DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I (claims 1-18) in the reply filed on 06/29/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant’s amendment dated 06/29/2026 has also received and received. By the amendment, claims 1-18 and newly added claims 21-22 are now pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/14/2024 was filed and considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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, the “[a] first diffractive optical element”, “diffraction angles” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: reference number/symbol 100, DOE1. 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. 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 § 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.
Claims 1-18 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al., US 2025/0111218 A1, in view of Wang et al., US 2022/0261030 A1.
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 21, Chen et al. disclose an optical photonic integrated circuit PIC (figs 1A-1D, 2D) comprising:
. a leader laser 116/230
. a first diffractive optical element DOE 114
. a plurality of first vertical-cavity surface-emitting lasers VCSELs 112
. a plurality of second VCSELs 116
. a plurality of second/third DOEs 114 (other to each other of DOE)(fig. 1C, 2C-2D)
. a plurality of detectors 120.
Chen et al., however, do not disclose first, second 4f system and their arrangement of DOEs and VCSELs in the 4f system. Wang et al. do disclose a 4f system 400 with a first 4f system (left side), a second 4f system and a pupil plane (Fourier Plane, wherein an image plane of the first 4f system is also an object plane of the second 4f system)(fig. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the Chen et al. PIC building on a 4f system platforms, wherein the Chen et al. first/second/third DOEs, first/second VCSELs are arranged at a pupil plane, as shown by Wang et al., for computing matrix-vector multiplication operation purposes (see Abstract, [0050]).
Re claims 2, 11 and 22, wherein diffraction angles of the plurality of second DOEs (DOEs at two sides) are smaller than diffraction angles of the third DOEs (DOEs at a middle plane)(Chenet al., fig 1C).
Re claims 3 and 12, although the modification to Chen et al. do not disclose periods of gratings on the plurality of second diffractive optical elements are larger than periods of gratings on the third diffractive optical element, one of ordinary skill in the optical art would be able to merely select periods of gratings on the plurality of second diffractive optical elements are larger than periods of gratings on the third diffractive optical element to obtain different fan-out angles over the Chen et al. PIC. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ periods of gratings on the plurality of second diffractive optical elements are larger than periods of gratings on the third diffractive optical element, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim involves discovering optical design parameters, and only routine skill in the art of desired diffraction geometry.
Re claims 4 and 13, wherein diffraction angles of the first diffractive optical element are substantially identical to diffraction angles of the plurality of second diffractive optical elements (Chen et al., fig. 1C).
Re claims 5-6 and 14-15, wherein a number of diffraction orders of each of the plurality of second diffractive optical elements is equal to or greater than N which is a number of columns of a matrix of weighting factors; a number of diffraction orders of the third diffractive optical element is equal to or greater than M which is a number of sets of input activations, and a number of diffraction orders of the first diffractive optical element is equal to or larger greater than M+N (Chen et al., e.., matrix of optical fan-out and sum of it as shown in fig 2C).
Re claims 7 and 16, wherein the first VCSELs (e.g., two sides) surround the second VCSELs (e.g., central VCSELs)(Chen et al., fig 1C).
Re claims 8 and 17, the modification to Chen et al. do not disclose spacing among the first VCSELs is larger than spacing among the second VCSELs. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the Chen et al spacing between a first VCSELs being larger than that of a second VCSELs, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Re claims 9 and 18, wherein the second VCSELs are arranged in a matrix (Chen et al., fig 2c).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2297. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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.
/DUNG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights