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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig 5 is missing the legend, making it unclear which curve corresponds to which device. Also, the Power Consumption axis and the Time axis are missing units and values.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
1) Claims 5 and 10 disclose a limitation “wherein, comprises”, it is not clear what is meant by this phrase, it should be replaced with “comprising”.
2) Claim 5 recites limitations “the laser diode”, “the driving voltage”, “the duty cycle”, “the continuous working time”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
3) Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “tube” in claims 6 and 7 is used by the claim to mean “a transistor”, while the accepted meaning is “a cylindrical object”. The term is indefinite because it is contradictory to the acceptable meaning. In order to overcome this rejection, the claims should be amended to recite “transistor switch” instead of “switch tube”.
4) Claim 6 consists of two sentences, applicant is reminded that each claim can only have one sentence.
5) Claims 6-9 recite limitations “FB, VOUT, DCDC, MCU and PWM”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. There is no description in the claims or the specification of what these abbreviations represent.
6) The claims 5-10 are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
In order to overcome these rejections, the claims should be amended to recite:
5. A laser diode control system, comprising:
a voltage control unit configured for supplying a driving voltage to a laser diode;
a duty cycle control unit configured for setting a duty cycle of the laser diode;
a timing unit configured for measuring a continuous working time of the laser diode;
a control unit connected to the voltage control unit, the duty cycle control unit, and the timing unit,
wherein the control unit is configured for changing the driving voltage and/or the duty cycle of the laser diode based on the continuous working time of the laser diode.
6. The control system of Claim 5, wherein
the voltage control unit comprises a DC-DC voltage conversion module and a transistor switch;
a VOUT terminal of the DC-DC voltage conversion module is configured for connecting to the laser diode;
a FB (please inset full limitation here) terminal of the DC-DC voltage conversion module is connected to the VOUT terminal through a first resistor, connected to ground through a second resistor, and connected to a first terminal of the transistor switch through a third resistor;
wherein a second terminal of the transistor switch is connected to ground, and a third terminal of the transistor switch is connected to the control unit.
7. The control system of Claim 6, wherein
the transistor switch is a NMOS transistor,
a drain of the NMOS transistor is connected to the third resistor, a source thereof is connected to ground, and a gate thereof is connected to the control unit.
8. The control system of Claim 5, wherein
the control unit is a MCU (please inset full limitation here), and the timing unit is a timer on the MCU.
9. The control system of Claim 5, wherein the duty cycle control unit is a PWM (please inset full limitation here) drive circuit.
10. A laser device, comprising the control system according to claim 5.
The remainder of the claims are rejected for their dependence on the rejected claims. For the purpose of examination, the limitations as presented have been searched and considered.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group 1, claim(s) 1-4, drawn to a laser diode control method.
Group 2, claim(s) 5-10, drawn to a laser diode control system.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons.
MPEP 1850 teaches: “Where a group of inventions is claimed, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving corresponding special technical features. The expression "special technical features" shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions makes over the prior art.”
The special technical feature shared by both groups is a control circuit consisting of voltage controller, duty cycle controller and timer. However, this type of control circuit is well known in the art and therefore cannot be considered as a special technical feature that defines a contribution made over the prior art. For these reasons Group I (method) and Group II (system) do not share a special technical feature.
During a telephone conversation with Hongjuan Laura Li on 05/15/26 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group 2, claims 5-10. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Accordingly, claims 1-4 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species or invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention or species may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected invention or species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions have unity of invention (37 CFR 1.475(a)), applicant must provide reasons in support thereof. Applicant may submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. Where such evidence or admission is provided by applicant, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be amended in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(b) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. Any amendment of inventorship must be accompanied by a request under 37 CFR 1.48(b) and by the fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product, and the product claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of the allowable product claim will be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must require all the limitations of an allowable product claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04(b). Additionally, in order to retain the right to rejoinder in accordance with the above policy, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product claims. Failure to do so may result in a loss of the right to rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant’s attention is drawn to the references cited on form PTO-892 which lists other references with similar features as the invention. However, none of them disclose all the features of the pending claims.
Contact Info
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. A. GOLUB-MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8602. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MinSun Harvey can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/M. A. Golub-Miller/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights