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
Claims 1-22 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (US 20180212682 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a device (Fig. 2, a waveguide device 50 featuring microring resonators 58) for weight adjustment in an optical neural network, comprising:
a first waveguide (56) configured to receive and transmit an input optical signal (OPT_in), wherein the input optical signal is defined by an amplitude and a first wavelength (sequitur, see also ¶8-9);
an optical resonator (60) in optical communication with the first waveguide (Fig. 2), wherein the optical resonator has a first refractive index and is defined by a first resonance frequency (¶10, ¶20), and wherein the amplitude of the input optical signal is modulated by the optical resonator based on the first resonance frequency to obtain a first weighted input optical signal (¶20 and Claim 1, “… iterative feedback tuning of the ring modulation system based on a relative amplitude of an optical intensity of the given wavelength in the ring resonator ...”); and
a second waveguide (70) optically coupled with the optical resonator (Fig. 2), wherein the second waveguide is configured to transmit a backpropagation optical signal that is defined by a second wavelength (¶22, “Each of the ring modulation systems 58 includes a local tuning control system 66. The local tuning control system 66 includes a feedback control system 68 that is configured to receive a detection optical signal OPT.sub.DET that is provided via a tuning waveguide 70 that is optically coupled to the respective ring resonator 58.”), and wherein the backpropagation optical signal is partially coupled into the optical resonator to adjust the first resonance frequency to a second resonance frequency (id.);
wherein an amplitude of a subsequent input optical signal is modulated by the optical resonator based on the second resonance frequency to obtain a second weighted input optical signal (¶22-23, and Fig. 5, high extinction ratio for unwanted states i.e. amplitude modulation).
Regarding claim 2, Chen discloses the device of claim 1, and further discloses further comprising: an Optical-to-Electrical Converter (OEC) in optical communication to the second waveguide, wherein the OEC is configured to receive a remaining amount of the backpropagation optical signal that is not coupled into the optical resonator, and wherein the OEC converts the remaining amount of the backpropagation optical signal into a first electrical signal (¶22-23, and Fig. 2, 68, the feedback control system including photodetectors i.e. OEC).
Regarding claim 3, Chen discloses the device of claim 2, and further discloses further comprising: a volatile memory electrically connected to the OEC and the optical resonator, wherein the volatile memory is configured to receive and store information corresponding to the first electrical signal (¶22-23, and Fig. 2, considered an inherent aspect of the controller 68 and its tuning logic).
Regarding claim 4, Chen discloses the device of claim 3, further comprising: a peripheral circuit electrically connected to the volatile memory, wherein the peripheral circuit is configured to drive an electrical and thermal modulation for the optical resonator based on the stored information corresponding to the first electrical signal to adjust the first refractive index of the optical resonator to a second refractive index (¶22-24, comparing detected and reference voltages and tuning of bias voltage to accomplish the amplitude modulation and thermal tuning of the resonator).
Regarding claim 6, Chen discloses the device of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the optical resonator is a micro-ring resonator (60).
Regarding claim 7, Chen discloses the device of claim 1, and further discloses wherein to adjust the first resonance frequency to the second resonance frequency comprises: the first refractive index being adjusted to a second refractive index when the backpropagation optical signal is partially coupled into the optical resonator; and in response to the first refractive index being adjusted to the second refractive index, the first resonance frequency is adjusted to the second resonance frequency (¶21).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Dong (US 20240019756 A1, effectively filed 4/7/2021).
Regarding claim 5, Chen discloses the device of claim 4, and explicitly shows feedback based control of microring resonator parameters using various sensors as discussed above (vis-à-vis peripheral circuits) including carrier injection modulation (¶21), but does not explicitly show wherein the peripheral circuit drives the electrical and thermal modulation for the optical resonator based on the stored information corresponding to the first electrical signal to adjust the first refractive index to the second refractive index is based on a Plasma Dispersion Effect defined by an equation.
Dong drawn to microring resonator tuning explicitly shows a phase shifting device for resonators such as micro-ring resonators (Fig. 14) that alters the refractive index based on plasma dispersion effect (¶3).
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 phase shifting device of Dong to implement further control of the resonator of Chen for the purpose of higher modulation efficiency (Dong, ¶47). The modified Chen thus functioning according to the claimed effect, operation according to the claimed equation is satisfied with high probability.
Regarding claim 8, Chen discloses the device of claim 1, but does not explicitly show wherein the optical resonator is a Mach-Zehnder Interferometer (MZI), wherein the MZI comprises a phase shifter and wherein to adjust the first resonance frequency to the second resonance frequency comprises: the first refractive index of the phase shifter being adjusted to a second refractive index when the backpropagation optical signal is partially coupled into the first phase shifter; and in response to the first refractive index of the first phase shifter being adjusted to the second refractive index, the first resonance frequency is adjusted to the second resonance frequency.
Dong drawn to optical modulator tuning explicitly shows Mach-Zehnder interferometers (Fig. 13) that includes phase shifters (1100-A, 1100-B) that operate by refractive index adjustment (¶3).
An equivalent modulation device being known from Dong, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the backpropagation based modulation system of Chen using equivalent phase shifting modulators and thus obtained a predictable modulation result.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Fischer (US 20030123780 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Chen discloses the device of claim 7, but does not explicitly show wherein the backpropagation optical signal adjusts the first refractive index to the second refractive index based on an Optical Kerr effect.
Fischer details microring resonator properties and explicitly shows that the refractive index of the resonator is modulated by the Optical Kerr effect (Abstract, ¶10, ¶12, ¶30, and ¶51-59 for a detailed discussion of the Kerr mediated resonance shifting).
In view of the disclosed microring resonator properties of Fischer that thus apply to microring resonators of Chen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Chen’s device operates having the same properties and thus the backpropagation optical signal discussed supra adjusts the first refractive index to the second refractive index based on an Optical Kerr effect.
Claim 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sian (WO 2020254781 A1).
Regarding claim 10 and 11, Chen discloses the device of any one of claims 1, and fairly suggests wherein the first and the second weighted input optical signals are defined by a first and second weight value, respectively (sequitur, lest Chen be inoperable for its intended purpose of modulating the input based on backpropagated signal).
Reinforcing the purpose of Chen, Sian explicitly shows the first and the second weighted input optical signals are defined by a first and second weight value, respectively, and represent weights in a neural network (“Implementing the associative learning element on an optical platform offers the advantage of broad bandwidth, and power-efficient data transmission using CMOS- compatible fabrication process. Further, photonic networks are inherently scalable and therefore well-suited to implementing an on-chip artificial neural network based on interlinked associative learning elements according to the first aspect.” and p. 21, ll. 20-35 for details of the weighting of signals by the artificial neuron).
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 device of Chen as an artificial neuron according to the teachings of Sian for the purpose of carrying out sophisticated data analytics.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Sian.
Regarding claim 12, Chen teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, by a first waveguide (56), an input optical signal (OPT_in), wherein the input optical signal has an amplitude and is defined by a first wavelength (sequitur, see also ¶8-9);
transmitting the input optical signal from the first waveguide (56) to an optical resonator (60) in optical communication with the first waveguide (Fig. 2), wherein the optical resonator has a first refractive index and is defined by a first resonance frequency (¶10, ¶20);
modulating, by the optical resonator, the amplitude of the input optical signal based on the first resonance frequency to obtain a first weighted input optical signal (¶20 and Claim 1, “… iterative feedback tuning of the ring modulation system based on a relative amplitude of an optical intensity of the given wavelength in the ring resonator ...”);
transmitting, by a second waveguide (70) that is optically coupled with the optical resonator (Fig. 2), a backpropagation optical signal that is defined by a second wavelength (¶22, “Each of the ring modulation systems 58 includes a local tuning control system 66. The local tuning control system 66 includes a feedback control system 68 that is configured to receive a detection optical signal OPT.sub.DET that is provided via a tuning waveguide 70 that is optically coupled to the respective ring resonator 58.”);
coupling a partial amount of the backpropagation optical signal into the optical resonator, wherein the backpropagation optical signal is partially coupled into the optical resonator to adjust the first resonance frequency to a second resonance frequency (id.); and
modulating, by the optical resonator, an amplitude of a subsequent input optical signal based on the second resonance frequency to obtain a second weighted input optical signal (¶22-23, and Fig. 5, high extinction ratio for unwanted states i.e. amplitude modulation).
Chen does not explicitly show carrying out the disclosed method for the purpose of weighting signals in a neural network.
Sian drawn to optical neural networks using microring resonators explicitly shows the first and the second weighted input optical signals are defined by a first and second weight value, respectively, and represent weights in a neural network (“Implementing the associative learning element on an optical platform offers the advantage of broad bandwidth, and power-efficient data transmission using CMOS- compatible fabrication process. Further, photonic networks are inherently scalable and therefore well-suited to implementing an on-chip artificial neural network based on interlinked associative learning elements according to the first aspect.” and p. 21, ll. 20-35 for details of the weighting of signals by the artificial neuron).
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 device of Chen as an artificial neuron according to the teachings of Sian for the purpose of carrying out sophisticated data analytics.
Regarding claims 13-22, the dependent claims recite essentially the same subject matter as those rejected above and are rejected on essentially the same basis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and generally discloses basic details of microring resonators.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and generally discloses backpropagation in optical neural networks.
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, Thomas Pham can be reached on 5712723689. 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