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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 28, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 17, 2028 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amendment overcomes the art of record. Examiner disagrees and the Claims are now rejected over Kuo in view of Pavlov and Schleuning instead of Kuo in view of Schleuning and Pavlov.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-12, 14-22 are rejected as being unpatentable over 35 U.S.C. 103 over Kuo US 20210066885 in view of Pavlov et al US 20180261975 and Schleuning et al. US 20220137230.
Regarding claim 1, Kuo teaches A driver circuit, (Fig. 3) comprising:
a source to provide an electrical input (Fig. 3, VIN);
an array of an optical emitter (Fig. 3, LD) arranged in one or more rows and one or more columns (Fig. 3 shows one row and one column),
wherein the array of optical emitter includes an optical emitter associated with a row of the one or more rows and a column of the one or more columns (Fig. 3 LD is the optical emitter of row 1 column 1);
a first switch having an open state and a closed state; (Fig. 3, M3)
an inductive element connected to the row, (Fig. 3, L1)
wherein the first switch in the closed state is to cause current to charge the inductive element; (Paragraph 0046 “A charging circuit path can include an inductive element, e.g., inductor L1, and the switches M1 and M3. During a charging phase, the control logic circuit 102 can control the switches M1 and M3 to turn ON and allow the inductive element to charge.”) and
a second switch having an open state and a closed state, (Fig. 3,M1)
wherein the second switch in the closed state is to select the column, (Paragraph 0046 “A charging circuit path can include an inductive element, e.g., inductor L1, and the switches M1 and M3. During a charging phase, the control logic circuit 102 can control the switches M1 and M3 to turn ON and allow the inductive element to charge.”) and
wherein the first switch transitioning from the closed state to the open state is to cause the inductive element to discharge current through the row, and through the column when the second switch is in the closed state, to provide an electrical pulse to the optical emitter associated with the row and the column. (Paragraph 0046 “During a firing phase, the control logic circuit 102 can control the switch M3 to turn OFF and allow the inductive element to discharge through the laser diode.”)
Kuo does not teach the array contains multiple optical emitters and a capacitive element connected in series between the inductive element and the row associated with the optical emitter.
However,
Pavlov teaches a capacitive element (Fig. 7, C1) connected in series between the inductive element and the row associated optical emitter. (Fig. 7 shows the capacitive element C1 connected in series between the inductive element L1 and the row associated with the optical emitter D1)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the array as taught by Kuo by adding a capacitive element as disclosed by Pavlov. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to block DC current. (Paragraph 0008 “wherein the DC blocking capacitor is operable for connecting to a laser diode.”)
Kuo in view of Pavlov does not teach the array contains multiple optical emitters
However,
Schleuning teaches an array containing multiple optical emitters (Fig. 5C)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the array as taught by Kuo by adding the multiple rows and columns of light emitting emitters as disclosed by Schleuning. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to produce more light and allow for individual addressable laser array. (Schleuning Paragraph 0152 “This may allow for a greater selectivity of individual VCSELs 512 using the row-anode/column-cathode arrangement illustrated (e.g., this may provide for individual addressability of each VCSEL 512 in the array 500)”)
Regarding claim 3, Kuo teaches the electrical input is equal to or greater than a threshold at which the optical emitter emits light. (Fig. 3 shows LD emitting light, LD is a laser diode)
Regarding claim 4, Kuo in combination with Pavlov and Schleuning teaches the array of optical emitters is arranged in multiple rows, (Claim 1 combination adds multiple rows See Claim 1 for rationale) and the inductive element is one of multiple inductive elements respectively connected to the multiple rows. (The inductive L1 is within each row that has been multiplied in claim 1. Each inductive element is needed to create a sufficient current for LD to fire. See rationale of Claim 1 for rationale of adding additional rows)
Kuo in combination with Pavlov and Schleuning does not teach the first switch is one of multiple first switches respectively connected to the multiple rows,
However,
Schleuning teaches the first switch is one of multiple first switches respectively connected to the multiple rows (Fig. 5C, 516 Paragraph 0151 “row switches 516 associated with rows of VCSELs 531, 532, 533, 534, 535,”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the array as taught by Kuo by adding the multiple first switches connected to the multiple rows as disclosed by Schleuning. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order allow for individual addressable laser array. (Schleuning Paragraph 0152 “This may allow for a greater selectivity of individual VCSELs 512 using the row-anode/column-cathode arrangement illustrated (e.g., this may provide for individual addressability of each VCSEL 512 in the array 500)”)
Regarding claim 5, Kuo in combination with Pavlov and Schleuning teaches the multiple first switches control charging of respective inductive elements of the multiple inductive elements. (Schleuning Paragraphs 0151-154 teaches the multiple first switches control charging. Kuo Paragraph 0046 teaches charging an inductive element from the first switch. see Claim 1 for rationale.)
Regarding claim 6, Kuo in combination with Pavlov and Schleuning teaches the array of optical emitters is arranged in multiple columns (Claim 1 combination adds multiple Columns See Claim 1 for rationale), and
Kuo in combination with Pavlov and Schleuing does not teach the second switch is one of multiple second switches respectively connected to the multiple columns.
However,
Schleuning teaches the second switch is one of multiple second switches respectively connected to the multiple columns (Fig. 5C, 518 Paragraph 0151 “column switches 518 associated with columns of VCSELs 521, 522, 523, 524”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the array as taught by Kuo by adding the multiple columns switches connected to the multiple columns as disclosed by Schleuning. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order allow for individual addressable laser array. (Schleuning Paragraph 0152 “This may allow for a greater selectivity of individual VCSELs 512 using the row-anode/column-cathode arrangement illustrated (e.g., this may provide for individual addressability of each VCSEL 512 in the array 500)”)
Regarding claim 7, Kuo in combination with Pavlov and Schleuning teaches the multiple second switches control selection of respective columns of the multiple columns. (Schleuning Paragraphs 0151-154. See Claim 1 for rationale.)
Regarding claim 8, Kuo teaches the first switch in the closed state is to cause current to charge the inductive element through a circuit path that includes the source, the inductive element, and the first switch. (Paragraph 0046 “A charging circuit path can include an inductive element, e.g., inductor L1, and the switches M1 and M3. During a charging phase, the control logic circuit 102 can control the switches M1 and M3 to turn ON and allow the inductive element to charge.” Current flows from VIN to L1 to M3)
Regarding claim 9, Kuo in combination with Pavlov and Schleuning teaches the first switch transitioning from the closed state to the open state is to cause the inductive element to discharge current through a circuit path that includes the source, the inductive element, the optical emitter, the capacitive element, and the second switch. (Paragraph 0046 “During a firing phase, the control logic circuit 102 can control the switch M3 to turn OFF and allow the inductive element to discharge through the laser diode.” Pavlov puts the capacitive element in series with the inductive element and the optical emitter so the discharge current will flow though it also. See Claim 1 for rationale.)
Regarding claim 10, Kuo teaches in response to the electrical pulse, the optical emitter is to emit an optical pulse having a width in a range from 100 picoseconds to 2 nanoseconds. (Paragraph 0026 “Laser drivers in time of flight (ToF) based LIDAR systems use high powered short pulses from 100 picoseconds (ps) to 100 nanoseconds (ns).”)
Regarding claim 11, Kuo teaches controller for an array of optical emitters, comprising:
an inductive element connected to the row, (Fig. 3, L1)
a first switch having an open state and a closed state (Fig. 3, M3, It is inherent to M3 to have an open state and a closed state as a switch) wherein the first switch is connected to the inductive element (Fig. 3 shows the first switch is connected to the inductive element)
wherein the first switch in the closed state is to cause current to charge the inductive element; (Paragraph 0046 “A charging circuit path can include an inductive element, e.g., inductor L1, and the switches M1 and M3. During a charging phase, the control logic circuit 102 can control the switches M1 and M3 to turn ON and allow the inductive element to charge.”)and
a second switch (Fig. 3, M1) respectively connected to the column, (Fig. 3 shows the second switch connected to the column)
Where in the second switch has an open state and a closed state (This is inherent to a switch M1)
wherein the second switch in the closed state is to select the column, (Paragraph 0046 “A charging circuit path can include an inductive element, e.g., inductor L1, and the switches M1 and M3. During a charging phase, the control logic circuit 102 can control the switches M1 and M3 to turn ON and allow the inductive element to charge.”)
Kuo does not teach the array contains multiple optical emitters, with a plurality of rows, columns, inductive elements, first switches and second switches and a plurality of capacitive elements respectively connected in series between the plurality of inductive elements and the array of optical emitters wherein each capacitive element of the plurality of capacitive elements is connected in series between a respective inductive element of the plurality of inductive elements and a respective row of the plurality of rows.
