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 1, 7, 9, 13 (and claims 2-6, 8-12, 14-20 via dependency) 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.
The term “close” in claim 1 lines 9 and 13, claim 7 lines 8 and 12, and claim 13 lines 19 and 23 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For purposes of examination “close” is understood to mean within +/- 10%.
Claim 9 is written to depend from claim 8. Claim 9 switches the first/second characteristics from duty cycle/amplitude to amplitude/duty cycle. This is confusing as it is not clear which characteristic is associated with duty cycle vs amplitude, making the scope of the claim unclear.
For purposes of examination, claim 9 is considered to depend from claim 7 in a manner similar to claim 3.
Claim 13 at line 5 is written to depend from claims 1-6. Claim 13, and its dependent claims, then add in features which already exist in claims 1-6, seemingly doubling the elements and control thereof, making the scope of the claim confusing.
For purposes of examination, claim 13 is considered not to depend from claims 1-6 based on the language of claim 1 being added to claim 13.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 9 is written to depend from claim 8. Claim 8 defines the first characteristic to be duty cycle and second to be amplitude. Claim 9 does not properly depend from claim 8 as it is not inheriting the limitations of claim 8 since the first/second characteristic types are changed.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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)(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, 6, 7, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Arulandu et al. (US 2024/0266800).
With respect to claim 1, Arulandu discloses an optical laser diode arrangement (fig.3) comprising: a laser diode (fig.3 #102); a driver (fig.3 #104/108) to provide an AC-electric power to the laser diode with a first controlled waveform characteristic (fig.3 #104 provides amplitude) and a second controlled waveform characteristic (fig.3 #108 provides duty cycle) of an electric power parameter (fig.3 current), the second controlled waveform characteristic being different from the first controlled waveform characteristic; a first feedback component (fig.3 #112) configured to sense an optical output of the laser diode ([0066]) and comprising an optical power control module (fig.3 #106, note separate modules disclosed, [0080-82]) to control the first waveform characteristic to maintain the sensed optical output close to a first desired value (abstract; controlled to desired power value); a second feedback component (fig.3 #114) configured to estimate a temperature of the laser diode by sensing a voltage-current characteristic of the laser diode ([0072, 73]) and comprising a temperature control module (fig.3 #106) configured to control the second waveform characteristic to maintain the estimated temperature close to a second desired value ([0073] both amplitude and duty cycle controlled for maximally efficient junction temperature value, [0073], fig.1).
With respect to claim 6, Arulandu discloses an optimal temperature computation module that is configured to compute as the second desired value an optimal junction temperature with which the laser diode can generate an optical output with an output power equal to the first desired value (abstract, [0073] optimal junction temp for max efficiency; note separate modules disclosed, [0080-82]).
With respect to claim 7, Arulandu discloses a method of operating an optical laser diode, comprising: providing an AC-electric power to the laser diode with a first controlled waveform characteristic (fig.3 amplitude via #104) and a second controlled waveform characteristic (fig.3 duty cycle via #108) of an electric power parameter (current), the second controlled waveform characteristic being different from the first controlled waveform characteristic; sensing an optical output power of the laser diode ([0066]); controlling the first waveform characteristic to maintain the sensed optical output close to a first desired value (abstract; controlled to desired power value); estimating a temperature of the laser diode ([0072-73]) by sensing a voltage-current characteristic of the laser diode (fig.3 via #114, [0072]); controlling the second waveform characteristic to maintain the estimated temperature close to a second desired value ([0073] both amplitude and duty cycle controlled for maximally efficient junction temperature value, [0073], fig.1).
With respect to claim 12, Arulandu discloses computing as the second desired value an optimal junction temperature with which the laser diode can generate an optical output with an output power equal to the first desired value (abstract, [0073] optimal junction temp for max efficiency).
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, 4, 8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arulandu in view of Sun (US 8837539)
With respect to claim 2, Arulandu teaches the device outlined above, including the first waveform characteristic to be controlled by the optical power control module of the first feedback component is an amplitude of the electric power parameter ([0071-74] the PD monitoring and the current/voltage monitoring are used together to set the amplitude and the duty cycle), and wherein the second waveform characteristic to be controlled by the temperature control module of the second feedback component is a duty cycle ([0071-74] the PD monitoring and the current/voltage monitoring are used together to set the amplitude and the duty cycle). Arulandu does not teach the optical power control module being configured to control a change in amplitude having a sign equal to a sign of a difference between the first desired value and the sensed optical output OR the temperature control module being configured to control a change in duty cycle having a sign equal to a sign of a difference between the second desired value and the estimated temperature. Sun teaches a related laser driver which monitors using a photodiode (fig.4 #41) and current/voltage sensing (fig.4 #51/52) and makes use of a comparator (fig.4 #32) to compare the measured values to a desired value (fig.5) and wherein the sign of the difference of each is equal the change (fig.5 based on the desired value being input to + and the measured to -). 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 Arulandu to make use of the comparisons with corresponding signs of Sun in order to directly compare the measured values to the values desired for accurate feedback control.
With respect to claim 4, Arulandu, as modified, teaches the amplitude to be controlled is an amplitude of a current supplied to the laser diode (fig.3 via #104/108).
With respect to claim 8, Arulandu teaches the first controlled waveform characteristic is an amplitude of the electric power parameter ([0071-74] the PD monitoring and the current/voltage monitoring are used together to set the amplitude and the duty cycle), and wherein the second controlled waveform characteristic is a duty cycle ([0071-74] the PD monitoring and the current/voltage monitoring are used together to set the amplitude and the duty cycle). Arulandu does not teach the optical power control module being configured to control a change in amplitude having a sign equal to a sign of a difference between the first desired value and the sensed optical output OR the temperature control module being configured to control a change in duty cycle having a sign equal to a sign of a difference between the second desired value and the estimated temperature. Sun teaches a related laser driver which monitors using a photodiode (fig.4 #41) and current/voltage sensing (fig.4 #51/52) and makes use of a comparator (fig.4 #32) to compare the measured values to a desired value (fig.5) and wherein the sign of the difference of each is equal the change (fig.5 based on the desired value being input to + and the measured to -). 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 Arulandu to make use of the comparisons with corresponding signs of Sun in order to directly compare the measured values to the values desired for accurate feedback control.
With respect to claim 10, Arulandu, as modified, teaches the amplitude to be controlled is an amplitude of a current supplied to the laser diode (fig.3 via #104/108).
Claim(s) 3 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arulandu and Sun in view of Girmay (US 5414280).
With respect to claim 3, Arulandu teaches the device outlined above, including the first waveform characteristic to be controlled by the optical power control module of the first feedback component is a duty cycle of the electric power parameter ([0071-74] the PD monitoring and the current/voltage monitoring are used together to set the amplitude and the duty cycle), wherein the second waveform characteristic to be controlled by the temperature control module of the second feedback component is an amplitude ([0071-74] the PD monitoring and the current/voltage monitoring are used together to set the amplitude and the duty cycle). Arulandu does not teach the optical power control module being configured to control a change in duty cycle having a sign equal to a sign of a difference between the first desired value and the sensed optical output OR the temperature control module being configured to control a change in amplitude having a sign reverse to a sign of a difference between the second desired value and the estimated temperature. Sun teaches a related laser driver which monitors using a photodiode (fig.4 #41) and current/voltage sensing (fig.4 #51/52) and makes use of a comparator (fig.4 #32) to compare the measured values to a desired value (fig.5) and wherein the sign of the difference of each is equal the change (fig.5 based on the desired value being input to + and the measured to -). 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 Arulandu to make use of the comparisons with corresponding signs of Sun in order to directly compare the measured values to the values desired for accurate feedback control.
Arulandu, as modified, does not teach the sign to be reversed for the current/voltage feedback case. Girmay teaches a related laser driver (fig.5) using a photodiode for feedback (fig.5 #17) and current/voltage sensing for feedback (fig.5 near #23), wherein the current/voltage sensing feedback is made use of for both a positive sign addition and a negative sign subtraction (fig.5 top vs. bottom of #12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to also make use of a reverse sign for the current/voltage sensing feedback as demonstrated by Girmay in order to sample both when the laser is on and off (Girmay, col.4 lines 9-17).
With respect to claim 9, Arulandu teaches the method outlined above, including the first controlled waveform characteristic is a duty cycle of the electric power parameter ([0071-74] the PD monitoring and the current/voltage monitoring are used together to set the amplitude and the duty cycle), and wherein the second controlled waveform characteristic is an amplitude ([0071-74] the PD monitoring and the current/voltage monitoring are used together to set the amplitude and the duty cycle). ). Arulandu does not teach the optical power control module being configured to control a change in duty cycle having a sign equal to a sign of a difference between the first desired value and the sensed optical output OR the temperature control module being configured to control a change in amplitude having a sign reverse to a sign of a difference between the second desired value and the estimated temperature. Sun teaches a related laser driver which monitors using a photodiode (fig.4 #41) and current/voltage sensing (fig.4 #51/52) and makes use of a comparator (fig.4 #32) to compare the measured values to a desired value (fig.5) and wherein the sign of the difference of each is equal the change (fig.5 based on the desired value being input to + and the measured to -). 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 Arulandu to make use of the comparisons with corresponding signs of Sun in order to directly compare the measured values to the values desired for accurate feedback control.
Arulandu, as modified, does not teach the sign to be reversed for the current/voltage feedback case. Girmay teaches a related laser driver (fig.5) using a photodiode for feedback (fig.5 #17) and current/voltage sensing for feedback (fig.5 near #23), wherein the current/voltage sensing feedback is made use of for both a positive sign addition and a negative sign subtraction (fig.5 top vs. bottom of #12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to also make use of a reverse sign for the current/voltage sensing feedback as demonstrated by Girmay in order to sample both when the laser is on and off (Girmay, col.4 lines 9-17).
Claim(s) 5, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arulandu and Sun in view of Gudaitis et al. (US 10361537).
With respect to claims 5 and 11, Arulandu, as modified, teaches the device and method above, but does not teach the amplitude to be controlled is an amplitude of a voltage supplied to the laser diode. Gudaitis teaches a related laser driver (fig.1) which includes driving using voltage sources (fig.1, abstract). 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 Arulandu to make use of voltage driving instead of current driving in order to have the ability to utilize alternative driving components demonstrated to provide comparable laser driving.
Claim(s) 13, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arulandu in view of Su et al. (US 2008/0022759).
With respect to claim 13, Arulandu teaches the device outlined in the rejection to claim 1 above, but does not teach the device to be part of a scanning probe microscopy device comprising: a probe with a tip to be scanned over a surface of a sample ; a signal generator to generate an input signal to induce an acoustic signal in the probe , the tip, or the sample; a laser diode arrangement to generate an optical beam to be directed to the probe resulting in a secondary beam reflected by the probe; a optical detector to provide an output signal indicative for a direction of the secondary beam ; a signal analysis module to provide an output signal indicative for features of the sample based on the input signal and the output signal. Su teaches a probe device comprising a scanning probe microscopy device (fig.1) comprising: a probe with a tip (fig.1 #110) to be scanned over a surface of a sample (fig.1 #115); a signal generator to generate an input signal to induce an acoustic signal in the probe (fig.1 #145), the tip, or the sample; a laser arrangement to generate an optical beam to be directed to the probe resulting in a secondary beam reflected by the probe ([0031]); an optical detector (fig.1 #125) to provide an output signal indicative for a direction of the secondary beam ([0031]); a signal analysis module to provide an output signal indicative for features of the sample based on the input signal and the output signal (fig.1 #130). 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 Arulandu to make use of it within a system taught by Su in order to measure material properties (Su, abstract).
With respect to claim 20, Arulandu discloses an optimal temperature computation module that is configured to compute as the second desired value an optimal junction temperature with which the laser diode can generate an optical output with an output power equal to the first desired value (abstract, [0073] optimal junction temp for max efficiency; note separate modules disclosed, [0080-82]).
Claim(s) 14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arulandu in view Su and Sun.
With respect to claim 14, Arulandu, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, including the first waveform characteristic to be controlled by the optical power control module of the first feedback component is an amplitude of the electric power parameter ([0071-74] the PD monitoring and the current/voltage monitoring are used together to set the amplitude and the duty cycle), and wherein the second waveform characteristic to be controlled by the temperature control module of the second feedback component is a duty cycle ([0071-74] the PD monitoring and the current/voltage monitoring are used together to set the amplitude and the duty cycle). Arulandu does not teach the optical power control module being configured to control a change in amplitude having a sign equal to a sign of a difference between the first desired value and the sensed optical output OR the temperature control module being configured to control a change in duty cycle having a sign equal to a sign of a difference between the second desired value and the estimated temperature. Sun teaches a related laser driver which monitors using a photodiode (fig.4 #41) and current/voltage sensing (fig.4 #51/52) and makes use of a comparator (fig.4 #32) to compare the measured values to a desired value (fig.5) and wherein the sign of the difference of each is equal the change (fig.5 based on the desired value being input to + and the measured to -). 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 Arulandu to make use of the comparisons with corresponding signs of Sun in order to directly compare the measured values to the values desired for accurate feedback control.
With respect to claim 16, Arulandu, as modified, teaches the amplitude to be controlled is an amplitude of a current supplied to the laser diode (fig.3 via #104/108).
Claim(s) 15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arulandu, Su and Sun in view of Girmay.
With respect to claim 15, Arulandu teaches the device outlined above, including the first waveform characteristic to be controlled by the optical power control module of the first feedback component is a duty cycle of the electric power parameter ([0071-74] the PD monitoring and the current/voltage monitoring are used together to set the amplitude and the duty cycle), wherein the second waveform characteristic to be controlled by the temperature control module of the second feedback component is an amplitude ([0071-74] the PD monitoring and the current/voltage monitoring are used together to set the amplitude and the duty cycle). Arulandu does not teach the optical power control module being configured to control a change in duty cycle having a sign equal to a sign of a difference between the first desired value and the sensed optical output OR the temperature control module being configured to control a change in amplitude having a sign reverse to a sign of a difference between the second desired value and the estimated temperature. Sun teaches a related laser driver which monitors using a photodiode (fig.4 #41) and current/voltage sensing (fig.4 #51/52) and makes use of a comparator (fig.4 #32) to compare the measured values to a desired value (fig.5) and wherein the sign of the difference of each is equal the change (fig.5 based on the desired value being input to + and the measured to -). 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 Arulandu to make use of the comparisons with corresponding signs of Sun in order to directly compare the measured values to the values desired for accurate feedback control.
Arulandu, as modified, does not teach the sign to be reversed for the current/voltage feedback case. Girmay teaches a related laser driver (fig.5) using a photodiode for feedback (fig.5 #17) and current/voltage sensing for feedback (fig.5 near #23), wherein the current/voltage sensing feedback is made use of for both a positive sign addition and a negative sign subtraction (fig.5 top vs. bottom of #12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to also make use of a reverse sign for the current/voltage sensing feedback as demonstrated by Girmay in order to sample both when the laser is on and off (Girmay, col.4 lines 9-17).
With respect to claim 17, Arulandu, as modified, teaches the amplitude to be controlled is an amplitude of a current supplied to the laser diode (fig.3 via #104/108).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arulandu, Su, Sun, Girmay in view of Gudaitis.
With respect to claim 19, Arulandu, as modified, teaches the device and method above, but does not teach the amplitude to be controlled is an amplitude of a voltage supplied to the laser diode. Gudaitis teaches a related laser driver (fig.1) which includes driving using voltage sources (fig.1, abstract). 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 Arulandu to make use of voltage driving instead of current driving in order to have the ability to utilize alternative driving components demonstrated to provide comparable laser driving.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arulandu, Su, Sun, in view of Gudaitis.
With respect to claim 18, Arulandu, as modified, teaches the device and method above, but does not teach the amplitude to be controlled is an amplitude of a voltage supplied to the laser diode. Gudaitis teaches a related laser driver (fig.1) which includes driving using voltage sources (fig.1, abstract). 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 Arulandu to make use of voltage driving instead of current driving in order to have the ability to utilize alternative driving components demonstrated to provide comparable laser driving.
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 art related to junction temperature control.
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