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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zipp (PGPUB 20220300796).
Regarding claim 1, Zipp discloses an optical computing topology structure (Abst), comprising:
a first physical medium configured to mix an input optical field to implement a first fully-connected topology of the input optical field to obtain a to-be-modulated optical field (Fig. 1 where 22, the light, mixes with the optical system as described in [0022]);
a spatial light modulator connected to the first physical medium and configured to modulate an optical field parameter of the to-be-modulated optical field to obtain a to-be-output optical field ([0022] and [0033] where an applied voltage corresponds to a selected phase/amplitude); and
a second physical medium connected to the spatial light modulator and configured to mix the to-be-output optical field to implement a second fully-connected topology of the to-be-output optical field to obtain an output optical field ([0023] where14B-D each connect to the spatial light modulator and mix the optical output from 14A).
Regarding claim 2, Zipp discloses wherein the first physical medium is a first scattering medium ([0036]), a first diffractive optical element (18A), or a first multi-mode optical fiber, and
wherein the second physical medium is a second scattering medium, a second diffractive optical element, or a second multi-mode optical fiber ([0036] and 18A of 14B-D).
Regarding claim 4, Zipp discloses wherein the spatial light modulator is a liquid crystal spatial light modulator, a digital micromirror device, or a programmable diffractive surface ([0028] and [0033] where the modulating element may be liquid crystal).
Regarding claim 5, Zipp discloses a system comprising:
a light source device configured to output a light source (22);
a first spatial light modulator connected to the light source device and configured to load an input signal on the light source to convert the input signal from an electrical signal into an optical signal (16A-H);
an optical computing topology structure connected to the first spatial light modulator and configured to perform parameter modulation on the optical signal to output a target optical field ([0033]),
wherein the optical computing topology structure comprises:
a first physical medium configured to mix an input optical field, to implement a fully connected topology of the input optical field to obtain a to-be-modulated optical field (Fig. 1 where 22, the light, mixes with the optical system as described in [0022]);
a second spatial light modulator configured to modulate an optical field parameter of the to-be-modulated optical field to obtain a to-be-output optical field (14B-D process the output of previous modulators); and
a second physical medium configured to mix the to-be-output optical field, to implement a fully connected topology of the to-be-output optical field to obtain the target optical field (14B-D);
a detector connected to the optical computing topology structure and configured to detect the target optical field to generate a picture (26); and
a computing device connected to the detector, the spatial light modulator, and the optical computing topology structure and configured to:
control a first modulation mode of the first spatial light modulator and a second modulation mode of the second spatial light modulator; and process the picture ([0035] where voltage control layer 40 is controlled and [0054]).
Regarding claim 6, Zipp discloses wherein the system further comprises a focus device, located between the optical computing topology structure and the detector and configured to: focus on the target optical field to obtain a focused target optical field; and output the focused target optical field to the detector ([0036] 18A-D may be configured to focus the light).
Regarding claim 7, Zipp discloses wherein the focus device is a lens or a lens group ([0036], lens).
Regarding claim 9, Zipp discloses wherein the spatial light modulator is a liquid crystal spatial light modulator, a digital micromirror device, or a programmable diffractive surface ([0028] and [0033] where the modulating element may be liquid crystal).
Regarding claim 10, Zipp discloses wherein the detector is a planar array complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor camera or a planar array charge-coupled device camera (26 and Fig. 10 shows the photodetectors are placed in a planar array and [0022] describes its function as a camera).
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.
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.
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zipp in view of Gigan et al. (CN107533340).
Regarding claim 3, Zipp does not disclose wherein the first scattering medium or the second scattering medium is a glass substrate coated with zinc oxide or titanium oxide.
However, Gigan teaches a mixing device for digital data using scattered light (15) wherein the scattering medium comprises a glass substrate coated with zinc oxide ([0091]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine Zipp and Gigan such that the first scattering medium included a zinc oxide on the glass substrate motivated by enhancing light efficiency.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS S FISSEL whose telephone number is (313)446-6573. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephone Allen can be reached on (571) 272-2434. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TRAVIS S FISSEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights