points or small regions located on a given physical layer either transmits or reflects the incoming wave, representing an artificial “neuron” that is connected to other “neurons” of the subsequent or following layers through optical diffraction. A D2NN encompasses structures that have only transmissive substrate layers, only reflective substrate layers, as well as combinations of transmissive and reflective substrate layers ([0005]).
As discussed above, in Ozcan1, each substrate layer 16 is part of the “machine” learning of the device. Depending on the particular learning protocol, a particular sequence of diffractive layers 16 may need to be realized, which implies that the optical signal may need to be directed to two different paths at a particular point (via an optical element that directs incident light to different paths continuously, e.g., a rotating mirror).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Ozcan/Ozcan1 so that on optical path can variously change into two optical paths (via, for example, a rotating mirror), for training the device according to desired specifications (which are changing).
Regarding claim 7, Ozcan/Ozcan1 discloses the optical computing device as set forth in claim 4.
Ozcan/Ozcan1 does not disclose further comprising: an optical element that guides signal light to the first optical path or the second optical path and does not vary an optical path of the signal light.
As discussed above, in Ozcan1, each substrate layer 16 is part of the “machine” learning of the device. Depending on the particular learning protocol, a particular sequence of diffractive layers 16 may need to be realized, which implies that the optical signal may need to be directed to two different paths at a particular point (via an optical element that directs incident light to different paths, e.g., a fixed mirror).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Ozcan/Ozcan1 so that on optical path can change into two optical paths (via, for example, a fixed mirror), for training the device according to desired specifications (which are fixed).
Regarding claim 15, Ozcan/Ozcan1 discloses a method for manufacturing the optical computing device as set forth in claim 4, comprising:
collectively forming the planar light diffraction elements (Fig. 8 in Ozcan1).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozcan, Ozcan1 in view of Miyasaka et al. (US 2016/0349517, hereinafter, “Miyasaka”).
Regarding claim 13, Ozcan/Ozcan1 discloses the optical computing device as set forth in claim 4.
Ozcan/Ozcan1 does not disclose further comprising: a cover that faces the substrate and does not contact the planar light diffraction elements.
Miyasaka discloses planar diffraction elements 15, 16 formed on a light guide element 14 in an image display device 10 (Fig. 1, [0040]). In one embodiment, layer 22 constituting the diffraction elements 15, 16, is covered by a cover 41, (Fig. 4A, [0064]).
Both Ozcan and Miyasaka disclose planar diffraction optical elements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Ozcan/Ozcan1 so that each diffraction element 16 further comprises a cover that faces the substrate 30 and does not contact the planar diffraction elements, as taught by Miyasaka, for protecting the diffraction elements so that air remains as the medium surrounding them ([0065] in Miyasaka).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozcan, Ozcan1 in view of Park et al. (US 2021/0271000, hereinafter, “Park”).
Regarding claim 14, Ozcan/Ozcan1 discloses the optical computing device as set forth in claim 4.
Ozcan/Ozcan1 does not disclose wherein the microcells are constituted by pillars disposed on both sides of a base.
Park discloses a meta-optical device (i.e., a light diffraction element) 102 comprising a first layer 122, a second layer 162, formed on both sides of layer 140. Each of the layers 122 and 162 includes pillars NS1, NS2, respectively, having different heights depending on the location (Fig. 8, [0141]-[0143], [0156]).
Both Ozcan and Park disclose diffractive optical devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Ozcan/Ozcan1 so that the microcells comprise pillars disposed on both sides of a base/layer, as taught by Park, for, for example, achieving a desired phase delay ([0146] of Park).
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Regarding claim 4, Applicant has amended the claim to include the feature “the first optical path and the second optical path are distinct optical paths such that signal light incident to one of the first optical path and second optical path is not incident to the other of the first optical path and the second optical path” and stated that Ozcan1 does not disclose this feature, see p. 7 of the Remarks.
Applicant’s above arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 4 under Ozcan1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Ozcan/Ozcan1.
Thus, the rejection of claim 4 is maintained.
The rejection of claims 5-7 and 13-15, which are dependent from claim 4, is maintained based on the rejection of their respective independent claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEONIDAS BOUTSIKARIS whose telephone number is (703)756-4529. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fr. 9.00-5.00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Stephone Allen, can be reached on 571-272-2334. 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.
/L.B./
Patent Examiner, AU 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872