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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 04/09/2024 have been fully considered and are made of record.
Claims 1-17 have been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
Claim 11 is 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the average current" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination it is interpreted “average current” in claim 11 is different from “average current” in claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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.
7. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
STEP 1: claim 1 is directed to circuit which is an apparatus and one of the 4 statutory categories.
STEP 2A: claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea and/or mental steps as follows:
First Prong:
determine a charge storage capacity of a charge storage device; determine an amount of charge provided to the at least one radiation-emitting element based on the charge storage capacity and a difference between the first and second voltages (hereinafter mentioned as “Mathematical Calculations”).
(These limitations can be performed using mathematical formulas that can also be performed using a general processor)
Second Prong:
The claimed Mathematical Calculations above is neither implemented into any practical application (device or thing), nor effect any transformation/reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
STEP 2B: The Additional elements “processing circuitry; and measure a first voltage at the charge storage device before the at least one radiation-emitting element is driven; and measure a second voltage at the charge storage device after the at least one radiation-emitting element is driven” in the independent claim 1 could be consider as not significantly more than the abstract idea because “measure a first voltage at the charge storage device before the at least one radiation-emitting element is driven; and measure a second voltage at the charge storage device after the at least one radiation-emitting element is driven” relate to pre solution activity and data gathering. The processing circuit is generic recitation of general computer that is used to implement the abstract idea. Furthermore, processing circuitry; and measure a first voltage at the charge storage device before the at least one radiation-emitting element is driven; and measure a second voltage at the charge storage device after the at least one radiation-emitting element is driven is routine, conventional and well known in the art because GB 2545216 A (attached) discloses processing circuitry; and determine an amount of charge provided to the at least one radiation-emitting element based on the charge storage capacity and a difference between the first and second voltages.
8. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 6 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s) “determine a/the charge storage capacity 'C' according to the equation: C=(I* dt) /dV1 wherein: 'I' is the current from the current source-16); 'dt' is the time; and dV1 is a voltage difference between the first reference voltage and the second reference voltage”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 6 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
9. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 7 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 7 is further recites the element(s) “periodically determine a charge storage capacity of the charge storage device”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 7 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
10. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 9 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 9 is further recites the element(s) “to determine an average current provided to the at least one radiation-emitting element by dividing the determined amount of charge by the on-time”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 9 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
11. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 11 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 11 is further recites the element(s) “to be regulated by the average current”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 11 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
12. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 13 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 13 is further recites the element(s) “determine an energy emitted by the at least one radiation-emitting element by multiplying the determined amount of charge or the accumulated charge by the at least one value corresponding to the power-to-energy conversion factor”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 13 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
13. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 14 depends on claim 13, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 14 is further recites the element(s) “compare the accumulated charge or the determined energy to a stored value corresponding to a programmable threshold”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 14 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
14. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
STEP 1: claim 17 is directed to method which is a process and one of the 4 statutory categories.
STEP 2A: claim 17 is directed to the abstract idea and/or mental steps as follows:
First Prong:
determining a charge storage capacity of a charge storage device; determining an amount of charge provided to the at least one radiation-emitting element based on the charge storage capacity and a difference between the first and second voltages (hereinafter mentioned as “Mathematical Calculations”).
(These limitations can be performed using mathematical formulas that can also be performed using a general processor)
Second Prong:
The claimed Mathematical Calculations above is neither implemented into any practical application (device or thing), nor effect any transformation/reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
STEP 2B: The Additional elements “measuring a first voltage at the charge storage device before the at least one radiation-emitting element is driven; and measuring a second voltage at the charge storage device after the at least one radiation-emitting element is driven” in the independent claim 1 could be consider as not significantly more than the abstract idea because “measuring a first voltage at the charge storage device before the at least one radiation-emitting element is driven; and measuring a second voltage at the charge storage device after the at least one radiation-emitting element is driven” relate to pre solution activity and data gathering, and do not state a field of use. Furthermore, measuring a first voltage at the charge storage device before the at least one radiation-emitting element is driven; and measuring a second voltage at the charge storage device after the at least one radiation-emitting element is driven is routine, conventional and well known in the art because GB 2545216 A (attached) discloses determining an amount of charge provided to the at least one radiation- emitting element based on the charge storage capacity and a difference between the first and second voltages.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
15. 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.
16. Claim(s) 1-3, 7-12, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrew et al. (Patent NO. GB 2545216 A; hereinafter Andrew; translation attached) in view of HOTTA et al. (Pub NO. US 2022/0294077 A1; hereinafter Hotta).
Regarding Claim 1, Andrew teaches a circuit for monitoring an amount of charge provided to at least one radiation-emitting element (circuit for charging capacitor 3 with radiation-emitting element 5 in Fig. 1), the circuit configured to:
- determine a charge of a charge storage device (capacitance “C” in equation (1) represents charge; See page 13-14);
- measure a first voltage at the charge storage device before the at least one radiation-emitting element is driven (Vout_pre in equation (3) is the first voltage; See page 11-12); and
- measure a second voltage at the charge storage device after the at least one radiation-emitting element is driven (Vout_post in equation (3) is the first voltage; See page 11-12);
wherein the circuit comprises processing circuitry configured to determine an amount of charge provided to the at least one radiation-emitting element based on the charge and a difference between the first and second voltages (Vcharge in equation (1) is the amount of charge and it depends on “C” and difference of Vout_post and Vout_pre; See page 9-12).
Andrew teaches charge of capacitor (“C” in equation (1)), However Andrew is silent about measuring storage capacity.
Hotta teaches measuring storage capacity (See [0284]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Andrew by measuring storage capacity, as taught by Hotta in order to measure charge efficiency (Hotta; [0284]).
Regarding Claim 2, Andrew in view of Hotta teaches the circuit of claim1. Andrew further teaches configurable to couple the charge storage device to a supply voltage to recharge the charge storage device between drive cycles (couple the charge storage device 3 to supply voltage 1 in Fig. 1; See page 6).
Regarding Claim 3, Andrew in view of Hotta teaches the circuit of claim 1. Andrew further teaches comprising at least one Analog-to-Digital Converter, ADC configurable to measure the first and second voltages (comparator is ADC as it provides digital value; See page 7).
Regarding Claim 7, Andrew in view of Hotta teaches the circuit of claim 1. Hotta further teaches wherein the circuit is configured to periodically determine a charge storage capacity of the charge storage device (See [0284]).
Regarding Claim 8, Andrew in view of Hotta teaches the circuit of claim 1. Andrew further teaches comprising a second timer sub-circuit configured to determine an on-time of the at least one radiation-emitting element (See the time in Fig. 2-Fig. 3 is determined by timer and radiation emitting element depends on the voltage and time).
Regarding Claim 9, Andrew in view of Hotta teaches the circuit of claim 8. Andrew further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine an average current provided to the at least one radiation-emitting element by dividing the determined amount of charge by the on-time (if current and time are known in equation (1), then it is obvious to divide this known current by time; See age 9-10).
Regarding Claim 10, Andrew in view of Hotta teaches the circuit of claim 1. Andrew further teaches comprising a driver configured to drive the at least one radiation-emitting element (See page 4-5) with current induced by a charge stored in the charge storage device (See current in equaton (1); See page 9).
Regarding Claim 11, Andrew in view of Hotta teaches the circuit of claim 10. Andrew further teaches where the driver is configured to be regulated by the average current (See regulated average current in equation (1); See page 9).
Regarding Claim 12, Andrew in view of Hotta teaches the circuit claim 1. Andrew further teaches wherein the processing circuitry comprises an accumulator, integrator or lossy integrator (any storage 11/13 in Fig. 1) configured to determine a value corresponding to a charge provided to the at least one radiation-emitting element over a period of time (“c” in equation (1) is the value of charge given to radiation element 5 in fig. 1; See page 9-10).
Regarding Claim 15, Andrew in view of Hotta teaches a device comprising the circuit of claim 1. Andrew further teaches and configurable for coupling to the charge storage device and the at least one radiation-emitting element (coupling between storage capacitor 3 and LED 5 in fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 17, Andrew teaches a method of monitoring an amount of charge provided to at least one radiation-emitting element (circuit for charging capacitor 3 with radiation-emitting element 5 in Fig. 1), the method comprising:
- determining a charge of a charge storage device (capacitance “C” in equation (1) represents charge; See page 13-14);
- measuring a first voltage at the charge storage device before the at least one radiation-emitting element is driven (Vout_pre in equation (3) is the first voltage; See page 11-12);
- measuring a second voltage at the charge storage device after the at least one radiation-emitting element is driven (Vout_post in equation (3) is the first voltage; See page 11-12); and
- determining an amount of charge provided to the at least one radiation- emitting element based on the charge and a difference between the first and second voltages (Vcharge in equation (1) is the amount of charge and it depends on “C” and difference of Vout_post and Vout_pre; See page 9-12).
Andrew teaches charge of capacitor (“C” in equation (1)), However Andrew is silent about measuring storage capacity.
Hotta teaches measuring storage capacity (See [0284]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Andrew by measuring storage capacity, as taught by Hotta in order to measure charge efficiency (Hotta; [0284]).
17. Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrew in view of Hotta further in view of Kremin et al. (Pub NO. US 2017/0061188 A1; hereinafter Kremin).
Regarding Claim 4, Andrew in view of Hotta teaches the circuit of claims 1. Hotta further teaches comprising configurable to measure a charge storage capacity of the charge storage device (See [0287]).
Andrew in view of Hotta is silent about Charge-to-Digital (CDC) converter.
Kremin teaches Charge-to-Digital (CDC) converter (See [0023]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Andrew and Hotta by measuring storage capacity, as taught by Kremin in order to achieve desired signal (Kremin; [0023]).
18. Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrew in view of Hotta further in view of Mansell et al. (Pub NO. US 2021/0295486 A1; hereinafter Mansell).
Regarding Claim 16, Andrew in view of Hotta teaches system comprising the device of claim 15. Andrew further teaches wherein the device is coupled to a charge storage device and at Least one radiation-emitting element and configured to drive the at least one radiation-emitting element (power supply 1 drives charge storage element 3 and radiation-emitting element 5 in Fig. 1; See page 6-8).
Andrew in view of Hotta is silent about a Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR).
Mansell teaches a Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) (See [0030]-[0032]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Andrew and Hotta by LIDAR, as taught by Mansell in order to achieve desired signal (Mansell; [0030]).
Allowable Subject Matter
19. Claims 6 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as set forth above. No prior art rejection is provided as the prior art taken alone or in combination fails to teach following:
20. Regarding Claim 5, none of the prior art fairly teaches or suggests the circuit of claim 4, wherein the CDC comprises:
- first and second comparators, each having a first input coupled to respective first and second reference voltages and each having a second input configured to be selectively coupled to the charge storage device;
- a current source coupled to the second inputs;
- a first timer sub-circuit coupled to an output of the first and second comparators and configured to measure a time taken for a change in voltage at the charge storage device to drop from the first reference voltage to the second reference voltage.
Claim 6 depends on claim 5, therefore claim 6 also have allowable subject matter.
21. Regarding Claim 13, none of the prior art fairly teaches or suggests the circuit of claim 12, wherein:
- the processing circuitry is configured to store at least one value corresponding to a power-to-energy conversion factor of the at least one radiation-emitting element; and
- wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine an energy emitted by the at least one radiation-emitting element by multiplying the determined amount of charge or the accumulated charge by the at least one value corresponding to the power-to-energy conversion factor.
Claim 14 depends on claim 13, therefore claim 14 also have allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
22. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a. OBORINA et al. (Pub NO. US 2012/0176146 A1) discloses Semiconductor Dielectric.
b. Lee et al. (Patent NO. US 7,265,518 B2) discloses Automatically Cutting off Power.
23. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZANNATUL FERDOUS whose telephone number is (571)270-0399. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8am to 5pm (PST).
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, Rodak Lee can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/ZANNATUL FERDOUS/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858