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 canceling of claims 1-23 and the addition of claims 24-42.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous 112a of claims 1 and 15.
The Examiner agrees that the cited portions of [0047, 48] provide sufficient support for the directly connected language.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 9 of the Remarks, the Applicant has argued claims 24 and 34 have been amended to state “at least one of the one or more inductors coupled directly to the input port and to the energy storage capacitor in a series configuration to block a driving pulse provided by the photoconductive switch from being received at the input port”.
The Examiner notes that neither claim 24 nor claim 34 contains the underlined language above, thereby making the argument largely moot.
On page 10 of the Remarks, the Applicant has argued Iwazaki teaches a circuit for driving semiconductor light emitting elements having cathodes at a same potential where the inductor functions as a current interrupting element to prevent current from a first driving circuit unit from flowing into a second driving unit via a common cathode line, the inductor function as a low-pass filter to suppress high-frequency current when the switch is in the on state for preventing cross-talk.
The Examiner notes that although the inductor(s) may have a blocking function within Iwazaki which prevents cross-talk between adjacent semiconductor light emitting elements, the use of the inductor for the purpose outlined by Iwazaki of blocking unwanted current flow from one circuit region to another would still be of a benefit in the circuit of Chung even though the region of the circuit being blocked from unwanted current may be different than that in Iwazaki.
On pages 10-11 of the Remarks, the Applicant has argued the function of the inductor in the instant application is to prevent the high-frequency driving pulse generated in the photoconductive switch from propagating back into the input port, which is a different design and problem from that of Iwazaki.
First, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the inductor in the instant application is to prevent the high-frequency driving pulse generated in the photoconductive switch from propagating back into the input port) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Second, in response to applicant's argument that Iwazaki blocks current for a different purpose, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
On page 11 of the Remarks, the Applicant has argued there is no identified teaching suggestion or motivation identified by the Examiner to combine the references in the outlined manner.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, direct citations of the Iwazaki reference were made which provide motivation for making use of inductors as blocking elements in related driving circuits.
On page 11 of the Remarks, the Applicant has argued the system of Chung operates differently than the instant application and introduction of an inductor would affect timing constants and impedance within the circuit requiring a substantial redesign.
The Examiner acknowledges that RLC timing considerations may be a factor, however the circuit of Chung, by making use of a capacitor, necessarily has already been influenced, and likely accounted for such RLC timings. In other words, the capacitor of Chung necessarily has a time-based discharge which necessarily affects the timing of the pulse reaching the laser of Chung, such that RLC factors are a part of Chung and adding a component with RLC factors, such as an inductor, into the system of Chung would not constitute changing a principle of operation. Further, even though the RLC timing operations may be adjusted by using the inductor teachings of Iwazaki, such supposed changes in timings would be understood to be balanced by the usefulness of having the inductor introduced into the circuit of Chung as outlined in the rejections of claims 24 and 34 below.
Claim Objections
The previous claim objection is withdrawn.
Claim 24 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 24 ends in a comma and should instead end with a period.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous 112 rejections are withdrawn
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 24 (and all claims dependent therefrom; 25-33, 41, 42) 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 24 recites the limitation "the output port" in the second to last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, making the scope of the claim unclear.
For purposes of examination, the limitation will be read as “an output port”.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the driving pulse" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, making the scope of the claim unclear.
For purposes of examination, the limitation will be read as “a driving pulse”.
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) 24-29, 34-36 and 38-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung (US 5418807) in view of Iwazaki et al. (WO 2021/085292; US 2022/0279638 used as a translation thereof and for claim mapping).
With respect to claim 24, Chung teaches a circuit (fig.1, abstract) for driving one or more laser diodes (fig.1 #600, abstract), comprising: an input port (fig.1 #200, functions as conditioned voltage input to system, col.3 lines 12-23) configured to be coupled to a voltage input (fig.1 #100, col.3 lines 17-20); a photoconductive switch (fig.1 #300+400+500), wherein the photoconductive switch comprises: two electrodes (fig.2a 1st switch on top with Elec1/2), a semiconducting material coupled to the two electrodes (fig.2b), an optical source configured to emit an optical beam (fig.1 #400, col.3 lines 28-35), and an energy storage capacitor (fig.1 #300, col.3 lines 24-27), wherein, upon the optical beam being emitted to the semiconducting material, a current is established between the two electrodes (col.3 lines 45-55); and the output port (fig.1 output connection from #500) configured to be coupled to the one or more laser diodes to provide the driving pulse to the one or more laser diodes (fig.1 output connection from #500; col.3 lines 4-5). Chung does not teach one or more inductors that are configured to be in series with the one or more laser diodes and with the input port, and at least one of the one or more inductors positioned between the input port and the energy storage capacitor such that a direct electrical connection exists from the input port to the at least one inductor and from the at least one inductor to the energy storage capacitor with no intervening element between the at least one inductor and the energy storage capacitor. Iwazaki teaches a circuit for driving a laser diode (fig.1 #4, [0040]) which includes one or more inductors (fig.1 #9) in series with a laser diode (fig.1 #4) and a voltage input port (fig.1 #10), and is coupled directly to the input port (fig.1 direct connection between #10 and #9) and coupled to an energy storage capacitor (fig.1 #5) in a series configuration (fig.1 series connection from #10 to #9 to #5 to #4) thereby blocking a driving pulse provided by a switch (fig.1 #4) from being received at the input port. ([0048-49, 51-52]; as at least high frequency components would be blocked). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the system/method of Chung to make use of an inductor between the identified voltage input and energy storage capacitor to form a low-pass filter configured to block high frequency components of the driving pulse and enable the recharging of the energy storage capacitor , as demonstrated by Iwazaki in order to block high frequency from being conducted to unwanted circuit portions while allowing for the normal charging of the capacitor (Iwazaki, [0048-49, 51]).
Example configuration after modification showing direct connection of newly added inductor to the input port and capacitor and in a series connection with those elements, the switch, and the laser thereby providing the claimed direct connection without intervening elements.
PNG
media_image1.png
621
899
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 25, Chung, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach an inductance value of the one or more inductors is determined based on charging the capacitor of the photoconductive switch and an output pulse from the one or more laser diodes. Iwazaki further teaches the values of capacitances and inductances should be chosen to balance blocking and charging effects ([0049-52]) affecting the laser pulse ( [0051-53], current pulse necessarily affecting laser pulse). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the modified system of Chung to use an inductance value of the one or more inductors determined based on charging the capacitor of the photoconductive switch and an output pulse from the one or more laser diodes as Iwazaki has demonstrated such considerations are important for balancing blocking and charging (Iwazaki, [0049-52]).
With respect to claim 26, Chung, as modified, further teaches the circuit is part of a diode driver system that includes a terminating load (fig.4 matching impedance) coupled to the one or more laser diodes.
With respect to claim 27, Chung, as modified, teaches the terminating load has a resistance value that, together with an impedance of the one or more laser diodes, substantially matches an output transmission line (fig.4 output line to laser) impedance of the circuit (col.5 lines 24-37).
With respect to claim 28, Chung, as modified, teaches the photoconductive switch is configured to be in a series connection with the one or more laser diodes (fig1/4).
With respect to claim 29, Chung, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach the voltage input is higher than 2 kV. Chung does further teach the desire for high power output (abstract). The Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art that increasing the input voltage is a known means of increasing the ultimate driver/laser output power. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the modified system of Chung to make use of an increased input voltage, such as 2kV, as a means of increasing the output power from the system as desired by Chung (abstract) and which amounts to a routine optimization of the teachings of Chung and known art (see MPEP 2144.05 II A/B).
With respect to claim 34, Chung teaches method for driving one or more laser diodes (fig.1 #600, abstract), comprising: applying a voltage input (fig.1 connection at #100) to an input port of a diode driver system (fig.1 #100, col.3 lines 17-20), wherein the diode driver system comprises: a photoconductive switch (fig.1 #300+400+500), wherein the photoconductive switch comprises two electrodes (fig.2a 1st switch on top with Elec1/2), a semiconducting material (fig.2b) connected to the two electrodes, a capacitor (fig.1 #300, col.3 lines 24-27), and an optical source (fig.1 #400, col.3 lines 28-35), the one or more laser diodes (fig.1 #600), and a terminating load coupled to the one or more laser diodes (fig.4 matching impedance); and operating the optical source of the photoconductive switch to emit an optical beam such that, upon the optical beam being emitted to the semiconducting material, a current is established between the two electrodes (col.3 lines 4-5) of the photoconductive switch, wherein the current drives the one or more laser diodes to emit a pulse having a pulse width (col.3 lines 35-64). Chung does not teach pulses smaller than 50 ps. Chung does further teach the known desire in the art for shorter, sub-nanosecond, pulses (col.1 lines 49-53). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the system of Chung to enable sub 50ps pulse output as Chung has clearly state sub-nanosecond pulses are desirable for eye-safety, distance, precision and high-speed communication uses.
Chung does not teach one or more inductors that are configured to be in series with the one or more laser diodes and with the input port, and the photoconductive switch coupled with the one or more inductors. Iwazaki teaches a circuit for driving a laser diode (fig.1 #4, [0040]) which includes one or more inductors (fig.1 #9) in series with a laser diode (fig.1 #4) and a voltage input port (fig.1 #10), and is coupled directly to the input port (fig.1 direct connection between #10 and #9) and coupled to an energy storage capacitor (fig.1 #5) in a series configuration (fig.1 series connection from #10 to #9 to #5 to #4) thereby blocking a driving pulse provided by a switch (fig.1 #4) from being received at the input port. ([0048-49, 51-52]; as at least high frequency components would be blocked). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the system/method of Chung to make use of an inductor between the identified voltage input and energy storage capacitor to form a low-pass filter configured to block high frequency components of the driving pulse and enable the recharging of the energy storage capacitor , as demonstrated by Iwazaki in order to block high frequency from being conducted to unwanted circuit portions while allowing for the normal charging of the capacitor (Iwazaki, [0048-49, 51]).
Example configuration after modification showing direct connection of newly added inductor to the input port and capacitor and in a series connection with those elements, the switch, and the laser.
PNG
media_image1.png
621
899
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 35, Chung, as modified, further teaches operating the optical source of the photoconductive switch to terminate the optical beam such that the photoconductive switch and the one or more laser diodes are in an off state (col.4 lines 7-10).
With respect to claim 36, Chung, as modified, teaches the method outlined above, but does not teach the voltage input is higher than 2 kV. Chung does further teach the desire for high power output (abstract). The Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art that increasing the input voltage is a known means of increasing the ultimate driver/laser output power. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the modified system of Chung to make use of an increased input voltage, such as 2kV, as a means of increasing the output power from the system as desired by Chung (abstract) and which amounts to a routine optimization of the teachings of Chung and known art (see MPEP 2144.05 II A/B).
With respect to claim 38, Chung, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach an inductance value of the one or more inductors is determined based on charging the capacitor of the photoconductive switch and an output pulse from the one or more laser diodes. Iwazaki further teaches the values of capacitances and inductances should be chosen to balance blocking and charging effects ([0049-52]) affecting the laser pulse ( [0051-53], current pulse necessarily affecting laser pulse). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the modified system of Chung to use an inductance value of the one or more inductors determined based on charging the capacitor of the photoconductive switch and an output pulse from the one or more laser diodes as Iwazaki has demonstrated such considerations are important for balancing blocking and charging (Iwazaki, [0049-52]).
With respect to claim 39, Chung, as modified, teaches the terminating load has a resistance value that, together with an impedance of the one or more laser diodes, substantially matches an output transmission line (fig.4 output line to laser) impedance of the circuit (col.5 lines 24-37).
With respect to claim 40, Chung, as modified, teaches the method outlined above, including the one or more inductors is positioned in between the input port and the energy storage capacitor of the photoconductive switch, and wherein the one or more inductors is configured to provide a first impedance value at a first frequency of the pulse and a second impedance value, which is less than the first impedance value, at a second frequency associated with a recharging of the energy storage capacitor (Iwazaki, [0048-49, 51]; wherein the impedance is higher for the high frequency blocking and lower during capacitor recharge = “low pass”; see annotated figure above).
With respect to claim 41, Chung, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, including the one or more inductors is positioned in between the input port and the energy storage capacitor, wherein the output port is configured to provide a pulse to the one or more laser diodes, and wherein the one or more inductors is configured to provide a first impedance value at a first frequency of the pulse and a second impedance value, which is less than the first impedance value, at a second frequency associated with a recharging of the energy storage capacitor (Iwazaki, [0048-49, 51]; wherein the impedance is higher for the high frequency blocking and lower during capacitor recharge = “low pass”; see annotated figure above).
With respect to claim 42, Chung, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, including the one or more inductors form a radio-frequency choke configured to block the driving pulse and enable the recharging of the energy storage capacitor (Iwazaki, ([0048-49, 51-52]).
Claim(s) 30, 31 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung and Iwazaki in view of Chung (US 5406572, hereafter ‘572).
With respect to claims 30, 31 and 37, Chung, as modified, teaches the device/method outlined above, but does not teach the semiconducting material comprises a silicon carbide (SiC) OR the semiconducting material comprises a diamond. ‘572 teaches a related optical switch driven laser diode driver (fig.1) which includes optional materials are available for the optical switch (col.3 lines 64-66). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to make use of either SiC or diamond material for the semiconductor of the optical switch of Chung as ‘572 has demonstrated a variety of optical switch materials are usable in such systems and selection of the known material would have been an obvious optimization of the system/method of Chung (see MPEP 2144.07).
See Conclusion section below for art demonstrating SiC and diamond optical switch materials are known.
Claim(s) 32 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung and Iwazaki in view of Pierer et al. (US 2019/0229495).
With respect to claim 32, Chung, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach the circuit is part of a diode driver system that comprises: a first circuit board that includes the input port, and a second circuit board coupled to the first circuit board. Pierer teaches a driver (fig.8b #814) for and array of laser diodes (fig.8b #810a-c), wherein the driver is on a first circuit board (fig.8b #803b, as it supports circuit elements) with input port (necessarily present to power the circuit), the laser array is on a second circuit board (fig.8b #803a) which is larger than the first circuit board (as seen in fig.8b) to allow for the lasers to be mounted and connected in series to traces (fig.8b #816-a-d) and output ports (fig.8b #817a-d), as well as the use of soldering connections ([0083-84]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to make use of the circuit boards configuration of Pierer in the system of Chung in order to provide thermal separation between the diodes and driver as well as to use solder to mount the laser diodes in order to use a well-known electrical connection and mounting type as demonstrated by Pierer.
With respect to claim 33, Chung, as modified, teaches the second circuit board comprises the output port, and wherein the second circuit board has a larger size than the first circuit board to allow the one or more laser diodes to be soldered in series with an output trace on the second circuit board to the output port (note the rejection of claim 12 which accounted for these elements).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see the previously included pto892 form with a list of related art.
US 12113526 noted as teaching SiC and diamond materials for optical switches (fig.2).
US 5477556, 5450430, 5444729, 5406572 noted as being related references by Chung.
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