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. 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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 11 Line 16: “If alternating phases are applied to photodiodes GD1 and GD2” is an incomplete sentence. 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) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1, 3-4, 8, 14, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 FILLIN "Insert either \“(a)(1)\” or \“(a)(2)\” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable." \d "[ 2 ]" (a)(1) as being FILLIN "Insert either—clearly anticipated—or—anticipated—with an explanation at the end of the paragraph." \d "[ 3 ]" anticipated by FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 4 ]" Send et al. ( US 20180007343 ) . Regarding claim 1 , Send teaches: Time-of-flight demodulation circuitry (#198 of Fig. 6 , demodulation device ) , configured to: apply, for a predetermined time period, a first modulation signal ( # f11 OF Fig. 7 , modulation frequency ) to a first signal path (#S1 of Fig. 6 , sensor signal ) including a first light detection element (#122 of Fig. 6 , optical sensor ) apply, for the predetermined time period, a second modulation signal (#f12 of Fig. 7 , modulation frequency ) to a second signal path (#S2 of Fig. 6 , sensor signal ) including a second light detection element ( #122 of Fig. 6 , optical sensor ) ; and after the predetermined time period, transfer the first modulation signal from the first signal path to the second signal path and transfer the second modulation signal from the second signal path to the first signal path (#188 of Fig. 6 shows that the modulation signals are applied to both signal path ; alternatively, (#208 of Fig. 7) shows both modulation signals being applied to the inputs of demodulator, and S1 and S2 of Fig. 6 are both shown as inputs to the demodulator ) . Regarding claim 3 , Send teaches: The time-of-flight demodulation circuitry of claim 1, wherein the first and second signal paths are provided as input paths for the first and the second light detection elements ( modulation frequency # f _ 13, beam width # w _ 1, and beam width # w _ 2 of Fig. 6 ) . Regarding claim 4 , Send teaches: The time-of-flight demodulation circuitry of claim 1, wherein the first and the second signal paths are provided as readout paths for the first and the second light detection elements ( #S _ 1 and #S _ 2 of Fig. 6, sensor signal ) . Regarding claim 8 , Send teaches: A time-of-flight demodulation portion (#124 of Fig. 3, stack) comprising: a substrate (#162 of Fig. 3 imaging device) ; a first and a second light detection element (#122 of Fig. 3 optical sensor) ; an amplifier (#140 of Fig. 3, evaluation device, [113] states evaluation device may contain lock-in amplifier ) ; and Time-of-flight demodulation circuitry (#198 of Fig. 6, demodulation device) , configured to: apply, for a predetermined time period, a first modulation signal ( # f11 OF Fig. 7 , modulation frequency ) to a first signal path (#S1 of Fig. 6, sensor signal) including a first light detection element (#122 of Fig. 6, optical sensor) apply, for the predetermined time period, a second modulation signal (#f12 of Fig. 7, modulation frequency) to a second signal path (#S2 of Fig. 6, sensor signal) including a second light detection element ( #122 of Fig. 6, optical sensor) ; and after the predetermined time period, transfer the first modulation signal from the first signal path to the second signal path and transfer the second modulation signal from the second signal path to the first signal path (#188 of Fig. 6) . Claim 14 is identical in scope to claim 1 and is rejected for the reasons stated above Claim 16 is identical in scope to claim 3 and is rejected for the reasons stated above Claim 17 is identical in scope to claim 4 and is rejected for the reasons stated above 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: 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) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 2, 11-13, 15, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Send et al. in view of Bamji et al. ( US 6522395 ) . Regarding claim 2 , Send teaches: The time-of-flight demodulation circuitry of claim 1 Send does not teach, but Bamji does teach: transferring based on chopper circuitry which is provided between the first and the second signal paths (#420 of Fig. 12, chopper units) It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the demodulation device of Send to use chopper circuitry between the first and second signal paths similar Bamji with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce circuit mismatch [ Bamji: 109]. Regarding claim 5, Send teaches: The time-of-flight demodulation circuit of claim 1 . Send does not teach, but Bamji does teach: a light detection element includ ing a photodiode ( # 240-1 of Fig. 12, pixel) . It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the optical detector of Send to be silicon photodiodes using standard silicon technology similar to Bamji with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce processing and delay times by shortening signal paths [ Bamji: 4] . Regarding claim 11 , Send teaches: The time-of-flight demodulation portion of claim 8 Send does not teach, but Bamji does teach: a light detection element including a photodiode (#240-1 of Fig. 12, pixel) . It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the optical detector of Send to be silicon photodiodes using standard silicon technology similar to Bamji with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce processing and delay times by shortening signal paths [ Bamji: 4] . Regarding claim 12 , Send as modified above teaches: The time-of-flight demodulation portion of claim 11 . Send does not teach, but Bamji does teach: a substrate including light detection elements [4] It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the optical detector of Send to be silicon photodiode in the same substrate using standard silicon technology similar to Bamji with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce processing and delay times by shortening signal paths [4] . Regarding claim 13 , Send as modified above teaches: The time-of-flight demodulation portion of claim 12, further including a further substrate including the amplifier. (#140 of Fig. 3, evaluation device, [113] states evaluation device may contain lock-in amplifier ) . Claim 15 is identical in scope to claim 2 and is rejected for the reasons stated above. Claim 18 is identical in scope to claim 5 and is rejected for the reasons stated above. Claim(s ) FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 6-7, 9-10, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 2 ]" Send et al. in view of Bamji et al. as applied to claim FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 3 ]" 5 above, and further in view of FILLIN "Insert the additional prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 4 ]" Choiniere et al. ( US 20190094362 ) . Regarding claim 6 , Send as modified above teaches: The time-of-flight demodulation circuitry of claim 5 . Send does not teach, but Choiniere does teach: a photodiode based on a III-V semiconductor material [27] . Send also teaches: The optical detector may further comprise a TOF detector. [272] It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the optical sensors of Send to use InGaAs photodetectors similar to Choiniere with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the TOF detector to use NIR or SWIR light. Regarding claim 7 , Send as modified above teaches: The time-of-flight demodulation circuitry of claim 6 . Send does not teach, but Choiniere does teach : a photodiode made of a III-V semiconductor material wherein the III-V semiconductor material includes InGaAs . [27] Send also teaches: The optical detector may further comprise a TOF detector. [272] It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the optical sensors of Send to use InGaAs photodetectors similar to Choiniere with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the TOF detector to use NIR or SWIR light. Regarding claim 9 , Send teaches: The time-of-flight demodulation portion of claim 8 . Send does not teach, but Choiniere does teach: a photodiode is based on a III-V semiconductor material. [27] Send also teaches: The optical detector may further comprise a TOF detector. [272] It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the optical sensors of Send to use InGaAs photodetectors similar to Choiniere with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the TOF detector to use NIR or SWIR light. Regarding claim 10 , Send as modified above teaches: The time-of-flight demodulation circuitry of claim 9. Send does not teach, but Choiniere does teach: a photodiode made of a III-V semiconductor material wherein the III-V semiconductor material includes InGaAs . [27] Send also teaches: The optical detector may further comprise a TOF detector. [272] It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the optical sensors of Send to use InGaAs photodetectors similar to Choiniere with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the TOF detector to use NIR or SWIR light. Claim 19 is identical in scope to claim 6 and is rejected for the reasons stated above. Claim 20 is identical in scope to claim 7 and is rejected for the reasons stated above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT AVIRAJ D SINGH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9128 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 7:30am-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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Isam Alsomiri can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-6970 . 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. /A.D.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 3645 /ISAM A ALSOMIRI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645