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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 12-18-23, 25 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andregg US 20180107237 in view of Ivanov US 7057580
Regarding claim 1, Andregg teaches an optical multiplication system, comprising: a spatially coherent light source [0004]; a first modulator (figs 3-4 input spatial light modulator 100) comprising rows and columns of first modulator elements , wherein the first modulator is configured to encode values of a first matrix in the rows and columns of the first modulator elements (see fig. 2 1st matrix values), the first matrix defining a plurality of input vectors each corresponding to a respective row of the first matrix, and the deflector is configured to direct light from a source to illuminate a selected row or selected rows of the first modulator [0010]-[0011]; a second modulator (second spatial light modulator 50) comprising rows and columns of second modulator elements and configured to spatially modulate light received from the first modulator, wherein the second modulator is configured to encode values of a second matrix in the rows and columns of the second modulator elements (fig 2 2nd matrix values); and a light-summing optical arrangement configured to converge light output from each row of second modulator elements to encode a plurality of output vectors (fig 2 add amplitudes) representing the results of vector-matrix multiplication between a respective plurality of the input vectors and the second matrix [0011].
Andregg does not teach a deflector and the first modulator configured to spatially modulate light received from the deflector. However Ivanov teaches an acoustic-optical deflection system (see fig. 5 deflecting system 20 and see column 5 line 53-55) for generation spatially coherent light. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Andregg in view of Ivanov to provide a spatially coherent light source.
Regarding claim 2, Ivanov teaches the deflector comprises an acoustic optical deflector (column 5 lines 53-55).
Regarding claim 3, the Andregg in view of Ivanov teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the deflector is configured to illuminate individual rows of the first matrix in sequence, with different rows being illuminated at different respective times as this does not imply any additional structure not taught by Andregg and Ivanov. See MPEP 2114: [A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). 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 the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.)
Regarding claim 4, Andregg in view of Ivanov teach the system of claim 3, wherein the output vectors encode the results of the vector-matrix multiplication of the input vectors and the second matrix in a sequence corresponding to the sequence of illumination of the rows of the first matrix as this does not imply any additional structure not taught by Andregg and Ivanov (see MPEP 2144 above).
Regarding claim 5, Andregg teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the deflector is configured to simultaneously illuminate a plurality of the rows of the first matrix, the rows respectively encoding a corresponding plurality of the input vectors [0008].
Regarding claim 6, Andregg teaches the system of claim 5, configured to simultaneously encode a plurality of the output vectors corresponding to the plurality of input vectors [0008].
Regarding claim 7, Andregg teaches the system of claim 6, comprising a detector arrangement (fig. 4 detector 180) configured to individually read out each simultaneously encoded output vector.
Regarding claim 8, Andregg teaches the system of claim 7, wherein the detector arrangement is configured to distinguish between different simultaneously encoded output vectors on the basis of one or more of the following light properties: frequency; wave vector [0008] and [0024].
Regarding claim 12, Andregg in view of Ivanov teaches the system of claim 1, Andregg also teaches comprising a light-expanding optical arrangement between the first modulator and the second modulator, the light-expanding optical arrangement (Lens 30 and 40) being configured to spread light from each first modulator element of an illuminated row of the first modulator elements onto a respective column of the second modulator elements .
Regarding claim 13, Andregg in view of Ivanov teaches the system of claim 1, Andregg also teaches wherein the light-summing arrangement comprises a cylindrical lens (cylindrical lens 70).
Regarding claim 14-17, Andregg in view of Ivanov teaches the system of claim 1, Andregg and Ivanov does not specifically teach further comprising a beam-shaping optical arrangement between the deflector and the first modulator, the beam-shaping optical arrangement being configured to shape a beam from the deflector to illuminate individual rows of the first modulator elements. However Ivanov does teach the concept of illuminating constituent blocks and the deflection system corresponding to it (see fig. 5). Any beam shaping elements to select a desired block would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and examiner takes official notice of this. Regarding claims 15-17 the use of a cylindrical lens to converge the beam in a direction perpendicular to the row of first modulator elements to be illuminated or a beam expander featuring a pair or prisms to expand the beam in a direction parallel to the row of first modulator elements to be illuminated would all fall under this as beam shaping as desired would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to shape the beam as necessary including using condensing lenses and expansion as necessary to provide a desired output beam shape.
Regarding claim 18, Andregg in view of Ivanov teaches the system of claim 1, Andregg further teaches wherein the light-summing optical arrangement is configured to perform a Fourier transform and the system comprises a slit to select a zeroth order spatial frequency of the light to provide the output vectors [0023]-[0024].
Regarding claim 19, Andregg in view of Ivanov teaches the system of claim 1, Andregg further teaches wherein the first modulator elements and/or the second modulator elements are programmable [0035].
Regarding claim 20, Andregg in view of Ivanov teaches the system of claim 19, Andregg further teaches wherein either or both of the first modulator and the second modulator comprise one or more of the following: a digital micromirror device, DMD; a liquid crystal spatial light modulator, LC-SLM [0041].
Regarding claim 21, Andregg in view of Ivanov teaches the system of claim 1, Andregg further teaches comprising a detector arrangement configured to detect the output vectors [0043].
Regarding claim 22, Andregg in view of Ivanov teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the source comprises a coherent source [0004] and the detector arrangement is configured to detect electric field amplitudes of light representing the output vectors using interference [0043].
Regarding claim 23, Andregg in view of Ivanov teach the system of claim 22, Andregg teaches further comprising an optical bypass arrangement to allow a reference beam to bypass each of the modulators without being modulated [0043].
Regarding claim 25, Andregg in view of Ivanov teach the system of claim 1, the limitaitno f wherein the system is configured to periodically switch the first modulator to encode different pluralities of input vectors in the rows of the first matrix does not imply any structural limitations not taught by Andregg in view of Ivanov also see MPEP 2114 above.
Regarding claim 30, Andregg teaches a method of performing optical multiplication, comprising:; using the first modulator to spatially modulate light received (fig 2 1st matrix values), wherein the first modulator encodes values of a first matrix in the rows and columns of the first modulator elements, the first matrix defining a plurality of input vectors each corresponding to a respective row of the first matrix; using a second modulator comprising rows and columns of second modulator elements to spatially modulate light received from the first modulator (2nd matrix values), wherein the second modulator encodes values of a second matrix in the rows and columns of the second modulator elements; and converging light output from each row of second modulator elements to encode a plurality of output vectors representing the results of vector-matrix multiplication between a respective plurality of the input vectors and the second matrix (see fig. 2). Andregg does not teach
using a deflector to direct light from a source to illuminate a selected row or selected rows of first modulator elements of a first modulator however Andregg does teach illuminating selected row or rows using a spatially coherent light source [0004]. However Ivanov teaches an acoustic-optical deflection system (see fig. 5 deflecting system 20 and see column 5 line 53-55) for generation spatially coherent light. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Andregg in view of Ivanov to provide a spatially coherent light source.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27-29 and 31 are allowed.
Claims 9-11 and 24 and 26 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHU VU whose telephone number is (571)272-1562. The examiner can normally be reached 11:00 - 7:00 M-F.
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.
/PHU VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights