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 Amendment
The amendments to Claims 1,2,3,6, in the submission filed 12/9/2025 are acknowledged and accepted.
In view of the amendments to the Claims, objections to Claims are withdrawn.
Pending Claims are 1-7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (Remarks, filed 12/09/2025) have been considered, but, respectfully, are not found persuasive in view of the amendments to the claims and the new grounds of rejection in view of Kroll et al.
Claims 1-7 are rejected as follows
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "microcells" in line 6 and in lines 10,11 and Claim 3 recites the limitation "microcells" in line 6 and in lines 8,9,19. There is sufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear whether the first computing optical structure and the first position adjustment optical structure are constituted by first microcells and similarly the second computing optical structure and the second position adjustment optical structure are constituted by second microcells which are different from first microcells or whether the first and second computing optical structures and the first and second position adjustment optical structures are constituted by the same microcells.
It appears from the specification, that the first and second diffraction elements comprise different microcells and the respective first, second computing optical structure and the first, second position adjustment optical structures are constituted by these different microcells.
For the purpose of examination, the first computing optical structure and the first position adjustment optical structure are constituted by first microcells and similarly the second computing optical structure and the second position adjustment optical structure are constituted by second microcells which are different from first microcells.
Claims 2,4,5, are dependent on claim 1 and hence inherit its deficiencies.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2,4,6-7, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al (Design of task-specified optical systems using broadband diffractive neural networks, Journal of the CIOMP, Light: Science & Applications (2019)8;112, pages 1-14, of record) in view of Akutsu et al (US 2015/0260994 A1, of record) and further in view of Kroll et al (US 2010/0194854 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Luo teaches (fig 1-4) an optical computing device (broadband optical network that unifies deep-learning methods with the angular spectrum formulation of broad band light propagation, page 2, R col)
wherein a first light diffraction element (first of diffractive layers, fig 1, page 3, R col) of the optical computing device includes:
a first computing optical structure (diffractive optical neural network, page 3, L col, corresponding to first diffractive layer) constituted by microcells (each diffractive layer consists of elements (termed neurons) that modulate the phase and/or amplitude of the incident beam at their location in space”, page 1, R col, page 2, L col, 1st para, “each pixel on the lth layer at a spatial location (xi, yi, zi) provides a wavelength (λ) dependent modulation”, page 11, L col, last para) and
a second light diffraction element (second of diffractive layers, fig 1, page 3, R col) of the optical computing device includes:
a second computing optical structure (diffractive optical neural network, page 3, L col, corresponding to second diffractive layer) constituted by microcells (each diffractive layer consists of elements (termed neurons) that modulate the phase and/or amplitude of the incident beam at their location in space”, page 1, R col, page 2, L col, 1st para, “each pixel on the lth layer at a spatial location (xi, yi, zi) provides a wavelength (λ) dependent modulation”, page 11, L col, last para)
However, Luo does not teach
first and second position adjustment optical structures and
a method comprising:
inputting, via a first position adjustment optical structure, adjustment signal light into a second position adjustment optical structure,
adjusting, based on the adjustment signal light outputted from the second position adjustment optical structure, a position of the second light diffraction element with respect to the first light diffraction element.
Luo and Akutsu are related as plurality of diffractive elements.
Akutsu teaches (fig 2A-3B)
first diffraction element (first holographic diffraction grating 131, para 187) with first computing optical structure (first interference fringe forming area 132, para 187) and a first position adjustment optical structure (first A alignment mark 134A, first B alignment mark 134 B, para 188) and
second diffraction element (second holographic diffraction grating 135, para 187) with second computing optical structure (second interference fringe forming area 136, para 187) and a second position adjustment optical structure (second A alignment mark 138A and second B alignment mark 138B, para 188); and
a method comprising:
inputting (light travels from 1st diffractive element 131 to 2nd diffractive element 135), via a first position adjustment optical structure (first A alignment mark 134A, first B alignment mark 134 B, para 188), adjustment signal light into a second position adjustment optical structure (second A alignment mark 138A and second B alignment mark 138B, para 188) (“the first A alignment mark 134A and the first B alignment mark 134B are each provided with an interference fringe that is identical to that of the first interference fringe forming area 132, and the second A alignment mark 138A and the second B alignment mark 138B are each provided with an interference fringe that is identical to that of the second interference fringe forming area 136”, para 188),
adjusting, based on the adjustment signal light outputted from the second position adjustment optical structure (second A alignment mark 138A and second B alignment mark 138B, para 188), a position of the second light diffraction element (second holographic diffraction grating 135) with respect to the first light diffraction element (first holographic diffraction grating 131) (“simultaneously, in a state where the relative alignment of the first holographic diffraction grating 131 and the second holographic diffraction grating 135 is completed, the first A alignment mark 134A and the second A alignment mark 138A are disposed at positions where the first A alignment mark 134A and the second A alignment mark 138A do not overlap, and the first B alignment mark 134B and the second B alignment mark 138B are disposed at positions where the first B alignment mark 134B and the second B alignment mark 138B do not overlap”, para 189).
Therefore, 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 method of Luo to include first and second position adjustment optical structures and adjust a position of the second light diffraction element of Akutsu for the purpose of precisely aligning the diffractive layers (para 4).
However, Luo-Akutsu do not teach
the first position adjustment optical structure constituted by microcells each having an independently set thickness, refractive index, or transmittance;
the second position adjustment optical structure constituted by microcells each having an independently set thickness, refractive index, or transmittance;
Luo-Akutsu and Kroll are related as light diffraction elements with position adjustment optical structures.
Kroll teaches (fig 2)
wherein the position adjustment optical structure (controllable electro-optic deflection means DM, para 71) constituted by microcells each having an independently set thickness, refractive index, or transmittance (“The array of deflection means has such a cell grid with a periodic structure that the separately controllable micro-cells realize the function of a controllable diffraction grating with variable surface relief structure under coherent illumination”, para 72, “an electrowetting cell can also comprise a hollow body which is filled with multiple immiscible, optically transparent liquids. The refractive index changes at the interface between the liquids, so that the transmitted light is deflected”, para 76);
Therefore, 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 method of Luo-Akutsu to include the position adjustment optical structures constituted by microcells each having an independently set thickness, refractive index, or transmittance of Kroll for the purpose of realizing a grating structure with ideally no light loss (para 23) by using a design with light traps (para 30).
Regarding Claim 2, Luo-Akutsu-Kroll teach the method according to claim 1.
However, Luo does not teach
further comprising
forming an optical image having an intensity distribution on the second position adjustment optical structure with the first position adjustment optical structure; and
changing in accordance with the position of the second light diffraction element with respect to the first light diffraction element, the intensity distribution of the formed optical image with the second position adjustment optical structure.
Luo and Akutsu are related as plurality of diffractive elements.
Akutsu teaches (fig 2A-3B)
further comprising
forming an optical image having an intensity distribution on the second position adjustment optical structure (second A alignment mark 138A and second B alignment mark 138B, para 188) with the first position adjustment optical structure first A alignment mark 134A, first B alignment mark 134 B, para 188) (as in fig 3A,4A); (“The first imaging device 163 is configured to detect an optical image of the first A alignment mark 134A provided to the first holographic diffraction grating 131, based on the light that is input from the first light source 161 and diffracted and reflected by the first A alignment mark 134A”, para 208) and
changing in accordance with the position of the second light diffraction element (second holographic diffraction grating 135, para 187) with respect to the first light diffraction element (first holographic diffraction grating 131, para 187), the intensity distribution of the formed optical image with the second position adjustment optical structure (“a first straight line L.sub.1 connecting the first A alignment mark 134A and the first B alignment mark 134B is obtained, and a second straight line L.sub.2 connecting the second A alignment mark 138A and the second B alignment mark 138B is obtained (see FIGS. 3A and4A).Next, the first holographic diffraction grating 131 and the second holographic diffraction grating 135 are relatively aligned with each other such that an angle .theta..sub.0, which is formed by the first straight line L.sub.1 and the second straight line L.sub.2 when the first straight line L.sub.1 and the second straight line L.sub.2 are projected onto a virtual plane, falls below a prescribed value .theta..sub.PD (see FIGS. 3B and 4B)”, para 211).
Therefore, 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 method of using position adjustment optical structures of Luo to form an optical image having an intensity distribution on the second position adjustment optical structure with the first position adjustment optical structure and changing the position of the second light diffraction element of Akutsu for the purpose of precisely aligning the diffractive layers (para 4).
Regarding Claim 4, Luo-Akutsu-Kroll teach the method according to claim 1.
However, Luo does not teach
further comprising:
forming the first position adjustment optical structure inside the first computing optical structure; and
forming the second position adjustment optical structure inside the second computing optical structure.
Luo and Akutsu are related as plurality of diffractive elements.
Akutsu teaches (fig 2A-3B)
further comprising:
forming the first position adjustment optical structure (first A alignment mark 134A, first B alignment mark 134 B, para 188) inside the first computing optical structure (first interference fringe forming area 132, para 187) (as in fig 4A); and
forming the second position adjustment optical structure (second A alignment mark 138A and second B alignment mark 138B, para 188) inside the second computing optical structure (second interference fringe forming area 136, para 187) (as in fig 4A).
Therefore, 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 placement of position adjustment optical structures of Luo to be inside the first and second computing optical structures of Akutsu for the purpose of precisely aligning the diffractive layers (para 4).
Regarding Claim 6, Luo teaches (fig 1) a light diffraction element (diffractive layers, fig 1, page 3, R col) comprising:
a computing optical structure (diffractive optical neural network, page 3, L col, broadband optical network that unifies deep-learning methods with the angular spectrum formulation of broad band light propagation, page 2, R col) constituted by microcells (each diffractive layer consists of elements (termed neurons) that modulate the phase and/or amplitude of the incident beam at their location in space”, page 1, R col, page 2, L col, 1st para, “each pixel on the lth layer at a spatial location (xi, yi, zi) provides a wavelength (λ) dependent modulation”, page 11, L col, last para);
However, Luo does not teach
a position adjustment optical structure inside or outside the computing optical structure.
Luo and Akutsu are related as plurality of diffractive elements.
Akutsu teaches (fig 2A-3B)
a position adjustment optical structure (first A alignment mark 134A, first B alignment mark 134 B, second A alignment mark 138A and second B alignment mark 138B, para 188) inside or outside the computing optical structure (first interference fringe forming area 132, second interference fringe forming area 136, para 187).
Therefore, 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 light diffraction element of Luo to include position adjustment optical structures of Akutsu for the purpose of precisely aligning the diffractive layers (para 4).
However, Luo-Akutsu do not teach
the position adjustment optical is constituted by microcells each having an independently set thickness, refractive index, or transmittance;
Luo-Akutsu and Kroll are related as light diffraction elements with position adjustment optical structures.
Kroll teaches (fig 2)
wherein the position adjustment optical structure (controllable electro-optic deflection means DM, para 71) constituted by microcells each having an independently set thickness, refractive index, or transmittance (“The array of deflection means has such a cell grid with a periodic structure that the separately controllable micro-cells realize the function of a controllable diffraction grating with variable surface relief structure under coherent illumination”, para 72, “an electrowetting cell can also comprise a hollow body which is filled with multiple immiscible, optically transparent liquids. The refractive index changes at the interface between the liquids, so that the transmitted light is deflected”, para 76);
Therefore, 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 method of Luo-Akutsu to include the position adjustment optical structures constituted by microcells each having an independently set thickness, refractive index, or transmittance of Kroll for the purpose of realizing a grating structure with ideally no light loss (para 23) by using a design with light traps (para 30).
Regarding Claim 7, Luo-Akutsu-Kroll teach an optical computing device (broadband optical network that unifies deep-learning methods with the angular spectrum formulation of broad band light propagation, page 2, R col, Luo) comprising:
two or more light diffraction elements (first and second diffractive layers, fig 1, page 3, R col), each of which is the light diffraction element according to claim 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 3 is allowable for at least the following reason:
“wherein the second position adjustment optical structure includes a microcell that blocks the adjustment signal light and that transmits computation signal light.”
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 5 is allowable for at least the following reason:
“forming the first position adjustment optical structure in a peripheral portion of the first computing optical structure; and forming the second position adjustment optical structure in a peripheral portion of the second computing optical structure.”
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 JYOTSNA V DABBI whose telephone number is (571)270-3270. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri: 9:00am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, STEPHONE ALLEN can be reached at 571-272-2434. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JYOTSNA V DABBI/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 2/24/2026