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 .
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amending of claims 1-3, 8-9, 19 and 20.
Specification
The disclosure is accepted.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
With the exception of claim 3, the previous 112b rejections are withdrawn due to the current amendments.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “approximately” in claim 3 line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For purposes of examination, “approximately” will be understood to be within 10%.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1, the Applicant has argued Domer teaches applying the 2 test pulses during an off period between illumination pulses and does not teach applying the pulses before and after at least one illumination pulse as claim 1 has been amended to recite.
The Examiner does not agree. Domer at col.10 lines 15-20 describes the 2 test pattern to be repeated throughout the PWM operation of the LED device. This means a 2 test pulse like fig.3 #302 is applied both before (see fig.3 #302 preceding first full illumination pulse shown at right) and after a given illumination pulse as the 2 test pulse pattern is repeated, the second application of the 2 pulse sequence thereby happening after the illumination pulse as it is occurring later in time. Therefore, a 2 test pulse occurs both before and after an identified illumination pulse.
The Applicant may be intending to claim that the 2 test sequence is applied immediately before a given illumination pulse and immediately after the given illumination pulse (i.e. no other illumination pulse coming between the first 2 pulse test and the given illumination pulse AND no other illumination pulse coming between the second 2 pulse test and the given illumination pulse) however this level of detail is not found in the claims.
Therefore, Domer is found to continue to read on the amended claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-11, 18, 20 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domer (US 8264171) in view of Castillo et al. (US 2011/0243167).
With respect to claim 1, Domer teaches a method of using and monitoring a temperature of a light emitting diode (fig.2 #114, abstract) associated with illuminating by the LED, the method comprising: driving the LED using a driver circuit (fig.2) to deliver at least a first test current stimulus at a first test current stimulus level (fig.2 1mA), and measuring a corresponding first response voltage from the LED (col.6 lines 20-51); driving the LED using the driver circuit to deliver a second test current stimulus at a second test current stimulus level (fig.2 200 uA) and measuring the corresponding second response voltage (col.6 lines 20-51); driving the LED using the driver circuit to issue at least one illumination pulse (fig.3 “highs” of #109; can be first full pulse at right) in temporal association with the first and second test current stimuli (fig.3 test pulses #302 between highs); and determining the at least one of (1) a temperature differential caused by the illumination (col.11 line 63 to col.12 line 20) or (2) a first representative temperature of the laser diode associated with the illumination (as they are sampled between and among outputs) at least in part using the first response voltage and the second response voltage (fig.4 #410), wherein at least one of the first text current stimulus or the second test current stimulus is delivered before the at least one illumination pulse (fig.3 #302 before first depicted full illumination pulse at right) and at least another of the first test current stimulus or the second test current stimulus is delivered after the at least one illumination pulse (col.10 lines 15-20, due to the repeating nature of the applied 2 pulse test sequence). Domer does not specify the method is for a laser diode with laser driver. Castillo teaches a similar driver and voltage measurement technique (fig.2, abstract) can be used for either LEDs or laser diodes (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the method of Domer to make use of a laser diode in place of the LED in order to produce coherent light usable in communications and testing environments.
With respect to claim 2, Domer, as modified, teaches the first representative temperature is a determined pre-illumination junction temperature of the laser diode (col.11 line 63 to col.12 line 20), and further comprising: driving the laser diode using the laser driver circuit to deliver at least a third test current stimulus at a third test current stimulus level (fig.2 1mA , col.6 line 30, CTAT level), and measuring a corresponding third response voltage (fig.4 #408); and using the determined ambient temperature and the third response voltage to determine a second representative temperature of the laser diode (col.11 35-39, as average of PTAT and CTAT values used).
With respect to claim 3, Domer, as modified, teaches the third test current stimulus is delivered at approximately the same current level as at least one of the first test current stimulus or the second test current stimulus (fig.2 1mA is same test level in PTAT and CTAT).
With respect to claim 5, Domer, as modified, teaches driving the laser diode using the laser driver circuit to deliver at least a fourth test current stimulus at a fourth test current stimulus level (col.10 lines 15-20, as testing procedure repeated), different than the third current stimulus level (as it uses the 200uA), after the at least one illumination pulse (as seen in fig.3), and measuring a fourth corresponding response voltage (from repeated tests); and determining a third representative temperature of the laser diode using at least the third response voltage and the fourth response voltage (based on using average, col.11 35-39).
With respect to claim 7, Domer, as modified, teaches measuring an ambient temperature via a temperature detector (fig.2 #104, col.11 lines 63-65); and determining the temperature differential of the laser diode using the measured ambient temperature and the first and second response voltages (col.11 line 63 to col.12 line 20).
With respect to claim 8, Domer, as modified, teaches determining a health indication of the laser diode (needed driving adjustment) based at least in part on at least one of (1) the determined second representative temperature of the laser diode (fig.6 #602, using #107 from fig.4 with second temp as input in fig.4), (2) the measured ambient temperature, or (3) the determined temperature differential.
With respect to claim 9, Domer, as modified, teaches the third response voltage is determined, after the illumination pulse (as seen in fig.3); and comprising: determining a health indication of the laser diode (needed driving adjustment) based at least in part on at least one of (1) the second representative temperature before or after the illumination pulse (fig.6 #602, using #107 from fig.4 with second temp as input in fig.4) or (2) the ambient temperature determined using the first and second response voltage.
With respect to claim 10, Domer, as modified, teaches establishing or adjusting an illumination power of the laser diode using the determined health indication or the second representative temperature of the laser diode (fig.6 #602, using #107 from fig.4 with second temp as input in fig.4).
With respect to claim 11, Domer, as modified, teaches issuing an alert in response to the health indication of the laser diode meets at least one first criterion (fig.6 signal to PWM controller to update driving can be considered an internal alert).
With respect to claim 18, Domer, as modified, teaches issuing an alert when the determined temperature differential or the first representative temperature meets at least one first criterion (fig.6 signal to PWM controller to update driving can be considered an internal alert).
With respect to claim 20, Domer, as modified, teaches the at least one of determining the temperature differential or the first representative temperature comprises repeating the determining step (col.10 lines 15-20) and based thereupon determining an indication of central tendency (fig.6 needed current adjustment).
With respect to claim 23, Domer, as modified, teaches at least one of the first test current stimulus or the second test current includes a pre-bias laser stimulus (fig.3 test currents occur during off times between output current levels understood to be at biasing level, thereby being pre, or before, bias).
Claim(s) 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domer and Castillo in view of Tatah et al. (US 9281659).
With respect to claim 12, Domer, as modified, teaches the method outlined above, but does not teach inhibiting issuing at least one illumination pulse by the laser diode when the indication of health of the laser diode meets at least one second criterion. Tatah teaches a related laser diode temperature method (fig.4) which includes inhibiting illumination based on an indicator of health (col.4 lines 56-64). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the method of Domer to inhibit issuing an illumination pulse based on the laser diode meeting a criterion as demonstrated by Tatah in order to avoid mode-hops (Tatah, col.4 lines 56-64) or other unstable operation.
With respect to claim 19, Domer, as modified, teaches the method outlined above, but does not teach inhibiting issuing of at least one illumination pulse by the laser diode when the determined temperature differential or the first representative temperature meets at least one criterion. Tatah teaches a related laser diode temperature method (fig.4) which includes inhibiting illumination based on an indicator of health (col.4 lines 56-64). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the method of Domer to inhibit issuing an illumination pulse based on the laser diode meeting a criterion as demonstrated by Tatah in order to avoid mode-hops (Tatah, col.4 lines 56-64) or other unstable operation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2012/0299481, 2008/0319690, 2007/0103095 and GB 2224374 are found to teach devices/methods which appear to at least read on claim 1.
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 TOD THOMAS VAN ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8447. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8AM-430PM.
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.
/TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights