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 .
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 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.
Disposition of the Claims
Response to Amendment
Claims
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.
Claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-9, 13, 14, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carolan (US 11790221 B2) in view of Cable (US 20250068026 A1, effectively filed 5/12/2022).
Regarding claim 1 and 19, Carolan teaches a quantum photonic processor (Fig. 2A, “shows a quantum optical neural network (QONN) architecture. Inputs are single photon Fock states. The single-photon nonlinearities are given a Kerr-type interaction applying a phase quadratic in the number of photons”, and Fig. 2C, detailing the source, which includes four wave mixing and micro-ring resonators) comprising:
a plurality of optical circuits, including a first optical circuit and a second optical circuit (the descending rows of Fig. 2A, from left to right the sources 210 followed by linear circuits 222a, 222b, 222c, and detectors 230), wherein the first optical circuit and the second optical circuit each includes:
a first microring resonator (245) that utilizes spontaneous optical wave mixing processes to generate squeezed single photon number states having a quantum uncertainty smaller than that of a coherent state for qubits and to generate single photon Fock states (see description of Fig. 2A, “Inputs are single photon Fock states.”, and Carolan’s explicit variation of Fig. 2A, “Continuous variable implementations of QONNs are also possible. In a QONN that operates on continuous variables instead of discrete variables, the sources produce squeezed states of light … One way to produce a squeezed state is with a nonlinear optical material and a cavity, such as a micro-ring resonator”);
a waveguide point coupled to the first microring resonator (Fig. 2C shows the waveguides allowing propagation from left to right along which the micro-ring resonators and phase shifter are disposed);
a set of one or more phase shifters (within the sources 249, and downstream in the processor the linear circuits i.e. optical switching matrices of Fig. 2E) each comprising (i) a set of one or more tunable beamsplitters formed in part of waveguide (“FIG. 2E shows the QONN's linear circuit (optical switching matrix) 222 in greater detail. It includes a set of reprogrammable, interconnected beam splitters—shown in here as Mach-Zehnder interferometers 282—fabricated in a substrate 281.”) and (ii) a set of one or more actuatable elements coupled to a portion the waveguide (“The splitting ratios of the Mach-Zehnder interferometers 282 can be adjusted electrically (e.g., by applying appropriate bias voltages) to provide the desired coupling weights between the inputs and outputs of the linear circuit 222. Phase shifters 281 at the outputs (or, equivalently, the inputs) of the linear circuit 222 trim the phases of the photons exiting the linear circuit 222 to account for undesired optical path length mismatch due to, e.g., fabrication imperfections.”); and
a controller circuit coupled to the set of one or more of actuatable elements of the first optical circuit and a second optical circuit, wherein adjustment by the one or more actuatable elements by the controller circuit cause a phase shift in the respective first optical circuit and a second optical circuit to correspond to a matrix operation to be performed by the plurality of optical circuits (“The splitting ratios of the Mach-Zehnder interferometers 282 can be adjusted electrically (e.g., by applying appropriate bias voltages) to provide the desired coupling weights between the inputs and outputs of the linear circuit 222. Phase shifters 281 at the outputs (or, equivalently, the inputs) of the linear circuit 222 trim the phases of the photons exiting the linear circuit 222 to account for undesired optical path length mismatch due to, e.g., fabrication imperfections.”; since Carolan has disclosed electrical adjustment vis-à-vis control of the actuatable elements, a controller circuit is considered disclosed).
Carolan does not explicitly show that the actuatable elements are digitally actuatable.
Cable drawn to photonic switches for implementing matrix operations using Mach Zehnder interferometers discloses a controller circuit that digitally controls the actuatable elements (¶88, “In some embodiments, the electrical controller 835 is implemented by electronic integrated circuits comprising logic to implement controls. The integrated circuits may include analog circuits and digital circuits such as high-speed phase shifter drivers, biasing network circuits, monitoring and control circuits … In some embodiments, the precise control is implemented via programmable DACS [digital analog converters] that control voltage levels for the slow and fast phase shifters, as well as feedback control for thermal regulation.”)
Carolan and Cable being closely analogous, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the specific digital control implementation of Cable to carry out the electrical adjustments of Carolan and thus predictably implemented digital actuation of Carolans’ splitting and phase shifting elements.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Carolan teaches the photonic processor of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the plurality of optical circuits are arranged in an array of recurrent first optical circuit and second optical circuit, wherein the array corresponds to a matrix vector multiplication operation (see Carolan, Figs. 2A, 2C, 2E; cf. Applicant’s Fig. 1, which is described as recurrent).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Carolan teaches the photonic processor of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first microring resonator of the first optical circuit and a second optical circuit are configured to exhibit spontaneous four-wave mixing (SFWM) (see Carolan, “Suitable probabilistic spontaneous sources may use four-wave (4WM) mixing … “ and Cable, ¶37, “In some embodiments, the photon source module 105 includes a plurality of probabilistic photon sources that are spatially and/or temporally multiplexed (e.g., multiplexed single photon sources). In one example of such a source, the source is driven by a pump, e.g., a light pulse, which is coupled into an optical resonator that, through some nonlinear process (e.g., spontaneous four wave mixing or second harmonic generation) generates zero, one, or more photons.”).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Carolan teaches the photonic processor of claim 1, and further discloses wherein each microring resonator of the first optical circuit and a second optical circuit is tunable, the each microring resonator includes at least one digitally actuatable heater, wherein thermal adjustment by the one or more digitally actuatable heaters of the each microring resonator tune the wavelength resonance of the each microring resonator (see Cable, ¶87, “If the local temperature needs to be adjusted, the control circuits of the electrical controller 835 comprise logic or instructions to send signals to the heaters in the thermal controller 830 to cause the heaters to heat up the GMZI locally.”, and ¶90, “the thermal controller 830 comprises a plurality of temperature sensors that detect temperature In an optical resonator implementation, the resonant wavelength is a function of the temperature due to the thermo-optical effect of the materials. In these embodiments, the heater element is formed from materials having resistance, such as doped Si, metals (e.g. Al, Cu, W, TiN, etc.), doped dielectrics.”)
Regarding claim 5, the modified Carolan teaches the photonic processor of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the controller circuit receives inputs from a data bus to program the one or more digitally actuatable elements (see e.g. Cable, ¶87, “the control circuits of the electrical controller 835 comprise logic or instructions to send signals to the heaters in the thermal controller 830 to cause the heaters to heat up the GMZI locally.”).
Regarding claim 6-8, the modified Carolan teaches the photonic processor of claim 1, but Carolan does not explicitly show wherein each microring resonator of the first optical circuit and a second optical circuit is tunable, the each microring resonator includes at least one digitally actuatable phase shifter, wherein adjustment by the one or more digitally actuatable phase shifter element of the each microring resonator tune the wavelength resonance of the each microring resonator.
Cable explicitly shows wherein each microring resonator of the first optical circuit and a second optical circuit is tunable, the each microring resonator includes at least one digitally actuatable phase shifter (e.g. electro-optical phase shifters constructed with silicon waveguides per ¶49-51, ¶80-81, i.e. silicon electro-optical modulator), wherein adjustment by the one or more digitally actuatable phase shifter element of the each microring resonator tune the wavelength resonance of the each microring resonator (¶220-223, the phase shifter electrode disposed in the resonator; as discussed above, the phase shifters are digitally controlled by 835).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided digital control of the micro-ring resonators of Carolan according to the teachings of Cable for the purpose of adjusting the optical performance of the resonator and thus varying the input photon states.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Carolan teaches the photonic processor of claim 1, and further discloses wherein each microring resonator of the first optical circuit and second optical circuit is coupled to an optical source, and wherein the optical source is coupled to the controller circuit configured to amplitude modulate or frequency modulate the optical source (see Carolan, Fig. 2C, “FIG. 2C shows a probabilistic single-photon source 240 suitable for use in the QONN 200 of FIG. 2A. This source 240 emits a pair of photons at the same frequency. This pair of photons can be ‘split’ via the inverse Hong-Ou-Mandel effect using a Mach-Zehnder interferometer. The source 240 is integrated in a substrate 241 includes an input mixing stage 242 with a beam splitter 243 that receives and mixes pump photons at frequencies of ω.sub.1 and ω.sub.2. The mixed pump photons propagate to a photon generation stage, where the pump photons are evanescently coupled to a pair of micro-ring resonators 245 with nonlinear material (e.g., χ.sup.(2) or χ.sup.(3) material), which emits pairs of degenerate signal photons at a frequency ω.sub.s.”).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Carolan teaches the photonic processor of claim 1, but does not explicitly show wherein the first microring resonator of the first optical circuit and second optical circuit is a silicon nitride microring resonator.
Cable explicitly shows SiN as a suitable waveguide material (¶50).
It has been held that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose, such as SiN as identified by Cable for implementation of Carolan’s waveguides, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 14, the modified Carolan teaches the photonic processor of claim 1, and further discloses wherein each first microring resonator of the first optical circuit and second optical circuit includes spectrally selective photonic component (see Carolan, Fig. 2C, “Micro-ring resonator filters 247 in a pump suppression stage 246 transmit the pairs of signal photons without transmitting the pump photons.” and Cable, ¶90, “In an optical resonator implementation, the resonant wavelength is a function of the temperature due to the thermo-optical effect of the materials.” Vis-à-vis the resonators are spectrally selective).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Carolan teaches the photonic processor of claim 1, and further discloses wherein each set of one or more tunable beamsplitters of the first optical circuit and second optical circuit is a Mach-Zehnder interferometer (MZI) comprising a plurality of phase shifters (as discussed above with respect to Carolan, see also Cable, Abstract).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Carolan teaches the photonic processor of claim 1, and further discloses further comprising: a second plurality of optical circuits having the first optical circuit and the second optical circuit, wherein the second plurality of optical circuits is configured to perform a second matrix- vector operator (see Carolan, Fig. 2A, several stages of linear circuits 222a-c for matrix operations).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Carolan teaches the photonic processor of claim 1, but does not explicitly show wherein the quantum photonic processor is configured as a co-processor for a microprocessor, a quantum processor, or an optical processor.
Official Notice is taken that it is exceptionally well known to further process the results of a computation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further processed the results of the quantum photonic processor and thus obtain further information, as needed by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Carolan as applied to claim 1 above, evidenced by Wan (US 11054590 B1).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Carolan teaches the photonic processor of claim 1, and explicitly shows that SOI is conventional (“The QONN 200 in FIG. 2A and many of its component are readily implementable in a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) using state-of-the-art integrated photonics techniques. First, single-photon sources 210 can be fabricated and integrated with a PIC substrate using techniques like those disclosed in U.S. application Ser. No. 16/734,727, entitled “Scalable Integration of Hybrid Optoelectronic and Quantum Optical Systems into Photonic Circuits,” which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.”) but does not explicitly show wherein each first microring resonator of the first optical circuit and second optical circuit is formed on an insulator to form a silicon-on-insulator structure.
Cable explicitly shows wherein each first microring resonator of the first optical circuit and second optical circuit is formed on an insulator to form a silicon-on-insulator structure (see Cable, Fig. 2D, ¶49-50, SOI fabrication of optical circuits including forming the waveguides in SOI layer; since the resonators are inherently constructed with waveguides, SOI fabrication thereof is considered disclosed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized SOI fabrication techniques known to be suitable for waveguide construction, i.e. those of a microring resonator, to construct the waveguides of Carolan and thus obtain a predictably operational waveguide resonator device.
Claims 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Carolan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Youngblood (US 20240370050 A1).
Regarding claim 11 and 17, the modified Carolan teaches the photonic processor of claim 1, but does not explicitly show wherein the detector comprises a balanced homodyne detector.
Youngblood drawn to photonic crossbar arrays for matrix operations explicitly shows the use of microring resonator and balanced homodyne detection (¶1, ¶54, ¶69).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized prior art microring resonators or balanced homodyne detection for readout of the phase corrected microring resonator based device of the modified Carolan for the purpose of efficient and compact modulation while eliminating phase errors.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 and 15 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.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Carolan teaches the photonic processor of claim 1, and further discloses further comprising: a mesh of photonic interferometers (the linear circuits 222a-c in Fig. 2A and 2E) each comprising of (i) a set of tunable phase shifters (281) and (ii) integrated optical 50:50 beamsplitters formed by waveguides that are capable of selecting any unitary matrix of dimension 2 (the MZIs).
The modified Carolan does not explicitly show a truncated mesh of photonic MZIs that are in between two layers of MZIs that are linked back to themselves that enable optical recursion to build MZIs in series for performing matrix- vector multiplication and for factorizing unitary matricies; and a balanced set of single photon detectors for optical readout of the single photon states to provide a reduction and removal of classical noise during single photon detector.
Regarding claim 15, the modified Carolan teaches the photonic processor of claim 1, but does not explicitly show wherein each first microring resonator of the first optical circuit and second optical circuit is configured as a whispering-gallery-mode resonator.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLLIN X BEATTY whose telephone number is (571)270-1255. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 10am - 6pm.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached on 5712701284. 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.
/COLLIN X BEATTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights