DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
SUMMARY
2. The application filed on January 13, 2025, has been received and made of record. There were 1-25 claims in the application of which claims 1, and 23 were independent claims. A preliminary amendment was filed on January 14, 2025, where applicant rewritten dependent claim 25 as independent claim and cancelled claims 9-10, 16, and 21-22. NO claim has been added as new claim in the preliminary amendment. Therefore, claims 1-8, 11-15, 17-20, and 23-25 are pending for consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 14, 2025 was filed after the mailing date of the preliminary amendment on January 14, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, 17-20, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by YIN HUI et al.(CN 110535
028 A; Equivalent to WO 2021/031753 A1)(herein after YIN HUI).
Regarding claim 1, YIN HUI teaches a safety protection circuit(safety protection module 230, figs.2-3, Page-6, Line-39) for a driver circuit of a LiDAR(laser radar emitting system, fig.3), wherein the LiDAR comprises a light-emitter apparatus (light emitting module 220, fig.2), the driver circuit(safety charging circuit 210, fig.2) provides a drive voltage to drive the light-emitter apparatus to emit light(Page-7, Lines 21-22), one end of the light-emitter apparatus(220) receives the drive voltage(HV), and the other end of the light-emitter apparatus is coupled to a drive switch(S1, or M1, fig.1; S1, or M2, fig.3)(all components in an electrical circuit are electrically connected to each other, otherwise the circuit would be non-functioning. Without mentioning the components are directly connected to each other, examiner interpreted that components are connected electrically to each other); and
wherein the safety protection circuit(230) comprises:
a voltage detector unit(voltage detection unit 232, fig.3) configured to detect a voltage value of the drive voltage (Page-7, Line-45); and
a safety controller unit(control unit 234, fig.3, Page-7, Line-35) configured to control the driver circuit to stop providing the drive voltage(Page-8, Lines 8-19) when a voltage value of the drive voltage is lower than a threshold voltage(reference voltage, Page-6), wherein the threshold voltage(first reference voltage) represents a voltage value of the drive voltage when the drive switch fails(Page-7 and related texts)(lines 7-8: for example, the preset standard threshold safety voltages according to the country or region to the human eye or skin safety).
Regarding claim 6, YIN HUI teaches the safety protection circuit of claim 1, wherein the driver circuit comprises a charger unit(charging module 110, fig.1, Page-2; safety charging circuit 210, fig.2) and an energy storage unit(capacitor C1, figs.1-2), wherein the charger unit is configured to charge the energy storage unit(Page-2,6), and the energy storage unit (C1) provides the drive voltage(figs,1-2, Page-2, 6); and
when the voltage value of the drive voltage(HV) is lower than the threshold voltage(preset threshold voltage, Pages-6/7), the safety controller unit(control unit 234) controls the charger unit to stop charging the energy storage unit and controls the energy storage unit to discharge(Page-8, Lines 8-19).
Regarding claim 7, YIN HUI teaches the safety protection circuit of claim 1, wherein the voltage detector unit(voltage detection unit 232, fig.3) comprises:
a comparison subunit(comparator 420, fig.4, Page-8) configured to output a first voltage(voltage value at output terminal “OUT” of the comparator 420, fig.4) of a comparison result between the drive voltage(collected voltage VDIV, fig.4) and the threshold voltage(first reference voltage, Page-8), wherein the first voltage represents whether the drive voltage is abnormal(the input of the digital to analogue converter DAC is a digital sequence, such as 000001, 010101, and the output is an analog voltage value corresponding to the digital sequence, its main function is to make the can through the digital-to- analogue converter of low-speed and high-accuracy, to set the threshold eye-safe or skin safety protection is triggered. the main function of the comparator 420 is to compare the value of VDIV and VDAC, outputting the first intermediate signal).
PNG
media_image1.png
459
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig.4
Regarding claim 8, YIN HUI teaches the safety protection circuit of claim 7, wherein the comparison subunit comprises: a first comparator, wherein a positive input end of the first comparator is connected to the threshold voltage(VDAC), a negative input end of the first comparator is connected to the drive voltage(VDIV), and an output end of the first comparator outputs the first voltage(voltage value at output terminal “OUT” of the comparator 420).
Regarding claim 13, YIN HUI teaches the safety protection circuit of claim 1, wherein the safety controller unit comprises:
a discharger subunit(discharging driving unit 236, fig.3, Page-8) configured to discharge an energy storage unit(C1) in the driver circuit(234) when the voltage value of the drive voltage is lower than the threshold voltage(Page-8, Lines 20—31).
Regarding claim 14, YIN HUI teaches the safety protection circuit of claim 13, wherein a control end of the discharger subunit(236) is coupled to an output end of the voltage detector unit(232, fig.3), a first end of the discharger subunit(236) is coupled to the energy storage unit(C1), and a second end of the discharger subunit is grounded (fig.4)(without mentioning the specific component’s direct connection, the examiner interprets that all components in the circuit are electrically connected either it is first end or second end).
PNG
media_image2.png
383
718
media_image2.png
Greyscale
fig.4
Regarding claim 15, YIN HUI teaches the safety protection circuit of claim 13, wherein the safety controller unit(210) comprises:
a controller(234), wherein an input end of the controller is coupled to an output end of the voltage detector unit(232), and an output end of the controller is coupled to an input end of the discharger subunit(236).
Regarding claim 17, YIN HUI teaches the safety protection circuit of claim 15, wherein the controller(234) controls to stop charging the energy storage unit(C1) in the driver circuit when the voltage value of the drive voltage is lower than the threshold voltage(Page-8, Lines 8-19; also Page-6).
Regarding claim 18, YIN HUI teaches the safety protection circuit of claim 13, wherein the discharger subunit(236) comprises:
a first load(R1); and
a first switch(M2) configured to conduct when the voltage value of the drive voltage is lower than the threshold voltage, allowing the energy storage unit to discharge via the first load(Page-8, Lines 8-19; also Page-6).
Regarding claim 19, YIN HUI teaches the safety protection circuit of claim 1, wherein the safety controller unit(234) comprises:
a gating subunit(S2) configured to output a first control signal when the voltage value of the drive voltage(HV) is lower than the threshold voltage, wherein the first control signal is configured to control to stop charging the energy storage unit in the driver circuit(Page-8, Lines 8-19; also Page-6); and
the gating subunit(S2) configured to output a second control signal when the voltage value of the drive voltage is higher than the threshold voltage, wherein the second control signal is configured to control to charge the energy storage unit in the driver circuit(Page-9, Lines 16-22).
Regarding claim 20, YIN HUI teaches the safety protection circuit of claim 19, wherein an input end of the gating subunit(S2) is coupled to an output end of the voltage detector unit(232, fig.3).
Claim 23 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 1, since both claims 1 and 23 recite identical claim limitations except the claim presentation is in different format.
Claim 24 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 19, since both claims 19 and 24 recite identical claim limitations except the claim presentation is in different format with broader limitations in claim 24.
Claim 25 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 1, since both claims 1 and 25 recite identical claim limitations except the claim preamble and presentations are in different formats.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
9. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YIN HUI et al.(CN 110535028 A) in view of Toyoda(US 2025/0384 804 A1).
Regarding claim 2, YIN HUI teaches the safety protection circuit of claim 1, wherein when the light-emitter apparatus emits the light normally(obvious to emit light in normal condition), the drive voltage has a maximum voltage value (well-known that voltage value equivalent to emitted light has maximum voltage and minimum voltage) and a minimum voltage value during a voltage repetition period(well-known that voltage value equivalent to emitted light has maximum voltage and minimum voltage), and but fails to disclose the threshold voltage is less than the minimum voltage value.
However, Toyoda teaches an electronic device, wherein the threshold voltage is less than the minimum voltage value(Para-147).
The prior art, as embodied in the teachings of YIN HUI and Toyoda, included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and in that combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Such combination is desirable as it provides an electronic device capable of outputting an image with a reduced resolution in a peripheral field of view.
10. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YIN HUI et al.(CN 110535028 A) in view of Donovan et al.(US 2020/0326425 A1)(herein after Donovan).
Regarding claim 11, YIN HUI is not found to teach expressly the safety protection circuit of claim 1, wherein the other end of N light-emitter apparatuses is coupled to a same drive switch, the number of the drive switches is M, the number of the light-emitter apparatuses of the LiDAR is N X M, and N and M are positive integers greater than 1; and the voltage detector unit is configured to detect a voltage value of the drive voltage driving the N light-emitters apparatuses.
However, Donovan teaches a solid-state lidar transmitter with laser control, wherein the other end of N light-emitter apparatuses is coupled to a same drive switch, the number of the drive switches is M, the number of the light-emitter apparatuses of the LiDAR is N X M, and N and M are positive integers greater than 1(figs.5B, 5G);
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified YIN HUI with the teaching of Donovan to include the feature in order to provide a lidar device that is physically compact and relatively low in cost.
Therefore, the combined teaching of YIN HUI and Donovan teaches the voltage detector unit(fig.3, YIN HUI) is configured to detect a voltage value of the drive voltage driving the N light-emitters apparatuses(figs.5B, 8, Donovan).
Regarding claim 12, YIN HUI as modified by Donovan teaches the safety protection circuit of claim 11, wherein each light-emitter apparatus is connected to a power supply via a switch device, a first end of the switch device is coupled to the power supply, a second end of the switch device is coupled to the one end of the light- emitter apparatus, and each input end of the voltage detector unit is coupled to a second end of the switch device, respectively(figs.5B, 8, and related texts, Donovan).
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 3-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
12. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 3: None of the cited prior arts, on record, taken alone or in combination, provides a reasonable motivation to fairly propose or suggest applicant’s claim invention, “the safety protection circuit of claim 2, wherein a difference value between the maximum voltage value and the minimum voltage value is a first voltage variation, the threshold voltage is a difference value between the minimum voltage value and a safety voltage variation, and the safety voltage variation is a product of the first voltage variation and a preset ratio”.
Claim 4: None of the cited prior arts, on record, taken alone or in combination, provides a reasonable motivation to fairly propose or suggest applicant’s claim invention, “the safety protection circuit of claim 2, wherein the threshold voltage is less than the minimum voltage value and greater than a safety allowable voltage value, and the safety allowable voltage value is a voltage value of the drive voltage when light-emitting duration of the light-emitter apparatus reaches a safety light-emitting time threshold”.
Claim 5 are also objected to because of its dependency on the objected base claim.
Examiner Note
13. The Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the references, as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the references or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD SAIFUL A SIDDIQUI whose telephone number is (571)270-1530. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9:00AM - 5:30PM.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at (571)272-3017. 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.
/MD SAIFUL A SIDDIQUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights