DETAILED ACTION
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 1-7 and 15-20 are 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.
Independent claims 1 and 15 recite language pertaining to a “photonic neural network” without disclosing further steps or structures to define such. Applicant’s Specification briefly mentions a photonic neural network (PNN) in paragraph 33 and attempts to describe the PNN to comprise a plurality of optical cores, splitters, multiplexers, convolution modules, additional multiplexers, combiners, amplifiers or any other suitable modules or configurations. The typical definition of a neural network suggests some type of Artificial Intelligence processing and the Specification and Claims are silent to any such processing. Further, there is not an industry defined standard of what a PNN minimally comprises. It is noted that claims 8-14 are silent to the PNN and further leaves ambiguity as to the criticality of the PNN or optional components that it may comprise.
Therefore, it is unclear as to the level of structure to be claimed in applicant’s invention and Examiner is left to guess as to the components that define the PNN. Related dependent claims are rejected on the basis of dependency. For purposes of examination, Examiner will be ignoring this limitation.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2022/0179159 to Wu et al.
Wu discloses in the abstract and figures 2A-4, a method for manufacturing an optical device, the method comprising:
Forming a first photonic integrated circuit (“PIC”);
Bonding a first semiconductor device (any number of shown devices on PIC in Figure 7)’
Electrically connecting a second semiconductor device to the PIC (paragraph 549).
As to claims 2-7, convolution modules include those claimed (paragraphs 270-271 and 403).
Claims 8-14 relate to the above with additional language of an interposer. Wu discloses interposer structure (Figure 11B shows connecting and bonding components on an interposer and “common platform” described in paragraph 425). Memory chips (234) are described in paragraph 233. As to claim 11, a control circuit is disclosed in paragraph 236.
Claims 15-20 relate to the above and are apparatus claims that are the structure of the steps provided above. Since the method steps of providing the disclosed structure is recited, the apparatus claim is also anticipated.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2026/0063854 (PIC chip).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric K Wong whose telephone number is (571)272-2363. The examiner can normally be reached M-Tu, Th-F 8A-6P.
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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached at 571-270-1739. 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.
ERIC K. WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2874
/Eric Wong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights