CTNF 18/651,534 CTNF 89224 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Election/Restrictions 08-06 AIA Claim s 1-4 and 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/23/2026 and the non-elected claims were canceled . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 05/08/2024 is/are being considered by the Examiner. Claim Objections 07-05-05 Applicant is advised that should claims 5-12 be found allowable, claims 21-28 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being substantial duplicates, respectively, thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “separating, via an optical demultiplexer, the first optical signals and the second optical signals from an optical fiber onto separate paths toward the first photonic receiver and the second photonic receiver respectively” of claims 9 and 25 and “propagating, via an optical multiplexer and onto the optical fiber, the first optical signals from a first photonic transmitter connected to the first processing element and the second optical signals from a second photonic transmitter connected to the second processing element” of claims 10 and 26 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. 06-22 Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 7-12 and 23-28 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. Regarding claims 7 and 23 , both specify that the first and second memory sub-systems are different. However, claims 6 and 22 on which claims 7 and 23 respectively depend state that the first and second memory sub-systems are different, leading to a clear contradiction. For the purposes of prior art rejections, claim 7 will be taken to depend on claim 5 as originally presented and claim 23 will be taken to depend on claim 21. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yoo et al, WO 2022/265796 A2 (citations will be given to U.S. Publication No. 2025/0085856 which is the national stage entry of the reference) . Regarding claims 5 and 21 , Yoo teaches a method, comprising: receiving, from a first processing element among a plurality of processing elements (see Yoo Figure 1, processing unit 102) connected via a photonic interconnect system (see Figure 1, data-plane interconnect 122 and paragraph [0043]) to a plurality of memory sub-systems (see Figure 1, memory channels 110 and 112 with respective memory banks 114-118) , a first request to access a first memory address (see Figure 4A, REQ 406 and paragraph [0056], “In this example, multiple processing units (e.g., processing units 302 and 304) are performing write operations, and the command queues (e.g., command queucs 402 and 404) in a memory controller for a channel may include queued requests (e.g., requests 406 and 408) from different processing units…In this example, the destination of request 406 is microbank 332 (with a microbank address “1”) in channel 306, which operates in λ.sub.1” ) ; identifying, based on the first memory address, a first memory sub-system that is among the plurality of memory sub-systems and that has a first portion of memories allocated to the first processing element (see paragraph [0056], “In this example, the destination of request 406 is microbank 332 (with a microbank address “1”) in channel 306, which operates in λ.sub.1” wherein each processing element has potential access to each memory bank i.e. full allocation) ; transmitting, through the photonic interconnect system to the first memory sub-system, first optical signals at a first wavelength and representative of the first request (see paragraph [0052]) ; receiving, from a second processing element different from the first processing element among the plurality of processing elements, a second request to access a second memory address (see Figure 4A, REQ 408 and paragraph [0056], “In this example, multiple processing units (e.g., processing units 302 and 304) are performing write operations, and the command queues (e.g., command queucs 402 and 404) in a memory controller for a channel may include queued requests (e.g., requests 406 and 408) from different processing units” ) ; and identifying, based on the second memory address, a second memory sub-system that is among the plurality of memory sub-systems and that has a second portion of memories allocated to the second processing element (see paragraph [0056], “In addition to request 406 issued by processing unit 302, FIG. 4A also shows that processing unit 304 may issue request 408 for reaching microbank 336 in channel 306, which operates in λ.sub.0. Accordingly, processing unit 304 can similarly tune one of its microrings to λ.sub.0” with the same universal allocation) . Regarding claims 7 and 23 , Yoo teaches all the limitations of claims [5 and 21], and further teaches wherein the first memory sub-system is different from the second memory sub-system in the plurality of memory sub-systems (see Yoo paragraph [0056], “In response to receiving acknowledgment signal 414, processing unit 302 prepares to send data to the memory. In this example, the destination of request 406 is microbank 332 (with a microbank address “1”) in channel 306, which operates in λ.sub.1… In addition to request 406 issued by processing unit 302, FIG. 4A also shows that processing unit 304 may issue request 408 for reaching microbank 336 in channel 306” ) . Regarding claims 8 and 24 , Yoo teaches all the limitations of claims 7 and 23, and further teaches wherein the photonic interconnect system is configured to propagate the first optical signals to a first photonic receiver connected to the first memory sub-system but not to a second photonic receiver connected to the second memory sub-system; and the photonic interconnect system is configured to propagate the second optical signals to the second photonic receiver connected to the second memory sub-system but not to the first photonic receiver connected to the first memory sub-system (see Yoo paragraph [0054], “In this example, the processing units are transmitting light and are coupled to the input waveguides of AWGR 340; the memory banks are receiving light and are coupled to the output waveguides of AWGR 340” which implies that each memory bank has a receiver and paragraph [0056], “In the example shown in FIG. 3A, processing units 302 and 304 may access different microbanks in channel 306 through AWGR ports 324, 326, and 328 using different wavelengths (e.g., λ.sub.0, λ.sub.1, and λ.sub.63)… In this example, processing unit 302 tunes microring 320 to wavelength λ.sub.1… Accordingly, processing unit 304 can similarly tune one of its microrings to λ.sub.0.” which indicates that the signals are routed to specific memory banks via their wavelength) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 9, 10, 25, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al, WO 2022/265796 A2 (citations will be given to U.S. Publication No. 2025/0085856 which is the national stage entry of the reference) in view of Handelman, U.S. Publication No. 2014/0029951 . Regarding claims 9 and 25 , Yoo teaches all the limitations of claim 8, but does not expressively teach separating, via an optical demultiplexer, the first optical signals and the second optical signals from an optical fiber onto separate paths toward the first photonic receiver and the second photonic receiver respectively. However, Handelman in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a method of sending first and second optical signals at different first and second wavelengths from first and second tunable transmitters (see Handelman Figure 1, tunable transmitters 125 and paragraph [0062]) to first and second photonic receivers (see Figure 1, tunable receivers 145 as applied to the receiving end of the transmitter section 105) via a photonic interconnect system (see Figure 1, multiplexers 1355 and 140 and demultiplexers 135 and 160) as taught in Yoo comprising separating, via an optical demultiplexer, the first optical signals and the second optical signals from an optical fiber onto separate paths toward the first photonic receiver and the second photonic receiver respectively (see Figure 1, demux 160 separating signals from fiber to port 120 and paragraph [0085]) . One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of simple substitution to replace the photonic interconnect system of Yoo with that of Handelman to yield the predictable results of successfully routing the different wavelength signals. Regarding claims 10 and 26 , Yoo in view of Handelman teaches all the limitations of claims 9 and 25, and further teaches propagating, via an optical multiplexer and onto the optical fiber, the first optical signals from a first photonic transmitter connected to the first processing element and the second optical signals from a second photonic transmitter connected to the second processing element (see Handelman Figure 1, mux 140 connected to first and second photonic transmitters 125 as combined with Yoo paragraph [0067]) . Allowable Subject Matter 07-43-02 AIA Claim s 6 and 22 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. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claims 6 and 22 , both specify a same memory sub-system that is simultaneously receiving optical signals on different wavelengths from different processing elements in order to access allocated portions of memories to respective processing elements within the same memory sub-system. The memory sub-systems of Yoo (i.e. memory banks 114-118 of Figure 1 of Yoo) , while they possibly can have portions allocated to specific processing elements, each only have one specific wavelength they act on and thereby only have one processing element that can communicate with them at any given time (see Yoo paragraph [0056]) . 07-43-02 AIA Claim s 11, 12, 27, and 28 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. Regarding claims 11 and 27 , both claims specify that first and second photonic receivers of the first and second memory sub-systems are instructed to operate at first and second wavelengths during the transmission of the first and second requests . However, Yoo teaches via Figure 4A that requests are queued and arbitrated by memory controllers and tuning at the memory banks and processing elements occurs after the requests have been sent. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Li et al, U.S. Publication No. 2020/0097428 generally teaches a system comprising a plurality of memory sub-systems accessed photonically by processing elements (see Li Figure 8A) wherein each memory sub-system can have portions of memories allocated to individual processing elements (see paragraph [0027]) . However, Li does not teach using specific wavelengths to access allocated memories. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY L KRETZER whose telephone number is (571)272-5639. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-7:00 PM Pacific Time. 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, David Payne can be reached at (571)272-3024. 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. /CASEY L KRETZER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635 Application/Control Number: 18/651,534 Page 2 Art Unit: 2635 Application/Control Number: 18/651,534 Page 3 Art Unit: 2635 Application/Control Number: 18/651,534 Page 4 Art Unit: 2635 Application/Control Number: 18/651,534 Page 5 Art Unit: 2635 Application/Control Number: 18/651,534 Page 6 Art Unit: 2635 Application/Control Number: 18/651,534 Page 7 Art Unit: 2635 Application/Control Number: 18/651,534 Page 8 Art Unit: 2635 Application/Control Number: 18/651,534 Page 9 Art Unit: 2635 Application/Control Number: 18/651,534 Page 10 Art Unit: 2635 Application/Control Number: 18/651,534 Page 11 Art Unit: 2635 Application/Control Number: 18/651,534 Page 12 Art Unit: 2635 Application/Control Number: 18/651,534 Page 13 Art Unit: 2635
Prosecution Insights