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 .
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.
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 6 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.
Claim 6 depends from claim 5. Claim 5 states “a current source”, claim 6 then recites “a controllable current source”. This seems to imply the presence of two separate current sources. The original specification appears to teach a single current which is controlled at fig.3 #108. Therefore, the recitation of a second controllable source has an antecedent basis issue.
For purposes of examination, claim 6 will be read as “wherein the driver die comprises the current source which is a controllable current source”.
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, 3-4, 8, 10-11, 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masumitsu et al. (US 223/0129077) in view of Nishimura et al. (US 2007/0291802).
With respect to claim 1, Masumitsu teaches an optical apparatus (fig.1/2) comprising: a light-emitting device (fig.2 #121) coupled to a controllable voltage supply (fig.2 #2, [0031, 29]) configured to provide a supply voltage (fig.2 LDVCC) to the light-emitting device; a temperature sensor (fig.2 #33) arranged to sense a temperature of the light-emitting device driver ([0045]); a driver die (fig.2 #31, within fig.1 #113) comprising a driver circuit for driving the light-emitting device ([0031]); and a control module (fig.2 #1) configured to: receive a voltage at the output of the light-emitting device (fig.2 HR via #37); determine a target voltage that is to be provided at the output of the light-emitting device ([0036, 37, 42]), wherein the control module is configured to determine the target voltage based on said temperature ([0045, 51]); and output a control signal to control the output of the light-emitting device to be at the target voltage in dependence on the voltage at the output of the light-emitting device (fig.2 output from #1 to #2, [0054] noting #2 supplies LDVCC [0029]). Masumitsu does not clearly teach the temperature sensed to be that of the light emitting device. Nishimura teaches a related laser driver for controlling headroom in the circuit (fig.15, abstract) and further teaches measuring the laser temperature and using the feedback to control the driving ([0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Masumitsu to monitor the temperature of the laser for use in controlling the driving voltage as taught by Nishimura as Nishimura has demonstrated the temperature directly impacts the circuit headroom (Nishimura, [0007, 52]) which is desired to be controlled by Masumitsu.
With respect to claim 3, Masumitsu teaches if the voltage at the output of the light-emitting device is greater than the target voltage, the control module is configured to output the control signal to the controllable voltage supply to decrease the supply voltage; and if the voltage at the output of the light-emitting device is less than the target voltage, the control module is configured to output the control signal to the controllable voltage supply to increase the supply voltage (HR controlled by the relationship of HR=LDVCC-Vop [0029, 36, 37]; HR is the actual output side voltage which is measured along with measuring LDVCC and calculating Vop [0051]; therefore- when measured HR is higher than desired: LDVCC is decreased and when measured HR is lower than desired: LDVCC is increased by adjusting #2).
With respect to claim 4, Masumitsu teaches the target voltage minimizes power loss of the driver die ([0054]).
With respect to claim 8, Masumitsu teaches the control module is configured to: retrieve from memory ([0049]) a voltage-current curve associated with the temperature (fig.5, [0051]); use the voltage at the output of the light-emitting device and the voltage-current curve to determine the current flowing through the light-emitting device ([0051]) and a controllable current source (fig.3 Tr1/2). Masumitsu does not teach retrieve from memory a power-current curve associated with the temperature; use the current flowing through the light-emitting device and the power-current curve to determine the optical power of light emitted by the light-emitting device; and control a controllable current source of the driver die to maintain the optical power of light emitted by the light-emitting device constant. Nishimura further teaches making use of a voltage current curve (fig.5) and a power current curve associated with temperature (fig.4) to determine optical power ([0043]) and controlling a current source to maintain optical power ([0047]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Masumitsu by making use of a power current curve to be used in the control and to maintain an optical power as demonstrated by Nishimura in order to control the output based on the characteristics of the driven device and to enable steady operation over time.
With respect to claim 10, Masumitsu teaches the light-emitting device is external to the driver die (fig.1 #121 spaced from #113; fig.6 #112 atop #113).
With respect to claim 11, Masumitsu teaches the light-emitting device is mounted to an upper surface of the driver die (fig.6 #112 atop #113).
With respect to claim 14, Masumitsu teaches the driver die comprises a voltage readout circuit (fig.2 #37/34) coupled to the light-emitting device, the voltage readout circuit configured to detect and supply the voltage at the output of the light-emitting device to the control module ([0044-48]).
With respect to claim 16, Masumitsu teaches a substrate (fig.1 #111), wherein the driver die is mounted to an upper surface of the substrate (fig.1 #113); a spacer (fig.1 #112 housing) mounted to the upper surface of the substrate, the spacer laterally surrounding the light-emitting device; and an optical element (fig.1 #123) mounted to the spacer, the optical element transparent to light emitted by the light-emitting device ([0023]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masumitsu and Nishimura in view of Bazzani et al. (US 2019/0103726).
With respect to claim 2, Masumitsu teaches the device outlined above, but does not specify the control module is configured to: compare the voltage at the output of the light-emitting device to the target voltage; and output the control signal to the controllable voltage supply to control the supply voltage in dependence on the comparison. Bazzani teaches a related circuit for controlling headroom in a laser device (fig.1/2, abstract) which includes measuring the headroom (fig.1 Vheadroom) and making a comparison of that value to a target (fig.2 #213) and controlling a controllable voltage supply based on the result (fig.1/2 #108). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Masumitsu to make a comparison of the measured headroom voltage (HR) to the target and control based on the comparison as demonstrated by Bazzani in order to clearly establish the amount of adjustment necessary to obtain the desired headroom value.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masumitsu and Nishimura in view of Uno et al. (US 2019/0097395).
With respect to claim 5, Masumitsu teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach the control module is configured to: compare the voltage at the output of the light-emitting device to the target voltage; and output the control signal to a current source of the driver circuit, to control an amount of current flowing through the light-emitting device in dependence on the comparison. Uno teaches a related driving circuit (fig.1) with voltage monitoring (fig.1 #11) which makes use of a comparison to a threshold value ([0028]) and which outputs control to controllable current source (fig.1 Q1) to control an amount of current through the laser ([0030]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Masumitsu to make use of controlling the controllable current source (Masumitsu, fig.3 Tr1/2) in order to control the voltage drop (Masumitsu, Vop) and thereby further control the desired headroom as demonstrated by Uno (Uno, [0025-31]).
With respect to claim 6, Masumitsu, as modified teaches the driver die comprises a controllable current source (fig.3 Tr1/2) and: if the voltage at the output of the light-emitting device is greater than the target voltage, the control module is configured to output the control signal to the controllable current source increase current flowing through the light-emitting device; and if the voltage at the output of the light-emitting device is less than the target voltage, the control module is configured to output the control signal to the controllable current source to decrease current flowing through the light-emitting device (after modification by Uno, the Vop value in the HR=LDVCC-Vop relationship of Masumitsu is being adjusted; therefore, when measured HR is above target: the current would increase to increase Vop and reduce HR towards target and when HR is below target: the current would decrease to decrease Vop and increase HR towards target).
With respect to claim 7, Masumitsu, as modified, teaches the target voltage maximizes the optical power of light emitted by the light-emitting device ([0081, 82, 97], when ranging amount is considered max).
Claim(s) 9, 12, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masumitsu and Nishimura in view of Tabata et al. (US 2021/0325513).
With respect to claims 9, 12 and 13, Masumitsu teaches the device outlined above, including the reduction in size to enable integration of the elements (fig.6), but does not specify the light-emitting device is integrated into the driver die OR the control module is external to the driver die OR the control module is integrated into the driver die. Tabata teaches a related laser circuit (fig.3/4) which includes many ways of integrating and arranging the components of the driver, control and the light emitter (fig.6a/b, 7a/b/c, 8a/b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Masumitsu to rearrange and/or integrate the components such that the light-emitting device is integrated into the driver die OR the control module is external to the driver die OR the control module is integrated into the driver die as Masumitsu has demonstrated such integration is desired (Masumitsu, [0055-57]) and Tabata has further demonstrated a variety of integration and arrangements are known and would allow for a desired layout to fit spacing of the elements as well as electrical and optical input/output paths (see also, MPEP 2144.04 V B, C; VI C).
With respect to claim 15, Masumitsu further appears to show vertical emission (fig.1) and relation to time of flight devices ([0018]) but does not teach the light-emitting device comprises a vertical cavity surface emitting laser. Tabata further teaches using a VCSEL ([0006]) in a related time of flight device ([0006]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Masumitsu to make use of a VCSEL for the laser as demonstrated by Tabata in order to easily couple light from the optical module in the vertical direction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10269307, 8036254, 2019/0157839 along with the list of additional references on the pto892 form are found to teach related circuits controlling headroom.
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