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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in regards to application # 18/598,916 that was filed on 03/07/2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are under examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation in claim 12 seem to have a run-on sentence. For clarity the sentences need to be revised.. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1,2, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Partovi (doc. “A SCALABLE ALL DIGITAL 64 x 48 PIXEL FLASH LIDAR IMAGE SENSOR”).
Regarding Claim 1, Partovi discloses a time-of-flight, ToF (page 4), system comprising: an imager (Fig. 2.1, page 5), the imager comprising:
a controller (‘controller’, Fig. 2.1, page 5) configured to output a laser control signal (control to the ‘laser driver’, Fig. 2.1) and an image sensor control signal (control to the ‘image sensor’, Fig. 2.1); and
an image sensor (‘image sensor’, Fig. 2.1) for accumulating charge based on received incident light, wherein the image sensor is configured to receive the image sensor control signal for controlling a timing of charge accumulation of the image sensor (from the ‘controller’, Fig. 2.1); and a laser driver system (‘laser driver’, Fig. 2.1) configured to receive the laser control signal(from the ‘controller’, Fig. 2.1), the laser driver(‘laser driver’, Fig. 2.1) comprising: a high-side laser driver, the high-side laser driver configured to generate a laser drive current dependent on the laser control signal (Fig. 2.1, page 5).
Regarding Claim 2, Partovi discloses a time-of-flight, ToF (page 4), system wherein the ToF system is an indirect time-of-flight, ToF, system (page 4).
Regarding Claim 7, Partovi discloses a time-of-flight, ToF (page 4), system wherein the laser driver system further comprises an output for outputting the laser drive current (Fig. 2.1, page 5), and wherein the ToF system further comprises a laser comprising an anode (Fig. 2.2. page 6-7) that is coupled to the output of the laser driver system, wherein the laser is configured to receive the laser drive current for driving the laser to emit light (Fig. 2.1, Fig. 2.2, pages 5-7).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Watanabe et al. (US 2022/0291340).
Regarding Claim 18, Watanabe discloses a laser driver system (‘laser driver’, Fig. 1) for use in a time-of-flight, ToF (functional limitation), system that comprises an imager (‘ranging sensor’, Fig. 1)and a laser (‘lighting device 11’, Fig. 1, para. [0044]), the laser driver system being configured to receive a laser control signal from the imager (via 14 from 13 to 12, Fig. 1), wherein the laser driver system comprises: a high-side laser driver (‘light emission control section’ 12, Fig. 1, the high-side laser driver(12, Fig. 1) configured to generate a laser drive current (control signal to 11 from 12, Fig. 1) dependent on the laser control signal(from 13 via 14 to 12, Fig. 1).
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, 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.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partovi (doc. “A SCALABLE ALL DIGITAL 64 x 48 PIXEL FLASH LIDAR IMAGE SENSOR”) in view of Gilliland et al. (US 2016/0266242).
Regarding Claim 3, Partovi is silent, but Gilliland in the same field of endeavor teaches ladar sensor wherein the laser control signal is a digital laser control signal, and the laser driver system further comprises: a digital-to-analog converter, DAC, configured to receive the digital laser control signal and generate an analog laser control signal using the digital laser control signal, wherein the high-side laser driver is configured to generate the laser drive current to have an amplitude that is dependent on the amplitude of analog laser control signal (para. [0046], “…Control processor 58 connects to pulsed laser transmitter 68 through bidirectional electrical connections (with interface logic, analog to digital (A/D) and digital to analog (D/A) converters 66) which transfer commands from control processor 58 to pulsed laser transmitter 68 and return monitoring signals from pulsed laser transmitter 68 to the control processor 58…”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laser drive system disclosed in Partovi with the laser drive system with the digital-to-analog converter taught in Gilliland with a reasonable expectation of success because it provides precise, programmable control over a laser bias and modulation currents converting digital signals to analog signals.
Regarding Claim 4, Partovi is silent, but Gilliland in the same field of endeavor teaches ladar sensor wherein the DAC comprises: a memory (64, para. [0047])configured to store a plurality of ordered multi-bit digital words, wherein the digital laser control signal comprises a clock signal (i.e., from 62, Fig. 4, para. [0047]), and wherein on each pulse of the clock signal, memory is configured to output a next multi-bit digital word of the plurality of ordered digital words, and wherein the DAC is configured to generate the analog laser control signal by converting the multi-bit digital word output by the memory (Fig. 14, para. [0047], “…The modulation signal is typically stored in memory 64 as a lookup table of digital memory words representative of analog values, which lookup table is read out in sequence by control processor 58 and converted to analog values by an onboard digital-to-analog (D/A) converter 66, and passed to the pulsed laser transmitter 68 driver circuit….”).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partovi (doc. “A SCALABLE ALL DIGITAL 64 x 48 PIXEL FLASH LIDAR IMAGE SENSOR”) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2020/0174786).
Regarding Claims 5-6, Partovi is silent, but Zhang in the same field of endeavor teaches a driver circuit/laser driver wherein the high-side laser driver is a high-side current mirror, wherein the high-side current mirror is a high-side multiplicative current mirror. (para. [0034]-[0035]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laser drive system disclosed in Partovi with the multiplicative current error taught in Zhang with a reasonable expectation of success because it provides current scaling and amplification as well as high speed direct modulation.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partovi (doc. “A SCALABLE ALL DIGITAL 64 x 48 PIXEL FLASH LIDAR IMAGE SENSOR”).
Regarding Claim 8, Partovi discloses the claimed invention except for one or more additional high-side laser drivers coupled to the anode of the laser. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to add one or more additional high-side laser drivers as recited, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Partovi discloses the ToF system wherein each of the additional laser drivers are configured to output the additional laser drive current to the anode of the laser (i.e., additional laser drivers would clearly output the additional laser drive currents to the laser).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Partovi discloses the ToF system wherein each of the additional laser drivers are configured to output the additional laser driver current to an anode of one or more additional lasers (i.e. additional laser drivers would clearly output the additional laser drive currents to an anode of one or more additional lasers when the one or more additional lasers are arranged in series).
Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partovi (doc. “A SCALABLE ALL DIGITAL 64 x 48 PIXEL FLASH LIDAR IMAGE SENSOR”) in view of Hurwitz et al. (US 2022/0029383).
Regarding Claims 11, Partovi is silent, but Hurwitz in the same field of endeavor teaches a laser driver comprises a vertical capacitor (230, Fig. 2A-2B), wherein a first terminal of the vertical capacitor is coupled to a reference voltage and a second terminal of the vertical capacitor is coupled to a supply terminal of the high-side laser driver (para. [0088]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laser driver disclosed in Partovi with the vertical capacitor taught in Hurwitz with a reasonable expectation of success because it reduces the loop inductance, allowing the driver to supply instantaneous bursts of current without dangerous voltage droops as well as superior high-frequency noise decoupling, and space-saving integration.
Regarding Claims 12, Partovi is silent, but Hurwitz in the same field of endeavor teaches a laser driver system comprises a substrate, and wherein a first side of the laser driver system, a cathode on a first side of the laser(para. [0110]) and the first terminal on a first side of the vertical capacitor (230) are coupled to a ground plane of the substrate (Fig. 2B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laser driver system disclosed in Partovi with the substrate and cathode taught in Hurwitz with a reasonable expectation of success because it provides an appropriate integration platform to provides appropriate connections and integration.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Partovi discloses the claimed invention except for the output of the laser driver system being on a second side of the laser driver system, the second side being opposite to a first side of the laser driver; the anode of the laser being on a second side of the laser, the second side being opposite to the first side of the laser; the second terminal being on a second side of the vertical capacitor; and the anode of the laser, the output of the laser driver system, and the second terminal of the vertical capacitor being coupled in series.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the above arrangement, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Partovi discloses the claimed invention except for the second side of the laser driver system, the second side of the laser and the second side of the vertical capacitor are at the same height. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the second side of the laser driver system, the second side of the laser and the second side of the vertical capacitor the same height. since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partovi (doc. “A SCALABLE ALL DIGITAL 64 x 48 PIXEL FLASH LIDAR IMAGE SENSOR”) in view of Morita et al. (US 2015/0098711).
Regarding Claims 15, Partovi is silent, but Zhang in the same field of endeavor teaches a laser driver 224 wherein the laser control signal is a differential signal, and the laser drive current generated by the laser driver is a single-ended signal that is proportional to the differential signal (para. [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laser control signal disclosed in Partovi with the differential control signal taught in Morita with a reasonable expectation of success because it provides high noise immunity by effectively canceling out the noise as well as improve measurement precision and speed.
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partovi (doc. “A SCALABLE ALL DIGITAL 64 x 48 PIXEL FLASH LIDAR IMAGE SENSOR”) in view of Hamajima et al. (US 2004/0052281).
Regarding Claims 15, Partovi is silent, but Hamajima in the same field of endeavor teaches a laser driver wherein the laser control signal is a differential signal, and the laser drive current generated by the laser driver is a single-ended signal that is proportional to the differential signal (para. [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laser control signal disclosed in Partovi with the differential control signal taught in Hamajima with a reasonable expectation of success because it provides high noise immunity by effectively canceling out the noise as well as improve measurement precision and speed.
Regarding Claims 16, Partovi is silent, but Hamajima in the same field of endeavor teaches a laser driver wherein the laser driver further comprises a voltage-to-current converter system configured to receive the laser control signal and convert the laser control signal to a differential current signal (para. [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laser driver disclosed in Partovi with the voltage-to-current converter taught in Hamajima with a reasonable expectation of success because it translates an input voltage into a highly stable output current.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partovi (doc. “A SCALABLE ALL DIGITAL 64 x 48 PIXEL FLASH LIDAR IMAGE SENSOR”) in view of O’Keeffe (US 2023/0084560).
Regarding Claim 17, Partovi is silent, but Zhang in the same field of endeavor teaches a laser that is a vertical cavity surface emitting lasers, VSCEL (para. [0064]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laser disclosed in Partovi with the vertical cavity surface emitting lasers, VSCEL taught in O’Keeffe with a reasonable expectation of success because it generates light with very precise timing in order to be able to determine the time of flight of the light (O’Keeffe , para. [0064]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US 2022/0291340) in view of Gilliland et al. (US 2016/0266242).
Regarding Claim 19, Watanabe discloses analog-to-digital converter (para. [0085]). Watanabe is silent, but Gilliland in the same field of endeavor teaches ladar sensor wherein the laser control signal is a digital laser control signal, and the laser driver system further comprises: a digital-to-analog converter, DAC, configured to receive the digital laser control signal and generate an analog laser control signal using the digital laser control signal, wherein the high-side laser driver is configured to generate the laser drive current to have an amplitude that is dependent on the amplitude of analog laser control signal (para. [0046], “…Control processor 58 connects to pulsed laser transmitter 68 through bidirectional electrical connections (with interface logic, analog to digital (A/D) and digital to analog (D/A) converters 66) which transfer commands from control processor 58 to pulsed laser transmitter 68 and return monitoring signals from pulsed laser transmitter 68 to the control processor 58…”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laser drive system disclosed in Watanabe with the laser drive system with the digital-to-analog converter taught in Gilliland with a reasonable expectation of success because it provides precise, programmable control over a laser bias and modulation currents converting digital signals to analog signals.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partovi (doc. “A SCALABLE ALL DIGITAL 64 x 48 PIXEL FLASH LIDAR IMAGE SENSOR”) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2020/0174786).
Regarding Claim 20, Partovi discloses a time-of-flight, ToF (page 4), system comprising: an imager(Fig. 2.1, page 5),, the imager comprising: a controller (‘controller’, Fig. 2.1, page 5) configured to output a laser control signal (current to the ‘laser driver’, Fig. 2.1) and an image sensor control signal (control to the ‘image sensor’, Fig. 2.1); and a laser driver system configured to receive the laser control signal(from the ‘controller’, Fig. 2.1). Partovi is silent, but Zhang in the same field of endeavor teaches a driver circuit/laser driver with a high-side multiplicative current mirror configured to generate a laser drive current dependent on the laser control signal(para. [0034]-[0035]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laser drive system disclosed in Partovi with the multiplicative current error taught in Zhang with a reasonable expectation of success because it provides current scaling and amplification as well as high speed direct modulation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM whose telephone number is (571)272-6607. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
Assres H. Woldemaryam
Primary Examiner (Aeronautics and Astronautics)
Art Unit 3642
/ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights