Final Rejection
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Following a non-final action, applicant filed a response on 7/1/2026 in which claims 1, 4, 6, 10, 12, 15 are amended, claims 5, 13, and 14 are cancelled, and claims 18-22 are added. Claims 1-4, 6-12, and 15-22 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-11, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2024/0418761 (“Ruck”).
Regarding claim 1, Ruck discloses:
A lidar device comprising:
Ruck may be in a lidar device. [0015]-[0016].
a first circuit comprising a transmitter configured to emit an optical signal, wherein a power level of the optical signal is based on an operating parameter that determines a magnitude of an electrical current passing through the transmitter;
Ruck Fig. 1 shows a circuit, part of that circuit may be called a “first” circuit that includes transmitter 110. The device operates by closing the switch 155 of driver 230, allowing the charge to flow from capacitor 115 to the transmitter. [0094]-[0096]. This charge is then measured by measuring the change in voltage of the capacitor over time during the emission. [0098]-[0100]. This charge determines the magnitude of current provided to the transmitter. [0105]. The power level of the laser will be based on these things. [0007] recognizes that the drive current may cause excessive radiation causing eye damage, i.e. that the power is based on driver current, and thus also on whatever controls the magnitude of current through the transmitter. [0108] recognizes that if there is too much current the laser may need to be shut down to be ASIL C+ compliant.
a power monitoring circuit coupled to the first circuit and configured to measure, during emission of the optical signal, an indication of the power level of the optical signal based on an amount of electrical energy dissipated through the transmitter; and
Ruck measures the charge provided to the transmitter over time during emission, and ultimately determines the amount of energy dissipated through the transmitter. [0099]-[0113]. This would be an indication of the power of the optical signal, because as above charge determines current.
at least one processor configured to determine, based on a comparison of the measured indication of the power level to a nominal indication of the power level, whether to adjust the operating parameter.
Processor 120 determines the energy dissipation value, may compare it to a threshold value, and may regulate the driver based on the calculation. [0113]-[0115]. This may also discharge the capacitor 115 to ground if the threshold is exceeded, [0114], which will adjust the operating parameter.
Regarding claim 2, Ruck’s transmitter 110 is a laser diode.
Regarding claim 3, as discussed above the operating parameter, that determines the current passing through the transmitter, is based on the charge through the transmitter which is based on the charge from the capacitor 115. This is further based on the voltage supplied to the capacitor VDDHV and the voltages VREF1 and VREF2, any of which can be called a control voltage.
Regarding claim 6, there is a capacitor 115 coupled to the transmitter, and the dissipated energy is determined by measuring a change in voltage of the capacitor during emission. See [0113]-[0114] (dissipation based on accumulated charge provided to transmitter over time), [0098]-[0100] (charge provided to the transmitter is based on difference in voltage of capacitor during emission).
Regarding claims 7-8, the dissipated energy (and thus the measured indication of the measured power level) is compared to a nominal threshold value; if it does not exceed the threshold nothing apparently happens, but if it does the system will discharge the capacitor to ground, which will adjust the operating parameter, thus providing a fail safe. [0114].
Claims 10-11 and 15-17 are method claims that correspond to claims 1-2 and 6-8, respectively, and are met for the same reasons as those claims above.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruck in view of US 2021/0041567 (“Milgrome”).
Regarding claim 9, Ruck states throughout it is used in a lidar system. But it gives no specific use case, it is not said to be in a vehicle for mapping or navigation or to be on the exterior/interior of the vehicle, though it does say lidar is an “automotive application.” [0003]. Milgrome shows lidar systems can be used in such applications. [0003],[0034]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Ruck’s system in this way as it is a typical use for lidar, Ruck does not actually give any specifics of how it is used, therefore one would look to other lidar systems for exemplary ways to use it.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 12 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. Claims 18-22 are allowed. There is not taught or disclosed in the prior art a lidar device as in claim 1, where the first circuit further comprises a variable resistor coupled to the transmitter and wherein the resistance of the variable resistor determines the magnitude of current passing through the transmitter. Method claim 12 is allowable for analogous reasons. Claim 18 is more detailed and allowable for similar reasons.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with the response are persuasive that the amendments overcome the references previously applied. However, new grounds are presented above. The new grounds are necessitated by the amendments, therefore this action is made final.
Conclusion
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 James Menefee whose telephone number is (571)272-1944. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
/JAMES A MENEFEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights