DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
SUMMARY
2. Patent application filed on May 30, 2023, has been received and made of record. There are 1-11 claims in the application of which claims 1, 10, and 11 are independent claims. Therefore, claims 1-11 are pending for consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 09, 2022 was filed before the effective filing date of the application on May 30, 2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 1, 7, 9, and 10-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The respective claims 1, 7, 9, and 10-11 recite the limitations, “a phase difference between light emission period of the light source and the light emission control signal”. However, phase difference is defined between two signals or waves or pulses. As recited in claims, “light emission period” is a duration not a signal. One of ordinary skill in the art could not measure a phase difference between a time period and a control signal. Therefore, to measure phase difference both should be in signals not a time period.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
8. Claims 1, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takuei NISHIO et al.(EP 3 540 468 A1) (herein after NISHIO) in view of Schenk et al.(US 2020/0355828 A1)(herein after Schenk).
Regarding claim 1, NISHIO teaches a light source driving device(Para-57: a light source system 11, 12 including a light emitter 11 to emit light) comprising:
a light emission drive unit(LD drive section 12, fig.1) that supplies a light emission current for causing a light source to emit light(Para-305, 308);
a drive signal generation unit(LD drive section 12, fig.1) that generates a drive signal for driving the light emission drive unit on a basis of a light emission control signal for causing the light source to emit light(Para-312);
Nevertheless, NISHIO is not found to teach expressly the light source driving device, comprising a phase difference detection unit that detects a phase difference between a light emission signal of the light source and the light emission control signal; and a delay detection unit that detects a delay in the light emission on a basis of the detected phase difference.
However, Schenk teaches an optoelectronic detection device, comprising: a phase difference detection unit(TDC 13, fig.1, Para-33) that detects a phase difference between a light emission signal of the light source(laser diode 4, fig.1) and the light emission control signal(start signal 15 or trigger signal 11, Para-39); and
a delay detection unit(FPGA 10, TDC 14, fig.1) that detects a delay(time difference, figs.2&3) in the light emission on a basis of the detected phase difference(S5, S6, fig.3, Para 41-42).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified NISHIO with the teaching of Schenk to include the feature in order to improve accurate distance measurement of an object.
Claim 10 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 1, since claim 10 recites identical claim limitations as in claim 1 except different formats.
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 1, since claim 11 recites identical claim limitations as in claim 1 except in different formats. Both NISHIO and Schenk teach a distance measurement device.
9. Claims 2-5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takuei NISHIO et al.(EP 3 540 468 A1)(herein after NISHIO) in view of Schenk et al.(US 2020/0355828 A1) and in view of Shen et al.(US 2020/0363506 A1) (herein after Shen).
Regarding claim 2, NISHIO as modified by Schenk teaches the light source driving device according to claim 1, wherein the phase difference detection unit detects the phase difference from the light emission control signal(S5, S6, fig.3, Para 41-42, Schenk), but fails to disclose wherein the drive signal being defined as the light emission period of the light source.
However, Shen teaches systems for providing light detection and ranging(LIDAR), the phase difference from the light emission control signal(laser pulse control 110, figs.2, 4, 6) with the drive signal being defined as the light emission period of the light source(figs.1-6)(examiner interprets in a way that as long as, period, the laser pulse control signal is high, the optical output from laser diode is high. This is the light emission period of the laser diode).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified NISHIO further with the teaching of Shen to include the feature in order to provide a distance measurement device having a time-of-flight(ToF) transmitter with self-stabilized optical output phase with minimal overhead.
Regarding claim 3, NISHIO as modified by Schenk and Shen teaches the light source driving device according to claim 1, wherein the phase difference detection unit detects the phase difference from the light emission control signal, with a signal based on the light emission current(Para-305, 308, NISHIO) being defined as the light emission period of the light source(figs.1-6, Shen)(examiner interprets in a way that as long as, period, the laser pulse control signal is high, the optical output from laser diode is high. This is the light emission period of the laser diode)(for motivation, see the rejection of claim 2 above).
Regarding claim 4, NISHIO as modified by Schenk and Shen teaches the light source driving device according to claim 1, further comprising
a light receiving unit(light receiving optical system 30, fig.1, NISHIO; TOF receiver 2, fig.1, Schenk) that detects the light emission from the light source(light source 11, fig.1, NISHIO; laser diode 4, fig.1, Schenk),
wherein the phase difference detection unit detects the phase difference from the light emission control signal, with a period of the detected light emission being defined as the light emission period of the light source(figs.1-6, Shen) (examiner interprets in a way that as long as, period, the laser pulse control signal is high, the optical output from laser diode is high. This is the light emission period of the laser diode) (for motivation, see the rejection of claim 2 above).
Regarding claim 5, NISHIO as modified by Schenk and Shen teaches the light source driving device according to claim 1, wherein the phase difference detection unit outputs a differential signal corresponding to the detected phase difference, and the delay in the light emission is detected on a basis of the differential signal output from the phase difference detection unit(Para-24, Shen)(Shen teaches the phase output and the differential signaling output and Schenk teaches delay detection circuit, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the concept of Shen in the teaching of NISHIO as modified by Schenk in order to get the claim limitations to develop improved accurate distance measurement of an object).
Regarding claim 7, NISHIO as modified by Schenk and Shen teaches the light source driving device according to claim 1, further comprising
a reception unit(light receiving optical system 30, fig.1, NISHIO; TOF receiver 2, fig.1, Schenk) that receives the light emission control signal(fig.1, Para 29-35, NISHIO), which is transferred through a signal line path(obvious to have signal line path), and outputs the received light emission control signal(figs.1-2, NISHIO),
wherein the drive signal generation unit generates the drive signal on a basis of the light emission control signal output from the reception unit(fig.1, Para 29-35, NISHIO), and
the phase difference detection unit detects a phase difference between the light emission signal of the light source and the light emission control signal output from the reception unit(S5, S6, fig.3, Para 41-43, Schenk).
Regarding claim 9, NISHIO as modified by Schenk and Shen teaches the light source driving device according to claim 7, further comprising a second reception unit(fig.5, Shen) to which the generated drive signal is input, wherein the phase difference detection unit detects a phase difference between the light emission period of the light source and the drive signal output from the second reception unit(S5, S6, fig.3, Para 41-43, Schenk).
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 6 and 8 are 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.
11. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 6: None of the cited prior arts, on record, taken alone or in combination, provides a reasonable motivation to fairly teach or suggest the applicant’s claim invention, ”the light source driving device according to claim 1, further comprising a filter that attenuates high frequency components of the detected phase difference, wherein the delay detection unit detects the delay on a basis of the phase difference in which the high frequency components have been attenuated”.
Claim 8: None of the cited prior arts, on record, taken alone or in combination, provides a reasonable motivation to fairly teach or suggest the applicant’s claim invention, ”the light source driving device according to claim 7, wherein the signal line path transfers a differential light-emission-control signal provided by converting the light emission control signal into a differential signal, and the reception unit receives and converts the transferred differential light-emission-control signal into the light emission control signal.
Examiner Note
12. The Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the references, as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the references or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD SAIFUL A SIDDIQUI whose telephone number is (571)270-1530. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9:00AM - 5:30PM.
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, Lun-Yi Lao can be reached on (571)272-7671. 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.
/MD SAIFUL A SIDDIQUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621