DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to Applicant’s response submitted 03 December 2025.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention I, directed to claims 1-8, in the reply filed on 03 December 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0132650 to Lin et al.
In regards to claim 1, Lin recites an optical device (Figure 1) for performing unitary matrix computations, comprising: a light source (light in) configured to generate a plurality of first optical signals(E1,in & E2,in); an array of waveguides (101 & 103), including: a plurality of inputs (116) that receive the plurality of first optical signals from the light source; a plurality of channels positioned in parallel for transmitting the first optical signals along a length of the waveguides; and a plurality of outputs (118) for outputting second optical signals generated according to a matrix multiplication operation [0027-0028] from the first optical signals, the optical device further comprising a plurality of phase shifters (107 & 109) constructed and arranged in a cascade structure at the channels of the waveguides, the waveguides including sections between adjacent phase shifters.
Although Lin does not expressly recite wherein the matrix multiplication operation includes coupling coefficient values between adjacent waveguides and length values of the sections of the waveguides, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (MPEP 2112.01 [R-07.2015]) The patentability of a product depends only on the claimed structural limitations of the product and must be distinguished structurally. Lin teaches an optical device for performing unitary matrix computations by using a matrix multiplication operation that is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention, therefore the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent or obvious. The burden is on the applicant to show that the prior art device does not possess the claimed properties or is not capable of these functional characteristics. (See MPEP 2112.01). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have deduced the function of the matrix multiplication operation includes coupling coefficient values between adjacent waveguides and length values of the sections of the waveguides for the purpose of performing the optical transformation of the signal as desired.
In regards to claim 2, Lin recites the number (N) of inputs equals the number (N) of outputs perform an NxN matrix operation, and wherein the cascade of phase shifters includes a plurality (M-1) layers of phase modulations each including N phase shifters positioned between M waveguide sections with different lengths. (Figure 1)
In regards to claim 3, Lin recites the array of waveguides includes an array of optical dielectric waveguides so that when positioned in parallel and in proximity light from each channel evanescently couples to adjacent channels. (Figure 1; [0031])
In regards to claim 4, Lin recites an optical encoder (1402) configured to encode an input vector into the first plurality of optical signals, wherein the matrix multiplication operation is performed on the input vector to generate the second optical signals representing an output vector.
In regards to claim 5, Lin recites the waveguides and phase shifters perform an arbitrary unitary linear transformation of the first optical signals of a first array to the second optical signals of a second array. [0028]
In regards to claim 6, Lin recites the waveguides and phase shifters generate an arbitrary unitary matrix for the matrix multiplication operation.
In regards to claims 7 and 8, although Lin does not expressly recite the matrix multiplication operation further includes a determination of phase values imposed by layers of the cascade structure of the phase shifters, the length values of the sections of waveguides, and/or coupling parameters of required evanescent modes between proximal waveguides and the total of amplitudes of the first optical signals is maintained along the length of the channels, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (MPEP 2112.01 [R-07.2015]) The patentability of a product depends only on the claimed structural limitations of the product and must be distinguished structurally. Lin teaches an optical device for performing unitary matrix computations by using a matrix multiplication operation that is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention, therefore the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent or obvious. The burden is on the applicant to show that the prior art device does not possess the claimed properties or is not capable of these functional characteristics. (See MPEP 2112.01). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have deduced the function of the matrix multiplication operation further includes a determination of phase values imposed by layers of the cascade structure of the phase shifters, the length values of the sections of waveguides, and/or coupling parameters of required evanescent modes between proximal waveguides and the total of amplitudes of the first optical signals is maintained along the length of the channels.
Inventorship
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.
References Cited
The references cited made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
The documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements have been considered and made of record. Note attached copy of forms PTO-1449.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TINA M WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30.
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 (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.
/TINA WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874