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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/30/2026 is considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the amendments to the claims. Currently, Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
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 1-5, 8-9, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacala (US 2019/0179028 A1) in view of Venkatesan (US 2020/0144859 A1) and further in view of Guynn (US 6,437,656 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Pacala discloses a system for providing a bi-directional data link ([131]: “Advantageously, the wall of the hollow shaft 606 provides for optical isolation between the uplink and downlink channels and therefore minimizes crosstalk.”) within a LIDAR assembly ([0012]: “Embodiments of the disclosure pertain to a LIDAR unit”), comprising:
a stationary assembly ([0018]: “In some embodiments a light ranging system includes a stationary enclosure having an optically transparent window and a base;”) configured to mount to an autonomous vehicle (Figures 1A and 1B show the LiDAR mounted to a vehicle);
a rotating assembly for rotation about an axis and relative to the stationary assembly ([0013]: “a spinning light ranging system according to the present disclosure can include a light ranging device (e.g., which emits light pulses and detects reflected pulses) that is connected to an upper circuit board assembly that rotates about an axis defined by a shaft.”);
one or more emitting devices and receiving devices mounted to the rotating assembly and collectively configured to detect objects external to the autonomous vehicle ([0013]: “a spinning light ranging system according to the present disclosure can include a light ranging device (e.g., which emits light pulses and detects reflected pulses) that is connected to an upper circuit board assembly that rotates about an axis defined by a shaft.”);
a stationary uplink feed and a stationary downlink feed connected to a first printed circuit board (PCB) ([0090]: “For example, rotary actuator 315 can include a brushless electric motor assembly, an optical communications subsystem, a wireless power transmission subsystem, and a base controller. These systems are formed by pairs of cooperating circuit elements with each pair including one or more circuit elements on the lower circuit board assembly 360 operating in cooperation with (e.g., having a function that is complementary to) one or more circuit elements on the upper circuit board assembly 380.”) located within the stationary assembly ([0088]: “The lower circuit board assembly 360 can be mechanically mounted to a fixed portion of an enclosure or housing”);
a rotating uplink feed and a rotating downlink feed connected to a second PCB ([0090]: “For example, rotary actuator 315 can include a brushless electric motor assembly, an optical communications subsystem, a wireless power transmission subsystem, and a base controller. These systems are formed by pairs of cooperating circuit elements with each pair including one or more circuit elements on the lower circuit board assembly 360 operating in cooperation with (e.g., having a function that is complementary to) one or more circuit elements on the upper circuit board assembly 380.”) located within the rotating assembly ([0088]: “while the upper circuit board assembly 380 is free to rotate about an axis of rotation, usually defined by a shaft (not represented in FIG. 3) that is also mounted to the enclosure (directly or indirectly).”), and
wherein the rotating uplink feed is positioned a first predefined distance (capacitive coupling requires a known spacing to operate properly) from the stationary uplink feed allowing for capacitive transmission of uplink data from the first PCB to the second PCB ([0008]: “In addition to power connections, data uplink and downlink lines are needed and typically accomplished by one or more inductive, capacitive, and/or metal slip ring rotary couplers”); and
wherein the rotating downlink feed is positioned a second predefined distance (capacitive coupling requires a known spacing to operate properly) from the stationary downlink feed allowing for capacitive transmission of downlink data from the second PCB to the first PCB ([0008]: “In addition to power connections, data uplink and downlink lines are needed and typically accomplished by one or more inductive, capacitive, and/or metal slip ring rotary couplers”).
Pacala does not teach and Venkatesan does teach an uplink transmission ring set configured to hold the rotating uplink feed and the stationary uplink feed and a downlink transmission ring set configured to hold the rotating downlink feed and the stationary downlink feed ([0045]: “ Ring 506 and ring 508 are circular bands located on the inner or inside surface of rotor 501 and provide electrode plate functionality for one side of the air gap capacitor. Coupled to shaft components 516 via connections 514 are ring 510 and ring 512. Ring 510 and ring 512 are circular bands located on the outer surface of shaft 511 and provide electrode plate functionality for the other side of the air gap capacitor.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Venkatesan to use circular bands to create an air gap capacitor for data transfer between stationary and rotating concentric elements into the device of Pacala. Venkatesan notes in [0049] that “Effectively, the number of communication links provided by the architecture of rotor-shaft structure 500 is scalable. To add additional communication links via capacitor coupling, an additional pair of rings may be added (i.e., stacked) on rotor 501 and shaft 511.” The inherent scalability of the rotor-shaft structure can ease design constraints and allow for more flexible and modifiable designs.
Pacala does not teach and Venkatesan does not teach and Guynn does teach wherein a circular divider separates the uplink ring set and the downlink ring set (Column 6, Line 65 thru Column 7, Line 1: “FIG. 5 is a cross sectional view of a pair of conductive transmission lines (fashioned as rings) and a pair of conductive probes that are placed within shields on both the stationary frame and a rotating frame, respectively.”; Column 7, Lines 11-18; The transmission ring sets are separated by and contained between the circular divider.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Pacala in view of Venkatesan with the teaching of Guynn to separate the communication lines. Guynn notes in Column 7, Lines 15-18 that “Shields 520,521,522 and 523 prevent a signal that is coupled through a conductive probe 502A and a conductor 504A from interfering with a signal that is coupled through an adjacent transmission path.” Preventing interference and maintaining signal integrity are critical in LiDAR applications, which often aide in applications related to driver and vehicle safety.
Regarding Claim 2, Pacala suggests but does not explicitly teach ([0013]) and Venkatesan does teach comprising a shaft extending from a base along the axis (Figure 5A, element 511; [0044]: “Rotor 501 may comprise rotor components 502 and shaft 511 may comprise shaft components 516.);
Pacala does not teach and Venkatesan does teach wherein the uplink transmission ring set, the downlink transmission ring set are affixed to the shaft ([0045]: “Coupled to shaft components 516 via connections 514 are ring 510 and ring 512. Ring 510 and ring 512 are circular bands located on the outer surface of shaft 511 and provide electrode plate functionality for the other side of the air gap capacitor.”), and wherein the stationary uplink feed and the stationary downlink feed are respectively assembled to outer diameter surfaces of a corresponding transmission ring set ([0046]: “One skilled in the art will recognize that rotor 501 and shaft 511 may each comprise N rings that may support N capacitive links.”; [0043]: “A dedicated path (capacitive link) for the data transfer may avoid noise associated with energy transfer to provide interference cancellation.” The capacitive data link may serve as an uplink.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Venkatesan to use circular bands to create an air gap capacitor for data transfer between stationary and rotating concentric elements into the device of Pacala. Venkatesan notes in [0049] that “Effectively, the number of communication links provided by the architecture of rotor-shaft structure 500 is scalable. To add additional communication links via capacitor coupling, an additional pair of rings may be added (i.e., stacked) on rotor 501 and shaft 511.” The inherent scalability of the rotor-shaft structure can ease design constraints and allow for more flexible and modifiable designs.
Pacala does not teach and Venkatesan does not teach and Guynn does teach wherein the circular divider is attached to the shaft (Column 7, Lines 3-5: “One or more rotary couplers can be placed on the same platter or drum, or on other platters or drums within the slip ring assembly.” Drum style slip rings transmit information in a radial direction between rotating and stationary members, in which case the shield (identified as the circular divider) would be attached to the shaft.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Pacala in view of Venkatesan with the teaching of Guynn to separate the communication lines with circular dividers on the shaft. Guynn notes in Column 7, Lines 15-18 that “Shields 520,521,522 and 523 prevent a signal that is coupled through a conductive probe 502A and a conductor 504A from interfering with a signal that is coupled through an adjacent transmission path.” Preventing interference and maintaining signal integrity are critical in LiDAR applications, which often aide in applications related to driver and vehicle safety.
Regarding Claim 3, which depend from rejected Claim 2, Pacala does not teach and Venkatesan does teach wherein the rotating uplink feed and the rotating downlink feed are respectively assembled to outer diameter surfaces of rotating rings affixed to the rotating assembly. ([0045]: “Ring 506 and ring 508 are circular bands located on the inner or inside surface of rotor 501 and provide electrode plate functionality for one side of the air gap capacitor.” The outer diameters of the rings contact the inner diameter of the rotor.); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Venkatesan to use circular bands to create an air gap capacitor for data transfer between stationary and rotating concentric elements into the device of Pacala. Venkatesan notes in [0049] that “Effectively, the number of communication links provided by the architecture of rotor-shaft structure 500 is scalable. To add additional communication links via capacitor coupling, an additional pair of rings may be added (i.e., stacked) on rotor 501 and shaft 511.” The inherent scalability of the rotor-shaft structure can ease design constraints and allow for more flexible and modifiable designs.
Regarding Claim 4, which depends from rejected Claim 1,
Pacala does not explicitly teach and Venkatesan does teach wherein the rotating assembly rotates an upper rotating ring and a lower rotating ring in relation to an upper stationary ring and a lower stationary ring (Abstract; Figure 5A; [0044]: “As illustrated, rotor 501 rotates around shaft 511.”; [0045]: “Ring 506 and ring 508 are circular bands located on the inner or inside surface of rotor 501 and provide electrode plate functionality for one side of the air gap capacitor. Coupled to shaft components 516 via connections 514 are ring 510 and ring 512. Ring 510 and ring 512 are circular bands located on the outer surface of shaft 511 and provide electrode plate functionality for the other side of the air gap capacitor.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Venkatesan to use circular bands to create an air gap capacitor for data transfer between stationary and rotating concentric elements into the device of Pacala. Venkatesan notes in [0049] that “Effectively, the number of communication links provided by the architecture of rotor-shaft structure 500 is scalable. To add additional communication links via capacitor coupling, an additional pair of rings may be added (i.e., stacked) on rotor 501 and shaft 511.” The inherent scalability of the rotor-shaft structure can ease design constraints and allow for more flexible and modifiable designs.
Regarding Claim 5, which depends from rejected Claim 1,
Pacala discloses capacitive coupling ([0008]) between a stationary and a rotating component (Abstract).
Pacala does not teach and Venkatesan does not teach and Guynn does teach wherein the circular divider is disposed between the uplink transmission ring set and the downlink transmission ring set to physically isolate the transmission (Column 6, Line 65 thru Column 7, Line 1: “FIG. 5 is a cross sectional view of a pair of conductive transmission lines (fashioned as rings) and a pair of conductive probes that are placed within shields on both the stationary frame and a rotating frame, respectively.”; Column 7, Lines 11-18; The transmission ring sets are separated by and contained between the circular divider.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Pacala in view of Venkatesan with the teaching of Guynn to separate the communication lines. Guynn notes in Column 7, Lines 15-18 that “Shields 520, 521, 522 and 523 prevent a signal that is coupled through a conductive probe 502A and a conductor 504A from interfering with a signal that is coupled through an adjacent transmission path.” Preventing interference and maintaining signal integrity are critical in LiDAR applications, which often aide in applications related to driver and vehicle safety.
Regarding Claim 8, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Pacala further discloses wherein the first predefined distance prevents the rotating uplink feed and the stationary uplink feed from coming into electrical contact (Electrically separating the electrodes of a capacitive element is inherent to the devices. Capacitive coupling is disclosed in [0008]).
Regarding Claim 9, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Pacala further discloses wherein the second predefined distance prevents the rotating downlink feed and the stationary downlink feed from coming into electrical contact (Electrically separating the electrodes of a capacitive element is inherent to the devices. Capacitive coupling is disclosed in [0008]).
Regarding Claim 17, Pacala discloses a method for providing a bi-directional data link ([130]: “Advantageously, the wall of the hollow shaft 606 provides for optical isolation between the uplink and downlink channels and therefore minimizes crosstalk.”) within a LIDAR assembly ([0012]: “Embodiments of the disclosure pertain to a LIDAR unit”), comprising:
rotating an uplink capacitive element ([0088]: “while the upper circuit board assembly 380 is free to rotate about an axis of rotation, usually defined by a shaft (not represented in FIG. 3) that is also mounted to the enclosure (directly or indirectly).”) a first predefined distance from a stationary uplink capacitive element (capacitive coupling requires a known spacing to operate properly);
rotating a downlink capacitive element ([0088]: “while the upper circuit board assembly 380 is free to rotate about an axis of rotation, usually defined by a shaft (not represented in FIG. 3) that is also mounted to the enclosure (directly or indirectly).”) a second predefined distance from a stationary downlink capacitive element (capacitive coupling requires a known spacing to operate properly);
transmitting a downlink data from the downlink capacitive element to the stationary downlink capacitive element ([0008]: “In addition to power connections, data uplink and downlink lines are needed and typically accomplished by one or more inductive, capacitive, and/or metal slip ring rotary couplers”), wherein the downlink data is transmitted from a first printed circuit board assembly located within a rotating portion of the LIDAR assembly and received by a second printed circuit board assembly located within a stationary portion of the LIDAR assembly ([0090]: “For example, rotary actuator 315 can include a brushless electric motor assembly, an optical communications subsystem, a wireless power transmission subsystem, and a base controller. These systems are formed by pairs of cooperating circuit elements with each pair including one or more circuit elements on the lower circuit board assembly 360 operating in cooperation with (e.g., having a function that is complementary to) one or more circuit elements on the upper circuit board assembly 380.”); and
transmitting an uplink data from the stationary uplink capacitive element to the uplink capacitive element ([0008]: “In addition to power connections, data uplink and downlink lines are needed and typically accomplished by one or more inductive, capacitive, and/or metal slip ring rotary couplers”), wherein the uplink data is transmitted from the second printed circuit board assembly and received by the first printed circuit board assembly ([0090]: “([0090]: “For example, rotary actuator 315 can include a brushless electric motor assembly, an optical communications subsystem, a wireless power transmission subsystem, and a base controller. These systems are formed by pairs of cooperating circuit elements with each pair including one or more circuit elements on the lower circuit board assembly 360 operating in cooperation with (e.g., having a function that is complementary to) one or more circuit elements on the upper circuit board assembly 380.”).
Pacala does not teach and Venkatesan does teach maintaining the uplink capacitive elements within an uplink transmission ring set ([0045]: “Coupled to shaft components 516 via connections 514 are ring 510 and ring 512. Ring 510 and ring 512 are circular bands located on the outer surface of shaft 511 and provide electrode plate functionality for the other side of the air gap capacitor. Ring 510 and ring 512 are circular bands located on the outer surface of shaft 511 and provide electrode plate functionality for the other side of the air gap capacitor. A capacitor C1 may be created based on a space between ring 506 and ring 510.” Rings 506 and 510 correspond to an uplink transmission ring set.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Venkatesan to use circular bands to create an air gap capacitor for data transfer between stationary and rotating concentric elements into the device of Pacala. Venkatesan notes in [0049] that “Effectively, the number of communication links provided by the architecture of rotor-shaft structure 500 is scalable. To add additional communication links via capacitor coupling, an additional pair of rings may be added (i.e., stacked) on rotor 501 and shaft 511.” The inherent scalability of the rotor-shaft structure can ease design constraints and allow for more flexible and modifiable designs.
Pacala does not teach and Venkatesan does not teach and Guynn does teach wherein the downlink capacitive elements are within a circular divider (Column 6, Line 65 thru Column 7, Line 1: “FIG. 5 is a cross sectional view of a pair of conductive transmission lines (fashioned as rings) and a pair of conductive probes that are placed within shields on both the stationary frame and a rotating frame, respectively.”; Column 7, Lines 11-18; The transmission ring sets are separated by and contained between the circular divider.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Pacala in view of Venkatesan with the teaching of Guynn to separate the communication lines. Guynn notes in Column 7, Lines 15-18 that “Shields 520,521,522 and 523 prevent a signal that is coupled through a conductive probe 502A and a conductor 504A from interfering with a signal that is coupled through an adjacent transmission path.” Preventing interference and maintaining signal integrity are critical in LiDAR applications, which often aide in applications related to driver and vehicle safety.
Regarding Claim 18, which depends from rejected Claim 17, Pacala further discloses spacing the uplink capacitive element from the stationary uplink capacitive element by a first predefined gap to prevent the uplink capacitive element from electrically contacting the stationary uplink capacitive element (a known spacing between the electrodes in inherent in the construction of a capacitor. Capacitive coupling is disclosed in [0008]).
Regarding Claim 19, which depends from rejected Claim 18, Pacala further discloses spacing the downlink capacitive element from the stationary downlink capacitive element by a second predefined gap to prevent the downlink capacitive element from electrically contacting the stationary downlink capacitive element (a known spacing between the electrodes in inherent in the construction of a capacitor. Capacitive coupling is disclosed in [0008]).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacala in view of Venkatesan and further in view of Guynn as applied to claim 4 above, and in view of Takenoshita (US 2006/0214842 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, which depends from rejected Claim 4, Pacala and Venkatesan and Guynn do not teach and Takenoshita does teach wherein the upper stationary ring, the lower stationary ring, the upper rotating ring, and the lower rotating ring are constructed using a dielectric material ([0162]: “In the high-frequency transmitting/receiving apparatus embodying the invention, each of the first through sixth dielectric strip lines 22, 23, 25 to 27, 32, 33, 35 to 37, and 39 should preferably be made of a resin material such as tetrafluoroethylene or polystyrene.” The dielectric strip lines of Takenoshita serve a similar purpose to those of the instant application, namely, electromagnetic transmission of data across a gap.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Pacala in view of Venkatesan and further in view of Guynn with the teaching of Takenoshita to use a dielectric such as polystyrene in their construction. Takenoshita notes in [0162] that “These materials [including polystyrene] exhibit low loss to high-frequency signals in a millimeter-wave band.” Thus the use of a dielectric like polystyrene can increase the signal-to-noise ratio of the system.
Regarding Claim 7, which depends from rejected Claim 6, Pacala and Venkatesan and Guynn do not teach and Takenoshita does teach wherein the dielectric material is polystyrene ([0162]: “In the high-frequency transmitting/receiving apparatus embodying the invention, each of the first through sixth dielectric strip lines 22, 23, 25 to 27, 32, 33, 35 to 37, and 39 should preferably be made of a resin material such as tetrafluoroethylene or polystyrene.” The dielectric strip lines of Takenoshita serve a similar purpose to those of the instant application, namely, electromagnetic transmission of data across a gap.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Pacala in view of Venkatesan and further in view of Guynn with the teaching of Takenoshita to use a dielectric such as polystyrene in their construction. Takenoshita notes in [0162] that “These materials [including polystyrene] exhibit low loss to high-frequency signals in a millimeter-wave band.” Thus the use of a dielectric like polystyrene can increase the signal-to-noise ratio of the system.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacala in view of Venkatesan and further in view of Guynn and in view of Greiner (US 2020/0072951 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Pacala in view of Venkatesan and further in view of Guynn does not teach and Greiner does teach wherein the stationary uplink feed, the stationary downlink feed, the rotating uplink feed, and the rotating downlink feed are constructed as a flexible printed circuit ([0014]: “Preferably, at least one transmission element is situated on a flexible plastic circuit board (PCB) as a circuit board/interconnect device.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Greiner to use flexible printed circuit boards for the data transfer elements of Pacala. Greiner notes in [0014] that “advantage of flexible PCBs in comparison with rigid PCBs is the option of allowing them to be adapted to or placed against the respective surface form of a carrier. This makes it easier to integrate them with other components.”
Regarding Claim 11, which depends from rejected Claim 10, Pacala teaches that the printed circuit boards may be capacitively coupled ([0008], [0080]).
Pacala and Guynn and Greiner do not teach and Venkatesan does teach wherein the capacitive element is a differential capacitive element ([0041]: “It follows that four of air gap capacitor 426 may provide four communication links and may support bi-directional differential signaling.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Pacala in view of Greiner with the teaching of Venkatesan to use a differential capacitive element. Venkatesan notes in [0042] that “Two inductive coupling connections in differential mode may provide improved signal integrity as compared with a single inductive link. Improved signal integrity means that the signal is transferred between two points with improved (i.e. reduced) distortion and signal loss,” and further notes in [0043] that “One inductor may be replaced with two capacitors to support differential signaling.” Thus differential coupling can support higher data quality and a better signal-to-noise ratio.
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacala in in view of Venkatesan and further in view of Guynn and in view of Greiner as applied to Claim 11 above, and further in view of Texas Instruments SN65LVDS Data Sheet (hereinafter TI) (https://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/sn65lvds2.pdf?ts=1764727658866).
Regarding Claim 12, which depends from Claim 11, Pacala and Guynn and Greiner do not teach and Venkatesan does teach wherein the flexible printed circuit include a positive capacitive portion and a negative portion. As noted in the rejection of Claim 11 above, Venkatesan teaches a differential capacitive element, which necessarily has positive and negative elements.
Pacala, Guynn, Greiner, and Venkatesan do not teach and TI does teach that the positive capacitive portion has a first thickness and a first width and a negative capacitive portion with a second thickness and a second width (Figure 9-3 shows coupled microstrips with defined widths and thicknesses).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine width and thicknesses for the respective capacitive portions, since it has been held that if the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 13, which depends from rejected Claim 12, Pacala and Guynn and Greiner do not teach, Venkatesan suggests but does not explicitly teach ([0057]), and TI does teach wherein a pair of resistive elements are located at both ends of the flexible printed circuit of the stationary uplink feed and the rotating downlink feed (Page 14, “The SN65LVDS1 device is intended to drive a 100-Ω transmission line. This transmission line may be a printed circuit board (PCB) or cabled interconnect. With transmission lines, the optimum signal quality and power delivery is reached when the transmission line is terminated with a load equal to the characteristic impedance of the interconnect. Likewise, the driven 100-Ω transmission line should be terminated with a matched resistance.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of TI to properly terminate the differential lines with an appropriately chosen resistor into the device of Pacala in view of Venkatesan and further in view of Guynn and in view of Greiner. It is well-known in the electronic arts that proper termination on a transmission line suppresses reflections and results in better signal-to-noise ratio. A worker of ordinary skill in the art would incorporate a terminator at both ends of the line with a reasonable expectation of a predictable result, namely that reflections would be suppressed.
Regarding Claim 14, which depends from rejected Claim 13, Pacala, Guynn, Greiner, and Venkatesan do not teach and TI does teach wherein the pair of resistive elements have a predefined endpoint termination resistance for terminating an electrical signal being transmitted along the positive capacitive portion and the negative capacitive portion (Page 14, “The SN65LVDS1 device is intended to drive a 100-Ω transmission line. This transmission line may be a printed circuit board (PCB) or cabled interconnect. With transmission lines, the optimum signal quality and power delivery is reached when the transmission line is terminated with a load equal to the characteristic impedance of the interconnect. Likewise, the driven 100-Ω transmission line should be terminated with a matched resistance.”; Page 22: “The designer should ensure that the termination resistance is within 10% of the nominal media characteristic impedance. If the transmission line is targeted for 100-Ω impedance, the termination resistance should be between 90 Ω and 110 Ω.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of TI to properly terminate the differential lines with an appropriately chosen resistor into the device of Pacala in view of Venkatesan and further in view of Guynn and in view of Greiner. It is well-known in the electronic arts that proper termination on a transmission line suppresses reflections and results in better signal-to-noise ratio. A worker of ordinary skill in the art would incorporate a terminator at both ends of the line with a reasonable expectation of a predictable result, namely that reflections would be suppressed.
Regarding Claim 15, which depends from rejected Claim 14, Pacala, Guynn, Greiner, and Venkatesan do not teach and TI does teach wherein the flexible printed circuit includes a feed line with a positive feed trace connected to the positive capacitive portion and a negative feed trace connected to the negative capacitive portion (Page 21, 9.2.1.2.5 Interconnecting Media: “The physical communication channel between the driver and the receiver may be any balanced paired metal conductors meeting the requirements of the LVDS standard, the key points which will be included here. This media may be a twisted pair, twinax, flat ribbon cable, or PCB traces. The nominal characteristic impedance of the interconnect should be between 100 Ω and 120 Ω with variation no more than 10% (90 Ω to 132 Ω)” Here the twisted pair, for example, is identified with a feed line as it connects a driver to subsequent components).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of TI to have a feed line into the device of Pacala in view of Venkatesan and further in view of Guynn and in view Greiner. Feed lines are well-known in the art and a skilled worker could incorporate one into an electronic device with a reasonable expectation of a predictable result.
Regarding Claim 16, which depends from rejected Claim 15, Pacala, Guynn, Greiner, and Venkatesan do not teach and TI does teach wherein the feed line is designed as 100-ohm differential feed-line connected to the positive capacitive portion and the negative capacitive portion as an integrated pigtail (Page 21, 9.2.1.2.5 Interconnecting Media: “The physical communication channel between the driver and the receiver may be any balanced paired metal conductors meeting the requirements of the LVDS standard, the key points which will be included here. This media may be a twisted pair, twinax, flat ribbon cable, or PCB traces. The nominal characteristic impedance of the interconnect should be between 100 Ω and 120 Ω with variation no more than 10% (90 Ω to 132 Ω)” Here the twisted pair, for example, is identified with a feed line as it connects a driver to subsequent components. Pigtails are often made from a twisted pair of leads.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of TI to have a feed line into the device of Pacala in view of Venkatesan and further in view of Guynn and in view of Greiner. Pigtails comprising a twisted pair of wires are well-known in the art and a skilled worker could incorporate one into an electronic device with a reasonable expectation of a predictable result.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkatesan in view of TI and in view of Steffens (US 2016/0127052 A1) and further in view of Guynn.
Regarding Claim 20, Venkatesan discloses a data communication element (Abstract) for use within a LIDAR system (Abstract), comprising:
a differential capacitive element including a positive capacitive portion and a negative capacitive portion ([0041]: “It follows that four of air gap capacitor 426 may provide four communication links and may support bi-directional differential signaling.” Differential signaling necessarily includes a positive and a negative capacitive portion.);
Venkatesan does not teach and TI does teach a first termination element located at a first end of the differential capacitive element, the first termination element being coupled across the positive capacitive portion and the negative capacitive portion, and the first termination element operating to reduce a first reflection when an electrical signal approaches the first end (Page 14, “The SN65LVDS1 device is intended to drive a 100-Ω transmission line. This transmission line may be a printed circuit board (PCB) or cabled interconnect. With transmission lines, the optimum signal quality and power delivery is reached when the transmission line is terminated with a load equal to the characteristic impedance of the interconnect. Likewise, the driven 100-Ω transmission line should be terminated with a matched resistance.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of TI to properly terminate the differential lines with an appropriately chosen resistor into the device of Venkatesan. It is well-known in the electronic arts that proper termination on a transmission line suppresses reflections and results in better signal-to-noise ratio. A worker of ordinary skill in the art would incorporate a terminator at both ends of the line with a reasonable expectation of a predictable result, namely that reflections would be suppressed.
Venkatesan does not teach and TI suggests but does not explicitly teach a second termination element located at a second end of the differential capacitive element, the second termination element being coupled across the positive capacitive portion and the negative capacitive portion, and the second termination element operating to reduce a second reflection when the electrical signal approaches the second end;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the duplicate the teaching of TI to have a second termination element and incorporate it into the device of Venkatesan and TI. It has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. It is well-known in the electronic arts that every transmission line should be terminated in order to suppress reflections, and therefore no unexpected results should obtain. (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960))
Venkatesan further discloses a differential feed line extending from the differential capacitive element, the differential feed line having a positive feed line and a negative feed line, wherein the positive feed line is electrically connected to the positive capacitive portion and the negative feed line is electrically connected to the negative capacitive portion (e.g. [0047]: “According, signal 542 may be coupled to inverter 544 and amplifier 546. The output of inverter 544 is coupled to ring 552, which is equivalent to ring 506 of FIG. 5A. Amplifier 546 is coupled to ring 554, which is equivalent to ring 508 of FIG. 5A.”); and
Venkatesan further discloses wherein the differential capacitive element is circularly arranged (Figure 5A, elements 506, 508, 510, 512; [0046]: “The capacitance for the aforementioned capacitors may be defined, in part, by air gap 518 and the width of the capacitive rings 506, 508, 510 and 512.”; [0047]: “To provide bi-directional differential signaling, four capacitive links may be required.”) but Venkatesan and TI do not teach and Steffens does teach a circular arrangement such that a predefined distance exists between the first termination element and second termination element (Figure 1, elements 124 and 125 are the two terminators a fixed distance apart on a circular surface; [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate terminators a predefined distance apart on the circular surface, since it has been held that if the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Venkatesan, TI, and Steffen do not teach and Guynn does teach a circular divider configured to hold the differential capacitive element (Column 6, Line 65 thru Column 7, Line 1: “FIG. 5 is a cross sectional view of a pair of conductive transmission lines (fashioned as rings) and a pair of conductive probes that are placed within shields on both the stationary frame and a rotating frame, respectively.”; Column 7, Lines 11-18; The transmission ring sets are separated by and contained between the circular divider.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Pacala in view of Venkatesan with the teaching of Guynn to separate the communication lines. Guynn notes in Column 7, Lines 15-18 that “Shields 520,521,522 and 523 prevent a signal that is coupled through a conductive probe 502A and a conductor 504A from interfering with a signal that is coupled through an adjacent transmission path.” Preventing interference and maintaining signal integrity are critical in LiDAR applications, which often aide in applications related to driver and vehicle safety.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lohr (US 7,212,101 B2) discloses flexible strip line elements with termination which are used for broadband signal and/or energy transmission.
Rothenberger (EP 2933655 A1) discloses an opto-electronic sensor featuring adjacent stationary and rotating circuit boards which are inductively coupled.
Lonsdale (GB 2328086 A) discloses a device for providing coupling between two relatively rotatable components comprising at least one substantially annular transmission line.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN WADE CLOUSER whose telephone number is (571)272-0378. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 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, ISAM ALSOMIRI can be reached at (571) 272-6970. 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.
/B.W.C./ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights