DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 4, 13, 14 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.
Claims 3, 4, 13, 14 refer to “efficiency” or “maximum efficiency” without defining what efficiency is being determined/sought. As it is not clear what efficiency is sought (e.g. optical power, electrical to optical conversion, driving current/voltage, thermal, etc.) the meets and bounds of the claims are not clear.
For purposes of examination, “efficiency” will be read as the particular operating parameter chosen in the prior art applied for each claim.
Claims 3, 4, 13, 14 refer to “desired” amounts of either or both of efficiency and power. A “desired” value can change from one system to another or one operator of a given system to another, therefore the term is nebulous and the scope of the claims is unclear.
For purposes of examination, “desired” is understood to be the operating efficiency and or power which is outlined by the cited reference used in rejecting the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because
the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to a product without physical or tangible form such as information or a computer program (see MPEP 2106.03 I).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/2 as being anticipated by Fujimoto et al. (US 2016/0233643).
With respect to claim 1, Fujimoto discloses a laser circuit (fig.5, [0012]), comprising: a laser device (fig.5 #72s); a current source (fig.5 #114s) adapted to provide a current to the laser device ([0072]), wherein the current has an amplitude and a duty cycle ([0072], [0136], necessarily having an amplitude and duty cycle as it is pulsed); a controller (fig.5 #102,108) for controlling the current source; and a sensor arrangement (fig.5 #106, 110) for monitoring a signal enabling a junction temperature of the laser device to be estimated ([0089] where eqtn.1 uses the voltage and current), wherein the controller is adapted to: - estimate a junction temperature of the laser device ([0089]); - set the amplitude of the current to the laser device in dependence on the junction temperature ([0097] the junction temperature is found, power is determined based on the temperature and then the current is adjusted based on the power determined; fig.9), and - set the duty cycle of the current to the laser device in dependence on a required power for the laser device (fig.11, [0136]; duty cycle set based on need power amount).
With respect to claim 3, Fujimoto discloses the controller is adapted to control the current amplitude and the duty cycle of the pulse width modulation laser drive current to achieve a desired efficiency and a desired optical output power (fig.9: current amplitude controlled based on desired power and thereby efficient output of that power; fig.11 duty cycle controlled to supply required power for device operation and thereby efficient operation to complete the desired task, [0136]).
With respect to claim 4, Fujimoto discloses the controller is adapted to control the current amplitude and the duty cycle of the pulse width modulation laser drive current to operate at an amplitude corresponding to a maximum efficiency and to operate at a duty cycle to deliver the desired optical output power (fig.9: current amplitude controlled based on desired power, which value P can be considered a maximum, and thereby efficient output of that power; fig.11 duty cycle controlled to supply required power for device operation and thereby efficient operation to complete the desired task, [0136]).
With respect to claim 7, Fujimoto discloses a current amplitude measurement device (fig.5 #110) for measuring a laser device current.
With respect to claim 8, Fujimoto discloses the controller is further adapted to determine the output power of the laser (fig.9 S178) and to set the amplitude (fig.9 S182) and duty cycle (fig.11, [0136]) of the laser drive current further in dependence on the output power.
With respect to claim 9, Fujimoto discloses the laser device comprises a vertical cavity surface emitting laser ([0061]).
With respect to claim 10, Fujimoto discloses the laser device comprises one or more laser diodes (fig.5 #76s).
With respect to claim 11, Fujimoto discloses a lighting circuit for delivering a constant light output power (fig.9 S180, circuit is meant to control to a fixed, desired, value P).
With respect to claim 12, Fujimoto discloses a method of controlling a laser device (fig.5 #72s), comprising: estimating a junction temperature of the laser device (fig.9 S174); setting an amplitude (fig.9 S182) of a pulse width modulation (fig.11, [0136]) laser drive current in dependence on the junction temperature (as seen in process steps S174-182 in fig.9); setting a duty cycle of the pulse width modulation laser drive current in dependence of a required power for the laser device (fig.11, [0136], based on needed output power to complete processing job), and delivering the laser driver current to the laser device ([0097]).
With respect to claim 13, Fujimoto discloses controlling setting the current amplitude and the duty cycle of the pulse width modulation laser drive current to achieve a desired efficiency and a desired optical output power (fig.9: current amplitude controlled based on desired power and thereby efficient output of that power; fig.11 duty cycle controlled to supply required power for device operation and thereby efficient operation to complete the desired task, [0136]).
With respect to claim 14, Fujimoto discloses setting the current amplitude and the duty cycle of the pulse width modulation laser drive current to operate at an amplitude corresponding to a maximum efficiency and to operate at a duty cycle to deliver the desired optical output power (fig.9: current amplitude controlled based on desired power, which value P can be considered a maximum, and thereby efficient output of that power; fig.11 duty cycle controlled to supply required power for device operation and thereby efficient operation to complete the desired task, [0136]).
With respect to claim 15, Fujimoto discloses computer program comprising computer program code means which is adapted, when said program is run on a computer, to implement the method of claim 12 (fig.5 #22, control unit necessarily comprising code enabling the method of fig.9 to be completed in conjunction with #30).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto in view of Koga et al. (US 6266078).
With respect to claim 2, Fujimoto teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach the current source comprising a switching element coupled in parallel with the laser device or in series with the laser device, wherein the switching element is arranged to control the duty cycle of the current to the laser device. Koga teaches a related laser driver (fig.5) which includes a current source (fig.5 #121,122,122,124) with switches (fig.5 #131,132) in series with lasers (fig.5 #110,111) to control the duty cycle of the current to the laser device (fig.5 via #135,136). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Fujimoto to make use of a switch orientation and operation as taught by Koga in order to control the duty cycle outlined as desired by Fujimoto (Fujimoto, fig.11).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto in view of Takigawa et al. (US 2019/0109433).
With respect to claim 5, Fujimoto teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach the sensor arrangement comprises a temperature sensor for measuring a case temperature of the laser device. Takigawa teaches a related laser device (fig.1) which includes a temperature sensor (fig.1 #15) for measuring a case temperature of the laser ([0064]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Fujimoto to make use of a temperature sensor to monitor a case temperature (surrounding housing) of the laser device in order to help monitor for potential formation of condensing water vapor (Takigawa, [0064]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto in view of Castillo et al. (US 2011/0243167).
With respect to claim 6, Fujimoto teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach the sensor arrangement comprises optical flux sensor for measuring an optical output power. Castillo teaches a related laser system (fig.2) which includes an optical flux sensor for measuring optical output power (fig.2 #108, [0023]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Fujimoto to make use of an optical sensor to monitor optical power as demonstrated by Castillo in order to make use of an additional means of feedback for power control (Castillo, [0023]) to enable redundancy in device operation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see the included pto892 form for a list of related art.
US 8605764, 7888623, in addition to the secondary references noted above, are found to teach related laser control systems.
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