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 § 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rapp, et al., US 2016/0087393 A1, in view of Giebel, et al., US 2012/0048942 A1.
As per Claim 1, Rapp teaches a method for controlling an intensity of light from an illumination source (¶¶ 13, 17), the method comprising:
determining a slope representing a relation of a change in a photodiode output value received from a monitoring photodiode to a change in an input current transmitted to the illumination source (¶¶ 45, 52-53), wherein the photodiode output value corresponds to the intensity of the light received at the monitoring photodiode (¶¶ 54-55).
Rapp does not expressly teach selecting an operating photodiode output value based at least in part on the slope. Giebel teaches selecting an operating photodiode output value based at least in part on the slope (¶¶ 37-38). At the time of the invention, a person of skill in the art would have thought it obvious to operate the illumination source of Rapp according to output controls such as Giebel teaches, in order to reduce the number of data points that a controller and a processor have to process in order to keep a photodiode running.
As per Claim 2, Rapp teaches adjusting the input current transmitted to the illumination source to maintain a real-time photodiode output value at or near the operating photodiode output value (¶ 28; “wherein a driving current 406, 407 for the respective laser diode 404, 405 can be controlled and adjusted accordingly” as per Figure 4).
As per Claim 3, Rapp teaches that adjusting the input current provided to the illumination source further comprises:
receiving a measured photodiode output value (¶ 28; “they measure the power of the respective laser diode that is provided at the output of the PBC”);
comparing the measured photodiode output value to the operating photodiode output value (¶ 102);
determining a difference between the measured photodiode output value and the operating point photodiode output value (¶ 103; as shown in Figure 9); and
in an instance in which the difference is greater than a unit step size, adjusting the input current (¶ 106; “applying a modulation with a low amplitude and a low frequency (“small signal low frequency modulation”) to the injection current 170 of the laser diode”).
As per Claim 4, Rapp teaches that determining the slope comprises:
determining an input current difference representing a difference between a first input current and a second input current (¶¶ 104-105);
determining a photodiode output difference representing a difference between a first photodiode output value and a second photodiode output value, wherein the first photodiode output value corresponds to the first input current and the second photodiode output value corresponds to the second input current (¶¶ 105-106); and
determining a ratio between the input current difference and the photodiode output difference (¶ 111).
As per Claim 5, Rapp teaches that selecting the operating photodiode output value further comprises:
determining a plurality of slopes, each slope corresponding to a different range of input currents and corresponding range of photodiode output values (¶¶ 106, 111); and
selecting the operating photodiode output value within the range of photodiode output values corresponding to the range of input currents and corresponding range of photodiode output values having a steepest slope (¶ 113; to measure up to “the required slope”).
As per Claim 6, Rapp teaches that the illumination source is a laser diode having an input current threshold corresponding to a minimum input current at which the laser diode will produce coherent light (¶¶ 99-100).
As per Claim 7, Rapp further teaches:
determining a linear approximation of a portion of a photodiode output current curve based at least in part on the slope and the operating photodiode output value, wherein the photodiode output current curve represents the relation of the input current to the photodiode output value (¶¶ 105-106; the “slope of the L.I.-Curve 130” as per Figure 9); and
determining the input current threshold based on an intersection point at which the photodiode output value of the linear approximation is zero (¶ 85).
As per Claim 8, Rapp teaches that the operating photodiode output value is selected by scaling the input current threshold by a pre-determined operating point scale factor (¶ 124; “correction factor”).
As per Claim 9, Rapp teaches that the operating point scale factor is between 1.4 and 1.6 (¶¶ 123-124; as measured by curve slopes in Figures 7A and 7B).
As per Claim 10, Rapp teaches that the input current threshold and the operating photodiode output value are stored in a memory storage device (¶¶ 99-100).
As per Claim 11, Rapp does not expressly teach that the input current is controlled by a potentiometer. Giebel teaches that the input current is controlled by a potentiometer (¶¶ 8, 16). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 12, Rapp teaches a system (¶ 500; optical amplifier 500 of Figure 5) comprising:
an illumination source (¶ 83);
a monitoring photodiode positioned to receive light from the illumination source (¶ 82; “an optical photo diode”); and
a controller comprising a processor and an instruction memory including program code (¶ 95; control circuit 740 of Figure 8), the instruction memory and program code configured to, with the processor, cause the message handler processor to:
determine a slope representing a relation of a change in a photodiode output value received from the monitoring photodiode to a change in an input current transmitted to the illumination source (¶¶ 45, 52-53);
wherein the photodiode output value corresponds to the intensity of light received at the monitoring photodiode (¶¶ 54-55).
Rapp does not expressly teach selecting an operating photodiode output value based at least in part on the slope. Giebel teaches selecting an operating photodiode output value based at least in part on the slope (¶¶ 37-38). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 13, Rapp teaches that the controller is further configured to adjust the input current transmitted to the illumination source to maintain a real-time photodiode output value at or near the operating photodiode output value (¶ 28; “wherein a driving current 406, 407 for the respective laser diode 404, 405 can be controlled and adjusted accordingly” as per Figure 4).
As per Claim 14, Rapp teach that determining the slope comprises:
determining an input current difference representing the difference between a first input current and a second input current (¶¶ 104-105);
determining a photodiode output difference representing the difference between a first photodiode output value and a second photodiode output value, wherein the first photodiode output value corresponds to the first input current and the second photodiode output value corresponds to the second input current (¶¶ 105-106); and
determining a ratio between the input current difference and the photodiode output difference (¶ 111).
As per Claim 15, Rapp teaches that determining the operating photodiode output value further comprises:
determining a plurality of slopes, each slope corresponding to a different range of input currents and corresponding range of photodiode output values (¶¶ 106, 111); and
selecting the operating photodiode output value within the range of photodiode output values corresponding to the range of input currents and corresponding range of photodiode output values having a steepest slope (¶ 113; to measure up to “the required slope”).
As per Claim 16, Rapp teaches that the illumination source is a laser diode having an input current threshold corresponding to a minimum input current at which the laser diode will produce coherent light (¶¶ 99-100).
As per Claim 17, Rapp teaches that the controller is further configured to:
determine a linear approximation of a portion of a photodiode output current curve based at least in part on the slope and the operating photodiode output value, wherein the photodiode output current curve represents the relation of the input current to the photodiode output value (¶¶ 105-106; the “slope of the L.I.-Curve 130” as per Figure 9); and
determine the input current threshold based on an intersection point at which the photodiode output value of the linear approximation is zero (¶ 85).
As per Claim 18, Rapp teaches that the operating photodiode output value is selected by scaling the input current threshold by a pre-determined operating point scale factor (¶ 124; “correction factor”).
As per Claim 19, Rapp does not expressly teach a potentiometer communicatively connected to the controller and electrically connected to the illumination source, wherein the controller controls the input current to the illumination source by transmitting an electrical signal to the potentiometer. Giebel teaches a potentiometer communicatively connected to the controller and electrically connected to the illumination source, wherein the controller controls the input current to the illumination source by transmitting an electrical signal to the potentiometer (¶¶ 8-9, 16). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 20, Rapp teaches a computer program product for controlling an intensity of an illumination source (¶¶ 99-100; executed on control unit 740 of Figure 8), the computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable program code portions stored therein (¶ 101), the computer-readable program code portions comprising an executable portion configured to:
determine a slope representing a relation of a change in a photodiode output value received from a monitoring photodiode to a change in an input current transmitted to the illumination source (¶¶ 45, 52-53);
wherein the photodiode output value corresponds to the intensity of a light received at the monitoring photodiode (¶¶ 54-55).
Rapp does not expressly teach selecting an operating photodiode output value based at least in part on the slope. Giebel teaches selecting an operating photodiode output value based at least in part on the slope (¶¶ 37-38). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATUL TRIVEDI whose telephone number is (313)446-4908. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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, Peter Nolan can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
ATUL TRIVEDI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/ATUL TRIVEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights