DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 6/17/2026. In virtue of this communication claims 1-13 and 15-21 are currently pending in the instant application.
Response to Amendment
In response to the action mailed on 3/24/2026, the Applicant has filed a response amending the claims.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Pavlov does not teach the limitation “suppressing after pulse ringing in the electrical pulse with a resistive element in series with the optical load in the second circuit path”, however, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement because Pavlov teaches this limitation. More specifically, Pavlov Fig 9, para [115] teaches an apparatus (900) that suppresses after pulse ringing (oscillations) in an electrical pulse (as shown in Fig 8 and Fig 10) with a resistive element (R1) in series with an optical load (D1) in a second circuit path (e.g. V2, L1, C1, D1, R1). Thus, Pavlov teaches this argued limitation i.e. as currently presented in the claim and is contrary to what the Applicant argues. The Applicant also argues that in Pavlov Fig 9 “The laser diode D1 in LiDAR apparatus 900 is modelled with a series resistance of 10Ω to mimic the power dissipation of the laser. The waveforms as illustrated in FIG. 10 show that the oscillations are now quickly damped by the power dissipation in R1 which crudely models the effect of conversion of the energy to light and heat in the laser diode D1. However, modeling the resistance of the laser diode is different from a circuit that includes a resistor in series with an optical load", however, the claims i.e. as currently presented do not require that the resistive element cannot be a series resistance that mimic power dissipation of a laser diode or that the power dissipation in the resistive element cannot crudely model the effect of conversion of energy to light and heat in the laser diode. There is nothing in the claims that prevents the Examiner from using the reference of Pavlov and making this rejection. This issue was discussed during the interview held on 6/11/2026. The Examiner explained that this limitation needed clarification. This argued limitation, i.e. as currently presented is claimed in a broad manner. As a reminder, limitations from the Applicant’s specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP 2145 section “Arguing Limitations Which Are Not Claimed” for details. Therefore, any difference between the cited prior art and the instant application must be clearly recited in the independent claims in order to have any weight and/or patentable consideration. Thus, for at least these reasons, Pavlov still teaches this argued limitation i.e. as currently being presented in the claims.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 12-13 and 15-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pavlov et al (US Pub 20180261975) in view of Barnes et al (US Pat 10158211).
Regarding claim 1. Pavlov discloses a method for generating electrical pulses to drive an optical load (Fig 9, where a LiDAR has an apparatus (900) that generates electrical pulses to drive an optical load (D1)), the method comprising:
charging, with a source, one or more inductive elements by closing, for a first time interval, a switch to provide current through a first circuit path to the one or more inductive elements (Fig 9, where the apparatus (900) charges, with a source (V2), one or more inductive elements (L1) by closing, for a first time interval (as show in Fig 10), a switch (S1) to provide current through a first circuit path (e.g. V2, L1, S1) to the one or more inductive elements (L1));
driving the optical load by opening, for a second time interval after the first time interval, the switch to discharge current from the one or more inductive elements through a second circuit path to provide an electrical pulse to the optical load (Fig 9, where the apparatus (900) drives the optical load (D1) by opening, for a second time interval after the first time interval (as shown in Fig 10), the switch (S1) to discharge current from the one or more inductive elements (L1) through a second circuit path (e.g. V2, L1, C1, D1, R1) to provide an electrical pulse to the optical load (D1)); and
suppressing after pulse ringing in the electrical pulse with a resistive element in series with the optical load in the second circuit path (Fig 9, para [115] where the apparatus (900) suppresses after pulse ringing (oscillations) in the electrical pulse (as shown in Fig 8 and Fig 10) with a resistive element (R1) in series with the optical load (D1) in the second circuit path (e.g. V2, L1, C1, D1, R1)).
Pavlov fails to explicitly disclose the electrical pulses being narrow electrical pulses with high peak current.
However, Barnes discloses
electrical pulses being narrow electrical pulses with high peak current (col 2 lines 29-37, where a LIDAR generates electrical pulses that are narrow electrical pulses with high peak current).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the LiDAR as described in Pavlov, with the teachings of the LIDAR as described in Barnes. The motivation being is that as shown a LIDAR generates electrical pulses that are narrow electrical pulses with high peak current and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the LiDAR as described in Pavlov and better show and illustrate that the LiDAR generates electrical pulses that are narrow electrical pulses with high peak current i.e. because the LiDAR in order to optimally perform ranging uses pulses that are narrow because they improve time resolution and uses pulses that have a high peak because they improve detection range and which combination is being made because both systems are directed to LiDARs /LIDARs and which combination is a simple implementation of a known concept of a known LIDAR into another similar LiDAR, namely, for better clarifying its operation/ configuration and which combination yields predictable results.
Regarding claim 2. Pavlov as modified by Barnes also discloses the method, wherein the second circuit path includes a capacitive element in series with the optical load (Pavlov Fig 9, where the second circuit path (e.g. V2, L1, C1, D1, R1) has a capacitive element (C1) in series with the optical load (D1)).
Regarding claim 3. Pavlov as modified by Barnes also discloses the method, wherein the first time interval is in a range from 1 nanosecond to 20 nanoseconds (Pavlov Fig 9, para [133] where the first time interval is for example 10 nanoseconds).
Regarding claim 6. Pavlov as modified by Barnes also discloses the method, wherein suppressing the after pulse ringing comprises:
suppressing, with the resistive element in the second circuit path, oscillations in the current discharged from the one or more inductive elements (Pavlov Fig 9, para [115] where the apparatus (900) suppresses with the resistive element (R1) in the second circuit path (e.g. V2, L1, C1, D1, R1), oscillations in the current discharged from the one or more inductive elements (L1)).
Regarding claim 7. Pavlov as modified by Barnes also discloses the method, wherein charging, with the source, the one or more inductive elements comprises charging the one or more inductive elements with an input, wherein the input is greater than a threshold at which the optical load would emit light (Pavlov Fig 9, where the apparatus (900) charging, with the source (V2), the one or more inductive elements (L1) comprises charging the one or more inductive elements (L1) with an input (e.g. from V2) and it is known in the art that the input (e.g. from V2) is greater than a threshold at which the optical load (D1) would emit light (See Giger et al (US Pub 20140204396) Fig 1, para [58])), wherein the second circuit path includes a blocking capacitor in series with the optical load, and wherein the method further comprises preventing, with the blocking capacitor and when the switch is open, the optical load from emitting light (Pavlov Fig 9, where the second circuit path (e.g. V2, L1, C1, D1, R1) includes a blocking capacitor (C1) in series with the optical load (D1) and where the apparatus (900) prevents, with the blocking capacitor (C1) and when the switch (S1) is open, the optical load (D1) from emitting light).
Regarding claim 8. Pavlov as modified by Barnes also discloses the method, further comprising: repeatedly charging the one or more inductive elements for the first time interval and driving the optical load for the second time interval to provide multiple electrical pulses to the optical load (Pavlov Fig 9, where the apparatus (900) (i.e. when outputting multiple optical pulses) repeatedly charges the one or more inductive elements (L1) for the first time interval (as shown in Fig 10) and drives the optical load (D1) for the second time interval (as shown in Fig 10) to provide multiple electrical pulses to the optical load (D1)).
Regarding claim 9. Pavlov as modified by Barnes also discloses the method, further comprising: closing the switch to charge the one or more inductive elements and opening the switch to drive the optical load at a switching frequency, wherein the switching frequency is in a range from 50 megahertz to 1 gigahertz (Pavlov Fig 9, para [117] where the apparatus (900) closes the switch (S1) to charge the one or more inductive elements (L1) and opens the switch (S1) to drive the optical load (D1) at a switching frequency and where the switching frequency is for example 200MHz).
Regarding claim 12. Pavlov as modified by Barnes also discloses the method, wherein, in response to the electrical pulse, the optical load is to emit an optical pulse having a width in a range from 30 picoseconds to 1,000 picoseconds (Pavlov Fig 9, para [133] where an optical pulse from the optical load (D1), in response to the electrical pulse, has a width of for example 100ps).
Regarding claim 13. Pavlov as modified by Barnes also discloses the method, wherein the switch is a field effect transistor (Pavlov Fig 9, para [117] where the switch (S1) is a metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistor (MOSFET)).
Regarding claim 15. Pavlov as modified by Barnes also discloses the method, wherein the optical load is at least one of an array of one or more light-emitting diodes, an array of one or more laser diodes, an array of one or more semiconductor laser diodes, or an array of one or more vertical-cavity surface-emitting lasers (Pavlov Fig 9, where the optical load (D1) is a laser diode and it is known in the art that the laser diode is an array of one or more laser diodes (see Mousavian et al (US Pub 20210111533) Fig 2)).
Regarding claim 16. Pavlov as modified by Barnes also discloses the method, wherein the optical load comprises multiple optical loads electrically connected in parallel or in series (Pavlov Fig 9, where the optical load (D1) is a laser diode and it is known in the art that the laser diode comprises multiple optical loads electrically connected in parallel (see Mousavian et al (US Pub 20210111533) Fig 2)).
Regarding claim 17. Pavlov discloses a method for generating electrical pulses to drive an optical load (Fig 9, where an apparatus (900) generates electrical pulses to drive an optical load (D1)), the method comprising:
closing a switch to provide current through a first circuit path to charge one or more inductive elements (Fig 9, where the apparatus (900) closes a switch (S1) to provide current through a first circuit path (e.g. V2, L1, S1) to charge one or more inductive elements (L1)); and
opening the switch to discharge current from the one or more inductive elements through a second circuit path to provide an electrical pulse to the optical load (Fig 9, where the apparatus (900) opens the switch (S1) to discharge current from the one or more inductive elements (L1) through a second circuit path (e.g. V2, L1, C1, D1, R1) to provide an electrical pulse to the optical load (D1)), wherein the second circuit path includes a resistive element in series with the optical load to suppress after pulse ringing in the electrical pulse (Fig 9, para [115] where the second circuit path (e.g. V2, L1, C1, D1, R1) includes a resistive element (R1) in series with the optical load (D1) to suppress after pulse ringing (oscillations) in the electrical pulse (as shown in Fig 8 and Fig 10)).
Pavlov fails to explicitly disclose the electrical pulses being narrow electrical pulses with high peak current.
However, Barnes discloses
electrical pulses being narrow electrical pulses with high peak current (col 2 lines 29-37, where a LIDAR generates electrical pulses that are narrow electrical pulses with high peak current).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the LiDAR as described in Pavlov, with the teachings of the LIDAR as described in Barnes. The motivation being is that as shown a LIDAR generates electrical pulses that are narrow electrical pulses with high peak current and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the LiDAR as described in Pavlov and better show and illustrate that the LiDAR generates electrical pulses that are narrow electrical pulses with high peak current i.e. because the LiDAR in order to optimally perform ranging uses pulses that are narrow because they improve time resolution and uses pulses that have a high peak because they improve detection range and which combination is being made because both systems are directed to LiDARs /LIDARs and which combination is a simple implementation of a known concept of a known LIDAR into another similar LiDAR, namely, for better clarifying its operation/ configuration and which combination yields predictable results.
Regarding claim 18. Pavlov as modified by Barnes also discloses the method, further comprising: closing the switch and opening the switch at a switching frequency, wherein the switching frequency is in a range from 50 megahertz to 1 gigahertz (Pavlov Fig 9, para [117] where the apparatus (900) closes the switch (S1) and opens the switch (S1) at a switching frequency and where the switching frequency is for example 200MHz).
Regarding claim 19. Pavlov as modified by Barnes also discloses the method, further comprising: repeatedly opening and closing the switch to provide multiple electrical pulses to the optical load (Pavlov Fig 9, where the apparatus (900) (i.e. when outputting multiple optical pulses) repeatedly opens and closes the switch (S1) to provide multiple electrical pulses to the optical load (D1)).
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pavlov et al (US Pub 20180261975) in view of Barnes et al (US Pat 10158211) in further view of Komamaki (US Pub 20110043790).
Regarding claim 4. Pavlov as modified by Barnes fails to explicitly disclose the method, further comprising: adjusting, with a capacitive element, in the second circuit path, in parallel with the optical load, a shape of the electrical pulse provided to the optical load.
However, Komamaki discloses
adjusting, with a capacitive element, in a second circuit path, in parallel to an optical load, a shape of an electrical pulse provided to the optical load (Fig 1, where a circuit adjusts, with a capacitive element (C’), in a second circuit path, in parallel to an optical load (LD), a shape of an electrical pulse provided to the optical load (LD) (as shown in Fig 4)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the optical load (D1) as described in Pavlov as modified by Barnes, with the teachings of the optical load (LD) as described in Komamaki. The motivation being is that as shown an optical load (LD) can be in parallel with a capacitive element (C’) so as to change a shape of an electrical pulse being provided to the optical load (LD) and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the optical load (D1) as described in Pavlov as modified by Barnes and have the optical load (D1) be in parallel with a capacitive element (C’) so as to change a shape of an electrical pulse being provided to the optical load (D1) i.e. as an alternative so as to have the optical load (D1) with a known technique of a known optical load (LD) for the purpose of optimally removing unwanted inductances and shortening the width of light pulses and which modification is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. optical drivers, optical loads) and which modification is a simple implementation of a known concept of a known optical load (LD) into another similar optical load (D1), namely, for its improvement and for optimization and which modification yields predictable results.
Claims 10-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pavlov et al (US Pub 20180261975) in view of Barnes et al (US Pat 10158211) in further view of Weatherspoon et al (US Pub 20130120095).
Regarding claim 10. Pavlov as modified by Barnes also discloses the method, wherein the one or more inductive elements achieve a total inductance satisfying a threshold frequency (Pavlov Fig 9, para [111] where the one or more inductive elements (L1) achieve a total inductance satisfying a threshold resonant frequency (1/(2π (LC)1/2))).
Pavlov as modified by Barnes fails to explicitly disclose the one or more inductive elements comprise a trace having a length and width.
However, Weatherspoon discloses
one or more inductive elements comprise a trace having a length and width (Fig 1, Fig 5, paras [25][36] where one or more inductive elements (10) comprise a trace (13) having a length and width).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the one or more inductive elements (L1) as described in Pavlov as modified by Barnes, with the teachings of the one or more inductive elements (10) as described in Weatherspoon. The motivation being is that as shown one or more inductive elements (10) can comprise a trace (13) having a length and width and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the one or more inductive elements (L1) as described in Pavlov as modified by Barnes and have the one or more inductive elements (L1) comprise a trace (13) having a length and width i.e. as an alternative so as to have the one or more inductive elements (L1) with a known technique of known one or more inductive elements (10) for the purpose of optimally establishing inductance via a known trace and which technique provides a variable inductance tunable to a desired value and which modification is a simple implementation of a known concept of known one or more inductive elements (10) into other similar one or more inductive elements (L1), namely, for their improvement and for optimization and which modification yields predictable results.
Regarding claim 11. Pavlov as modified by Barnes and Weatherspoon also discloses the method, wherein the total inductance satisfies the threshold if energy stored by the one or more inductive elements generates, when discharged, a peak current of the electrical pulse that satisfies a threshold current of the optical load (Pavlov Fig 9, para [111] where the total inductance satisfies the resonant threshold frequency (1/(2π (LC)1/2)) if energy stored by the one or more inductive elements (L1) generates, when discharged, a peak current of the electrical pulse and where it is known in the art that the peak current of the electrical pulse satisfies a threshold current of the optical load (D1) in order to emit light pulses (See Cheng et al (US Pub 20160079731) Fig 3, Fig 4, paragraph [45])).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 21 is/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.
Claim 20 is allowed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DIBSON J SANCHEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0868. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 10:00-6:00.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, Kenneth Vanderpuye can be reached on 5712723078. 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. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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.
/DIBSON J SANCHEZ/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights