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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/18/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amending of claims 1, 12 and 15.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner initially notes that the current application is part of the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) program. This program extends to any RCEs filed in the prosecution (see PPH FAQ question 26).
The Applicant has not complied with the guidelines of the PPH program as additional limitations have been added to the independent claims which make them narrower in scope than the allowed OEE claims without those limitations having first been presented in dependent form (see PPH FAQ questions 34 and 35). Further, the Applicant has not submitted a statement certifying that the amended claims sufficiently correspond to the allowable/patentable claims in the OEE application. The Examiner directs Applicant’s attention to the previously mailed notice of non-responsive reply (10/07/2025) and Applicant’s subsequent response correcting the noted issues (see Claims and Remarks of 12/02/2025).
Although the above noted deficiencies exist, the Examiner has chosen to examine the application in the interest of compact prosecution.
The Examiner reserves the right to not enter any future amendments which do not comply with the requirements of the PPH program.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 15 over Chung in view of Brunner, the Applicant has argued (Remarks, pg.10) that Brunner does not teach the updated claim language.
The Examiner notes that the Applicant’s evaluation of the Brunner reference analyzes fig.5 and its associated components. The previously presented rejection relied instead upon fig.7 and the components therein, making the arguments largely moot.
Further, the Examiner has updated the rejections of claims 1 and 15 to make use of Iwazaki. It is noted that the Applicant’s Remarks did not distinctly and specifically point out any supposed errors in the Examiner’s action related to the use of the Iwazaki reference (claims 21-23; see 37 CFR 1.111) or particularly point out how the updated claim language differentiates from the Iwazaki teachings.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15 at line 13 contains editing marks relating to a terminating load. The editing marks are not accurate as the claim language was previously presented in the original claim set.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous 112 rejections are withdrawn due to the current amendments.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 15 (and all claims dependent therefrom; 2-5, 9-13, 15-23) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 15 have been amended to state “at least one of the one or more inductors being coupled directly to the input port and to the energy storage capacitor”. Figure 11, elected without traverse in the reply of 05/30/2025, shows the input port as “port2”, inductors “L6/L5” and capacitor at “C1” or “C4”. As can be seen from fig.11, no inductor is directly connected to the input port (port2) as at least element R8 is intervening. Additionally, no inductor is connected directly to BOTH the input port and an energy storage capacitor.
The Applicant (see Remarks pg.9 para.4) refers to support for the amendments being found in both figures 11 and 18. As noted above, figure 18 was non-elected and thereby cannot be used to show support. Further, as additionally noted above, figure 11 is not found to clearly demonstrate support.
The Examiner suggests the Applicant provide an annotated version of fig.11 in a future Remarks and to clearly label each component and possibly their connections.
Therefore, it is not clear the Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing the application.
As per MPEP 2163.06 I, the new subject matter has been considered in the following art rejections.
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 1 (and all claims dependent therefrom; 2-5, 9-13, 22, 23) are 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 1 at line 7 refers to “the output port” and at line 17 refers to “an output port”. It is unclear if these are the same or different ports.
For purposes of examination, the first instance will be read as “an output port” while the second instance will be read as “the output port”.
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) 1-9, 15-17 and 19-23 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 1, 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), and also in communication with an output port (fig.1 output connection from #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), and a produced driving pulse (col.3 lines 4-5), 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 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). 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 being 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. 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 2, 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 3, 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 4, 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 5, 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 9, 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 15, 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 representing a driving pulse (col.3 lines 4-5) is established between the two electrodes 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 at least one of the one or more inductors being 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. 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 16, 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 17, 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 19, 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 20, 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 21, 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 22, 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 23, 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) 10, 11 and 18 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 10, 11 and 18, 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) 12 and 13 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 12, 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 13, 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 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.
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