However,
Pavlov teaches a capacitive element (Fig. 7, C1) connected in series between the inductive element and the optical emitter. (Fig. 7 shows the capacitive element C1 connected in series between the inductive element L1 and the optical emitter D1) wherein the capacitive element is connected in series between the inductive element and the row. (Fig. 7 shows the capacitive element C1 connected in series between the inductive element L1 and the row)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the array as taught by Kuo by adding a capacitive element in series between each inductive element and optical emitter as disclosed by Pavlov. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to block DC current. (Paragraph 0008 “wherein the DC blocking capacitor is operable for connecting to a laser diode.”)
Kuo in view of Pavlov does not teach the array contains multiple optical emitters, with a plurality of rows, columns, inductive elements, first switches and second switches and a plurality of capacitive elements
Schleuning teaches an array containing multiple optical emitters with a plurality of rows and columns (Fig. 5C) and
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the array as taught by Kuo by adding the multiple rows and columns of light emitting emitters with an inductor for each row as disclosed by Schleuning. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to produce more light and allow for individual addressable laser array. (Schleuning Paragraph 0152 “This may allow for a greater selectivity of individual VCSELs 512 using the row-anode/column-cathode arrangement illustrated (e.g., this may provide for individual addressability of each VCSEL 512 in the array 500)”)
Schleuning teaches a plurality of first switches (Fig. 5C, 516 Paragraph 0151 “row switches 516 associated with rows of VCSELs 531, 532, 533, 534, 535,”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the array as taught by Kuo by adding a plurality of first switches connected to the multiple rows as disclosed by Schleuning. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order allow for individual addressable laser array. (Schleuning Paragraph 0152 “This may allow for a greater selectivity of individual VCSELs 512 using the row-anode/column-cathode arrangement illustrated (e.g., this may provide for individual addressability of each VCSEL 512 in the array 500)”)
Schleuning teaches a plurality of second switches (Fig. 5C, 518 Paragraph 0151 “column switches 518 associated with columns of VCSELs 521, 522, 523, 524”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the array as taught by Kuo by adding the multiple columns switches connected to the multiple columns as disclosed by Schleuning. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order allow for individual addressable laser array. (Schleuning Paragraph 0152 “This may allow for a greater selectivity of individual VCSELs 512 using the row-anode/column-cathode arrangement illustrated (e.g., this may provide for individual addressability of each VCSEL 512 in the array 500)”)
Kuo in combination with Pavlov and Schleuning teaches the a plurality of inductive elements. (The inductive L1 is within each row that has been multiplied in claim 1. Each inductive element is needed to create a sufficient current for LD to fire. See rationale of Claim 1 for rationale of adding additional rows)
inductors (The inductive L1 goes to each row because L1 needs to charge in order to create a sufficient current for LD to fire.) and capacitors (Pavlov added the capacitor between the inductor L1 and the row as such it will be multiplied with each row just like the inductor when the device is modified by Schleuing)
Regarding claim 12, Kuo does not teaches the first switch in the closed state is to cause current to charge the inductive element (Paragraph 0046 “A charging circuit path can include an inductive element, e.g., inductor L1, and the switches M1 and M3. During a charging phase, the control logic circuit 102 can control the switches M1 and M3 to turn ON and allow the inductive element to charge.”)
Kuo does not teach a time interval in a range from 2 nanoseconds to 50 nanoseconds to charge the inductive element.
However,
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the time interval of charging the inductive element as taught by Kuo because charging in the time range would optimize the pulse width and pulse timing. (Kuo Paragraph 0049) (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Regarding claim 14, Kuo in combination with Pavlov and Schleuning teaches the plurality of first switches and the plurality of second switches are field effect transistors. (Kuo Paragraph 0031 “In this disclosure, the switches described can be transistors, such as high-power FETs.” See claim 11 for rationale)
Regarding claim 15, Kuo teaches the inductive element is in a high-side configuration with respect to the first switch. (Fig. 3 shows the inductive element is in a high-side configuration with respect to the first switch)
Regarding claim 16, Kuo teaches when the second switch is in the closed state, the first switch transitioning from the closed state to the open state is to cause the inductive element to discharge current through an optical emitter, of the array of optical emitters, associated with the row and the column. (Paragraph 0046 “During a firing phase, the control logic circuit 102 can control the switch M3 to turn OFF and allow the inductive element to discharge through the laser diode.”)
Regarding claim 17, Kuo teaches An optical source, (Fig. 3) comprising:
an array of optical emitters arranged; and a driver circuit, comprising:
one or more inductive elements respectively (Fig. 3, L1) connected to the one or more rows, (Fig. 3 shows that L1 is connected to the first row)
where the one or more inductive elements are configured to discharge current through respective rows of the one or more rows (Paragraph 0046 “During a firing phase, the control logic circuit 102 can control the switch M3 to turn OFF and allow the inductive element to discharge through the laser diode.”); and one or more switches (Fig. 3, M1) respectively connected to the one or more columns (Fig. 3 shows M1 connected to the first column),
wherein each switch of the one or more switches (Fig. 3, M1, M3) have an open state and a closed state, (This is inherent to a switch) and wherein a switch (Fig. 3, M1), of the one or more switches, in the closed state is to select a column of the one or more columns. (Fig. 3 shows that when M1 is closed it is selects the first column)
Kuo does not teach the array contains multiple optical emitters and one or more capacitive elements respectively connected in series between the one or more inductive elements and the array of optical emitters one or more capacitive elements respectively connected in series between one or more inductive elements and the array of optical emitters wherein each capacitive element of the one or e more capacitive elements is connected in series between a respective inductive element of the one or more inductive elements and a respective row of the one or more rows.
However,
Pavlov teaches a capacitive element (Fig. 7, C1) connected in series between the inductive element and the optical emitter. (Fig. 7 shows the capacitive element C1 connected in series between the inductive element L1 and the optical emitter D1) wherein the capacitive element is connected in series between a respective inductive element and a respective row of. (Fig. 7 shows the capacitive element C1 connected in series between the inductive element L1 and the row)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the array as taught by Kuo by adding a capacitive element as disclosed by Pavlov. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to block DC current. (Paragraph 0008 “wherein the DC blocking capacitor is operable for connecting to a laser diode.”)
Kuo in combination with Pavlov does not teach an array containing multiple optical emitters.
Schleuning teaches an array containing multiple optical emitters. (Fig. 5C)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the array as taught by Kuo by adding the multiple rows and columns of light emitting emitters as disclosed by Schleuning. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to produce more light and allow for individual addressable laser array. (Schleuning Paragraph 0152 “This may allow for a greater selectivity of individual VCSELs 512 using the row-anode/column-cathode arrangement illustrated (e.g., this may provide for individual addressability of each VCSEL 512 in the array 500)”)
Regarding claim 18, Kuo teaches the one or more inductive elements are current sources for the respective rows of the one or more rows. (Paragraph 0046 “During a firing phase, the control logic circuit 102 can control the switch M3 to turn OFF and allow the inductive element to discharge through the laser diode.”)
Regarding claim 19, Kuo in combination with Schleuning and Pavlov teaches the switch, in the closed state, is to complete a circuit path that includes an inductive element, of the one or more inductive elements, a capacitive element of the one or more capacitive elemnts and an optical emitter of the array of optical emitters. (Fig. 3 shows that M1 completes a circuit path including L1 and LD. Pavlov puts the capacitive element in series with the inductive element and the optical emitter so the discharge current will flow though it also. See Claim 17 for rationale.)
Regarding claim 20, Kuo teaches the switch, in the closed state, is to select the column by closing a cathode path of the column. (Fig. 3 shows M1 being closed selects the first column)
Regarding claim 21, Kuo does not teaches the first switch in the closed state is to cause current to charge the inductive element (Paragraph 0046 “A charging circuit path can include an inductive element, e.g., inductor L1, and the switches M1 and M3. During a charging phase, the control logic circuit 102 can control the switches M1 and M3 to turn ON and allow the inductive element to charge.”)
Kuo does not teach a time interval in a range from 2 nanoseconds to 50 nanoseconds to charge the inductive element.
However,
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the time interval of charging the inductive element as taught by Kuo because charging in the time range would optimize the pulse width and pulse timing. (Kuo Paragraph 0049) (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Regarding claim 22, Kuo in combination with Pavlov Schleuning teaches the capacitive element has a capacitance in a range from 500 picofarads to 0.5 microfarads (Pavlov Paragraph 0013 “In a further aspect, the DC blocking capacitor has a value in the range of 10 pF to 1 nF.” See Claim 1 for rationale.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Barnes et al. US 10158211 teaches many features found in claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN SUTTON KOTTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1859. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, MinSun Harvey can be reached at 571-272-1835. 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.
/STEPHEN SUTTON KOTTER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2828 /MINSUN O HARVEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2828