DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: The two period at the end of the claim should be one period. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a circuit comprising, among other things, a second-order mode coupler network as claimed. The closest relevant prior art of record, Kaliteevskiy et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2023/0236846 A1), fails to teach or suggest a second-order mode coupler network as claimed. Thus, with no teaching from the prior art, and without the benefit of applicant's teachings, there is no motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine/modify the prior art of record in a manner so as to create the claimed invention.
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 – 9 and 11 – 15are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kaliteevskiy et al. (U.S. PG Pub. # 2023/0236846 A1).
In Re claim 1, ‘846 teaches a circuit (figs. 1, 5A, 5B) comprising: a number (N) of input paths (150) and at least three output paths (right 150 or 152), wherein the at least three output paths include a first output path (top 150 or 152) and a raster group of alternate output paths (other 150 or 152), wherein the raster group of alternate output paths has a number (R) of output paths, wherein R is at least 2; an optical switching network (110) comprising a plurality of active optical switches configured to receive a photon on an active one of the input paths and produce a photon in a superposition state on two or more of the output paths (par. 0086), wherein the active input path and the two or more output paths are selectable (via 102); and control logic (105) coupled to the optical switching network and configured to: receive an input signal (via 102) indicative of when a photon is present on each input path; select the first output path as a first active output path (par. 0059); select one of the alternate output paths from the raster group as a second active output path, wherein the alternate output paths are selected according to a fixed order (par. 0059); and generate control signals (via 105) to set a state of the active optical switches such that a photon from one of the input paths is coupled to a superposition state in the first active output path and the second active output path (par. 0086).
Furthermore, an apparatus claim must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); See MPEP 2114 [R-1]). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); See MPEP 2114 [R-1]).
In Re claim 2, the patentability of an apparatus depends only on the claimed structural limitations. ‘846 teaches a structure that is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention, therefore the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The burden is on the applicant to show that the ‘846 device does not possess these functional characteristics. See MPEP 2112.01.
In Re claim 3, ’846 teaches wherein the number N is greater than 1 (at least 5 shown in fig. 1, 5A, 5B) and the control logic is further configured to: select one of the input paths as an active input path based on the input signal; and generate the control signals such that a photon from the selected active input path and a vacuum mode from one other active input path are coupled to the first active output path and the second active output path (par. 0059).
The patentability of an apparatus depends only on the claimed structural limitations. ‘846 teaches a structure that is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention, therefore the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The burden is on the applicant to show that the ‘846 device does not possess these functional characteristics. See MPEP 2112.01.
In Re claim 4, ‘846 teaches any 2 of 150 or 152 as being R in figs. 1, 5A or 5B.
In Re claim 5, ‘846 teaches wherein the optical switching network is a generalized Mach-Zehnder interferometer (GMZI) and the active optical switches include active phase shifters (fig. 2, par. 0059).
In Re claim 6, ‘846 teaches wherein each input path and each output path comprises a waveguide (figs. 1 and 2).
In Re claim 7, ‘846 teaches wherein each input path is coupled to an output of a different one of a set of N heralded single photon sources and wherein the input signal includes heralding signals from the heralded single photon sources (figs. 1 and 2, par. 0081).
In Re claims 8, 12, ‘846 teaches a circuit comprising: two optical switching networks (upper and lower parts of 110 and the 10 inputs of each upper and lower parts to 150 on either side of 110), each optical switching network having a number (N) of input paths and at least three output paths (each of upper and lower have at least 10 inputs and outputs as seen in fig. 2), wherein the at least three output paths include a first output path and a raster group of alternate output paths, wherein the raster group of alternate output paths for each optical switching network has a number (R) of output paths, wherein R is at least 2 (let it be 2 to 4 and the other the first output path), wherein each optical switching network comprises a plurality of active optical switches (122) configured to receive a photon on an active one of the input paths and produce a photon in a superposition state on two or more of the output paths (par. 0086), wherein the active input path and the two or more output paths are selectable (par. 0059); and control logic (105) coupled to the two optical switching networks and configured to: receive an input signal (via 102) indicative of when a photon is present on each input path of each optical switching network; select, as a pair of first active output paths, the first output path of each optical switching network; select, as a pair of second active output paths, one of the alternate output paths from the raster group of alternate output paths of each optical switching network (par. 0059), wherein the alternate output paths are selected according to a fixed order (par. 0059); and generate control signals (via 105) to set a state of the active optical switches in each of the two optical switching networks such that, in each of the two optical switching networks, a photon from one of the input paths is coupled to a superposition state in the first active output path and the second output path (par. 0086);
wherein each alternate output path in the raster group of alternate output paths of each optical switching network is selected as the second active output path once during a raster period consisting of R consecutive time bins.
Furthermore, an apparatus claim must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); See MPEP 2114 [R-1]). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); See MPEP 2114 [R-1]).
In Re claim 9, ‘846 teaches any 2 of 150 or 152 as being R in figs. 1, 5A or 5B.
In Re claim 11, ‘846 teaches at least 10 input paths and furthermore, the computational tasks are reconfigurable algorithms (par. 0086). Thus, an apparatus claim must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); See MPEP 2114 [R-1]). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); See MPEP 2114 [R-1]).
In Re claims 13 and 14, ‘846 teaches MZI (122) and phase shifters (142) and waveguides (par. 0057).
In Re claim 15, ‘846 teaches wherein each input path is coupled to an output of a different one of a set of N heralded single photon sources and wherein the input signal includes heralding signals from the heralded single photon sources (figs. 1 and 2, par. 0081).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1294. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5.
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 1-571-272-2397. 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.
/CHAD H SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights