DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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 and 12-16 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 (a 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)); and
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)).
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, further comprising: suppressing, with a resistor in the second circuit path, oscillations in the current discharged from the one or more inductive elements to reduce after pulse ringing in the electrical pulse (Pavlov Fig 9, para [115] where the apparatus (900) suppresses, with a resistor (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) to reduce after pulse ringing in the electrical pulse (as shown in Fig 10)).
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 14. Pavlov as modified by Barnes also discloses the method, wherein the second circuit path includes the optical load (Pavlov Fig 9, where the second circuit path (e.g. V2, L1, C1, D1, R1) includes the optical load (D1)).
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)).
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 to 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.
Claim 5 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) in further view of Chang et al (US pub 20160135260).
Regarding claim 5. Pavlov as modified by Barnes and Komamaki fails to explicitly disclose the method, further comprising: suppressing after pulse ringing with the capacitive element by dumping oscillating voltages across the optical load.
However, Chang discloses
suppressing after pulse ringing with an capacitive element by dumping oscillating voltages across an optical load (Fig 8, para [62] where a circuit suppresses after pulse ringing (i.e. high frequency glitter / quick fluctuations) with a capacitive element (333) by dumping/reducing oscillating voltages across an optical load (331)).
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 and Komamaki, with the teachings of the optical load (331) as described in Chang. The motivation being is that as shown an optical load (331) in parallel with a capacitive element (333) can suppress after pulse ringing (i.e. high frequency glitter / quick fluctuations) by dumping / reducing oscillating voltages across the optical load (331) 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 Komamaki and have the optical load (D1) in parallel with a capacitive element (C’ or 333) be able to suppress after pulse ringing (i.e. high frequency glitter / quick fluctuations) by dumping / reducing oscillating voltages across 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 (331) for the purpose of optimally suppressing high frequency glitter / quick fluctuations with a known capacitor and which technique improves pulse quality and system performance 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 (331) 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 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])).
Claims 17-19 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) in further view of Chang et al (US pub 20160135260).
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)),
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.
Pavlov as modified by Barnes fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second circuit path includes a capacitive element in parallel with the optical load to suppress after pulse ringing by dumping oscillating voltages across the optical load.
However, Chang discloses
a second circuit path includes a capacitive element in parallel with an optical load to suppress after pulse ringing by dumping oscillating voltages across the optical load (Fig 8, para [62] where a second circuit path includes a capacitive element (333) in parallel with an optical load (331) so as to suppress after pulse ringing (i.e. high frequency glitter / quick fluctuations) by dumping / reducing oscillating voltages across the optical load (331)).
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 (331) as described in Chang. The motivation being is that as shown an optical load (331) can be in parallel with a capacitive element (333) so as to suppress after pulse ringing (i.e. high frequency glitter / quick fluctuations) by dumping / reducing oscillating voltages across the optical load (331) 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 (333) so as to suppress after pulse ringing (i.e. high frequency glitter / quick fluctuations) by dumping / reducing oscillating voltages across 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 (331) for the purpose of optimally suppressing high frequency glitter / quick fluctuations with a known capacitor and which technique improves pulse quality and system performance 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 (331) into another similar optical load (D1), namely, for its improvement and for optimization and which modification yields predictable results.
Regarding claim 18. Pavlov as modified by Barnes and Chang 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 and Chang 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 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pavlov et al (US Pub 20180261975) in view of Chang et al (US pub 20160135260).
Regarding claim 20. Pavlov discloses a method for driving an optical load, the method comprising:
charging, with a source, one or more inductive elements by closing a switch to provide current through a first circuit path to the one or more inductive elements (Fig 9, where an apparatus (900) charges, with a source (V2), one or more inductive elements (L1) by closing a switch (S1) to provide current through a first circuit path (e.g. V2, L1, S1) to the one or more inductive elements (L1)),
wherein the first circuit path is connected to the source and includes: the switch, and the one or more inductive elements (Fig 9, where the first circuit path (e.g. V2, L1, S1) is connected to the source (V2) and includes: the switch (S1), and the one or more inductive elements (L1)); and
driving the optical load by 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) drives an optical load (D1) by opening 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 is connected to the source and includes: the one or more inductive elements, a resistive element, a first capacitive element in series with the optical load (Fig 9, where the second circuit path (e.g. V2, L1, C1, D1, R1) is connected to the source (V2) and includes: the one or more inductive elements (L1), a resistive element (R1), a first capacitive element (C1) in series with the optical load (D1)).
Pavlov fails to explicitly disclose a second capacitive element, in parallel with the optical load, to suppress after pulse ringing by dumping oscillating voltages across the optical load.
However, Chang discloses
a second capacitive element, in parallel with an optical load, suppresses after pulse ringing by dumping oscillating voltages across the optical load (Fig 8, para [62] where a second capacitive element (333) in parallel with an optical load (331) suppresses after pulse ringing (i.e. high frequency glitter / quick fluctuations) by dumping / reducing oscillating voltages across the optical load (331)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the optical load (D1) as described in Pavlov, with the teachings of the optical load (331) as described in Chang. The motivation being is that as shown an optical load (331) can be in parallel with a capacitive element (333) so as to suppress after pulse ringing (i.e. high frequency glitter / quick fluctuations) by dumping / reducing oscillating voltages across the optical load (331) and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the optical load (D1) as described in Pavlov and have the optical load (D1) be in parallel with a capacitive element (333) so as to suppress after pulse ringing (i.e. high frequency glitter / quick fluctuations) by dumping / reducing oscillating voltages across 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 (331) for the purpose of optimally suppressing high frequency glitter / quick fluctuations with a known capacitor and which technique improves pulse quality and system performance 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 (331) into another similar optical load (D1), namely, for its improvement and for optimization and which modification yields predictable results.
Conclusion
The additional prior art considered relevant to the Applicant’s disclosure and not relied upon is the following:
Kouchi (US Pat 6292500) and more specifically Fig 8(b) where a capacitor 21 is in parallel with a laser 23.
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