DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the election filed on July 13, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending (claims 9-20 being non-elected and “Withdrawn” with traverse), with claim 1 as the sole examined independent claim.
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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-8 in the reply filed on July 13, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the restriction should be withdrawn because Applicant has not conceded to the merits of such restriction (page 7). This is not found persuasive because the restriction mailed on May 11, 2026 meets each requirement for an election requirement under 35 U.S.C. 121.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected Groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on July 13, 2026.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by Applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on July 13, 2026, have been considered and made of record (note attached copy of forms PTO-1449). Note that NPL reference #12 to Tian has been not considered, because no valid date (month / year) was listed. Correction is required if the Examiner is to consider such document.
Drawings
The original drawings (twelve (12) pages) were received on October 16, 2023. These drawings are acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: regarding independent claim 1, in the section “a plurality of phase tuning components”, there is a missing “and” in the phrase “corresponding to a distinct wavelength of the plurality of wavelengths configured to adjust a phase…”, which should read “corresponding to a distinct wavelength of the plurality of wavelengths and configured to adjust a phase…”. In the same section of claim 1, the phrase “in the plurality wavelengths” should read “in the plurality of wavelengths.” 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al. US 2024/0378432 A1 (effectively filed at least as early as May 11, 2023).
Wang et al. US 2024/0378432 A1 teaches (ABS; Figs. 1-3, 5; corresponding text, in particular paragraphs [0034] – [0044]; Claims) an optical device for implementing a neural network (Title; Figs. 1-2), the optical device comprising: a plurality of waveguides 108A / 108B / 108C configured and capable to receive a plurality of first optical signals propagating at a plurality of wavelengths; and a unit cell 104A / 104B disposed between a first waveguide and a second waveguide of the plurality of waveguides (as in Fig. 1), the unit cell configured and capable to perform a linear transformation of each of the first optical signals to output a plurality of second optical signals at a plurality of wavelengths, the unit cell comprising (as in Fig. 2): a plurality of signal mixing components 242E / 242D / 242L / 242K (also 212A/214A/212C/214C; all “mixing components”, paras [0034] – [0044]) optical coupled to the first waveguide and the second waveguide of the plurality of waveguides, each signal mixing component corresponding to a distinct wavelength and configured to mix first optical signals on the first and second waveguides at the distinct wavelength; and a plurality of phase tuning components 202A / 202B / 202C / 242F / 242G / 242J (“phase tuning component(s)”, para [0035]), each phase tuning component of the plurality of phase tuning components is capable to correspond to a distinct wavelength of the plurality of wavelengths (and) configured to adjust a phase of a mixed optical signal (because at least element 242F / 202D is after the element(s) 212A / 214A mixing feature, Fig. 2) at the distinct wavelength of the plurality (of) wavelengths and output a second optical signal of the plurality of second optical signals (Fig. 2, 3, 5; paras [0034] – [0044]), which clearly, fully meets Applicant’s claimed structural limitations of sole examined independent claim 1. The structure of Wang US ‘432 is capable of being used and functioning with multiple wavelengths and multiple types of optical signal(s).
Regarding dependent claim 5, the serial coupling of a double ring micro-ring resonator is shown between two of the waveguides in Fig. 2, with the upper/lower resonators shown in the dotted line boxes, which meets all structure.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
The following rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 (obviousness) is for the alternative circumstance in which Applicant argues that Wang US ‘432 is not capable of operating with first and second optical signals at a plurality of wavelengths.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. US 2024/0378432 A1, and further in view of Karanth et al. US 2021/0264241 \A1.
Regarding independent claim 1, Wang et al. US 2024/0378432 A1 teaches (ABS; Figs. 1-3, 5; corresponding text, in particular paragraphs [0034] – [0044]; Claims) an optical device for implementing a neural network (Title; Figs. 1-2), the optical device comprising: a plurality of waveguides 108A / 108B / 108C configured and capable to receive a plurality of first optical signals propagating at desired wavelength(s); and a unit cell 104A / 104B disposed between a first waveguide and a second waveguide of the plurality of waveguides (as in Fig. 1), the unit cell configured and capable to perform a linear transformation of each of the first optical signals to output a plurality of second optical signals at desired wavelength(s), the unit cell comprising (as in Fig. 2): a plurality of signal mixing components 242E / 242D / 242L / 242K (also 212A/214A/212C/214C; all “mixing components”, paras [0034] – [0044]) optical coupled to the first waveguide and the second waveguide of the plurality of waveguides, each signal mixing component corresponding to a distinct wavelength(s) and configured to mix first optical signals on the first and second waveguides at the distinct wavelength(s); and a plurality of phase tuning components 202A / 202B / 202C / 242F / 242G / 242J (“phase tuning component(s)”, para [0035]), each phase tuning component of the plurality of phase tuning components is capable to correspond to a distinct wavelength of the desired wavelength(s) (and) configured to adjust a phase of a mixed optical signal (because at least element 242F / 202D is after the element(s) 212A / 214A mixing feature, Fig. 2) at the distinct wavelength of the desired wavelength(s) and output a second optical signal of the plurality of second optical signals (Fig. 2, 3, 5; paras [0034] – [0044]).
Karanth et al. US 2021/0264241 A1 teaches (ABS; Figs. 1-7; corresponding text, in particular paragraphs [0046] – [0085]; Claims) processing elements for optical neural networks that include optical microring resonators that selectively couple optical signals between waveguides, and in which a plurality of wavelengths are used as the input signal (paras [0070] – [0071], four wavelengths [0078]), and in the both resonators and phase tuners / phase shifters are used for sequential summing and shifting. The use of different types of micro-ring resonators, phase tuning, phase shifters (via interferometers, etc.) using different types of optical coupling, etc. is found as general teachings in Karanth.
Since Wang and Karanth are both from the same field of endeavor, the purpose disclosed by Karanth would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Wang.
A person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the current application would have recognized the teachings of Karanth, to use a plurality of optical signals with a plurality of optical wavelengths, in order to create linear transformations along the at least two optical waveguides, as in the base device of the prior art of Wang, in order to increase the types of optical signals that can be processed and used in a neural network over a simple singular wavelength. Further, it would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at such feature of using plural wavelengths and output a second optical signal of the plurality of second optical signals. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). For these reasons, independent claim 1 is found obvious over Wang and further in view of Karanth (henceforth “COMBO”).
Regarding dependent claims 2-7, in COMBO’s hypothetical device as found in claim 1, the further use of resonators, micro-ring resonators, phase shifting mechanisms (and of the type in claim 3), phase tuning features, how the optical coupling is achieved between the double resonators (micro-ring or otherwise), and having waveguide crossings in the 2nd waveguide, are all found as obvious design choices based on the elements discussed for such an optical device with a neural network as found in both Wang and Karanth. At a time before the effective filing date of the current application, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to incorporate all the discussed elements as arranged, because Applicant has not disclosed that using such features provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem (over the base teachings in COMBO). One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected COMBO to perform equally well with such features because the base invention is outlined by at least Wang, in that optical signal(s) are modulated first by “signal mixing” and then by “phase tuning” in an optical cell (such as Wang Figs. 1-2), and such variable types of configurations would have been easily integrated and would have also been recognized by one with common skill in the art to improve neural network performance. It would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at those features with combined hypothetical device such as in claim 1 of COMBO. Further, the base structure of the sole independent claim 1 is found obvious over COMBO, as discussed prior. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to modify (and/or update) COMBO to obtain the invention as specified in claims 2-7. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Regarding dependent claim 8, using COMBO’s hypothetical device as found in claim 1 with a weight matrix core would have been an obvious integration of such device, as at least Wang includes multiple cells (see Fig. 1), and the input weight matrices to have preferred weighting based on the cascading sequence of signal mixing and phase tuning would have been recognized for the purpose of improving the operation of the neural network based on feedback on which weighted configuration is preferred and/or desired for an output. KSR.
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: PTO-892 form reference C-H, which pertain to the state of the art of integrated optical circuits / network that employ resonators and phase tuning / shifting features in order to address desired optical outputs and functions along a waveguide(s).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Petkovsek whose telephone number is (571) 272-4174. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 6 PM.
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.
/DANIEL PETKOVSEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 September 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights