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.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed May 19th, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed April 1st, 2026.
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) 1-5 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seliuchenko (US 20180306909) in view of Franke et al. (WO 2011020921).
Regarding claim 1, Seliuchenko teaches:
Time-of-flight demodulation circuitry (Fig. 3A, [61]), configured to:
Apply a first modulation signal (Fig. 7, [72]) to a first signal path (Fig. 4, [72], the path shown in Fig. 4 is considered the first signal path) including a first light detection element (photodiode shown in Fig. 4, [72]);
apply a second modulation signal (Fig. 7, [73]) to a second signal path (Fig. 5, [73], the path shown in Fig. 5 is the second signal path) including a second light detection element (photodiode shown in Fig. 5, [73]);
Seliuchenko does not teach, but Franke teaches:
after the predetermined time period ([60] teaches “chopper phases”), 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 ([60] “inversion of the demodulator clocks before the integration phase”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the modulation signals of Seliuchenko to be chopped periodically similar to Franke with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing accuracy by decreasing error due to mismatched properties of the light detection elements (Franke: [60]).
Regarding claim 2, Seliuchenko, as modified above, teaches:
The time-of-flight demodulation circuitry of claim 1,
Seliuchenko does not teach, but Franke does teach:
wherein the transferring is based on chopper circuitry which is provided between the first and the second signal paths [60].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the modulation signals of Seliuchenko to be chopped periodically similar to Franke with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing accuracy by decreasing error due to mismatched properties of the light detection elements (Franke: [60]).
Regarding claim 3, Seliuchenko, as modified above, 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 (Fig. 4, [72], signal path begins from the input of the photodiode) and the second light detection elements (Fig. 5, [74], signal path begins from input of photodiode).
Regarding claim 4, Seliuchenko, as modified above, 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 (Fig. 4, [72], signal path charges capacitor Cint, which is read out during readout phase shown in Fig. 6, [75]), and the second light detection elements (Fig. 5, [73], signal path discharges capacitor Cint, which is read out during readout phase shown in Fig. 6, [75]).
Regarding claim 5, Seliuchenko, as modified above, teaches:
The time-of-flight demodulation circuit of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first and the second light detection element includes a photodiode (photodiodes shown in Fig. 3A, [61, 72-73]).
Claim 14 is identical in scope to claim 1, and is rejected for the reasons stated above.
Claim 15 is identical in scope to claim 2, 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 18 is identical in scope to claim 5, and is rejected for the reasons stated above.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seliuchenko in view of Franke as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Ni (US 20140217543).
Regarding claim 6, Seliuchenko, as modified above, teaches:
The time-of-flight demodulation circuitry of claim 5,
Seliuchenko does not teach:
wherein the photodiode is based on a III-V semiconductor material.
However, Ni teaches:
InGaAs photodiodes (#101 of Fig. 10, array, 101 is an array of InGaAs photodiodes [93], the photodiodes are formed by layers #3 and #5 [67])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the photodiodes of Seliuchenko to be InGaAs similar to Ni with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of improving detection in the SWIR band (Ni : [4]), which in turn can increase accuracy while maintaining safety by allowing for higher eye-safe power emission (Mayor et al. (US 7583364), “The 1.5 to 1.8 micron band of the spectrum has the highest maximum permissible exposure for the human eye in the optical electromagnetic spectrum.”).
Regarding claim 7, Seliuchenko, as modified above, teaches:
The time-of-flight demodulation circuitry of claim 6,
Seliuchenko does not teach:
wherein the III-V semiconductor material includes InGaAs.
However, Ni teaches:
InGaAs photodiodes (#101 of Fig. 10, array, 101 is an array of InGaAs photodiodes [93], the photodiodes are formed by layers #3 and #5 [67])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the photodiodes of Seliuchenko to be InGaAs similar to Ni with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of improving detection in the SWIR band (Ni : [4]), which in turn can increase accuracy while maintaining safety by allowing for higher eye-safe power emission (Mayor, “The 1.5 to 1.8 micron band of the spectrum has the highest maximum permissible exposure for the human eye in the optical electromagnetic spectrum.”).
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.
Claim(s) 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seliuchenko in view of Franke and Ni.
Regarding claim 8, Seliuchenko teaches:
A time-of-flight demodulation portion comprising (Fig. 3A, [61]):
a first and a second light detection element (photodiodes shown in Fig. 3A, [61, 72-73])
an amplifier (#MA, PMOS transistor, [61]);
and time-of-flight demodulation circuitry (Fig. 3A, [61]), configured to:
apply a first modulation signal (Fig. 7, [72]) to a first signal path (Fig. 4, [72], the path shown in Fig. 4 is considered the first signal path) including a first light detection element (photodiode shown in Fig. 4, [72]);
apply a second modulation signal (Fig. 7, [73]) to a second signal path (Fig. 5, [73], the path shown in Fig. 5 is the second signal path) including a second light detection element (photodiode shown in Fig. 5, [73]);
Seliuchenko does not teach:
a substrate;
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.
However, Ni teaches:
A substrate (#4 of Fig. 10, indium phosphide substrate)
Additionally, Franke teaches:
Periodically ([60] teaches “chopper phases”) inverting modulation signals using a chopper [60]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the modulation signals of Seliuchenko to be chopped periodically similar to Franke, and to modify the photodiodes of Seliuchenko to be on an InP substrate similar to Ni, with a reasonable expectation of success. Chopping the modulation signals would have the predictable result of increasing accuracy by decreasing error due to mismatched properties of the light detection elements (Franke: [60]). Using an InP substrate allows for the use of InGaAs photodiodes which would have the predictable result of improving detection in the SWIR band (Ni : [4]), which in turn can increase accuracy while maintaining safety by allowing for higher eye-safe power emission (Mayor, “The 1.5 to 1.8 micron band of the spectrum has the highest maximum permissible exposure for the human eye in the optical electromagnetic spectrum.”).
Regarding claim 9, Seliuchenko, as modified above, teaches:
The time-of-flight demodulation portion of claim 8,
Seliuchenko does not teach:
wherein the substrate is based on a III-V semiconductor material.
However, Ni teaches:
An InP substrate (#4 of Fig. 10, indium phosphide substrate)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the photodiodes of Seliuchenko to be on an InP substrate similar to Ni with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of improving detection in the SWIR band (Ni : [4]), which in turn can increase accuracy while maintaining safety by allowing for higher eye-safe power emission (Mayor, “The 1.5 to 1.8 micron band of the spectrum has the highest maximum permissible exposure for the human eye in the optical electromagnetic spectrum.”).
Regarding claim 10, Seliuchenko, as modified above, teaches:
The time-of-flight demodulation portion of claim 9,
Seliuchenko does not teach:
wherein the III-V semiconductor material includes InGaAs.
However, Ni teaches:
An InP substrate (#4 of Fig. 10, indium phosphide substrate)
Including an InGaAs active layer (#5 of 10, active layer, layer 5 is InGaAs [67])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the photodiodes of Seliuchenko to be on an InP substrate and use InGaAs photodiodes similar to Ni with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of improving detection in the SWIR band (Ni : [4]), which in turn can increase accuracy while maintaining safety by allowing for higher eye-safe power emission (Mayor, “The 1.5 to 1.8 micron band of the spectrum has the highest maximum permissible exposure for the human eye in the optical electromagnetic spectrum.”).
Regarding claim 11, Seliuchenko, as modified above, teaches:
The time-of-flight demodulation portion of claim 8, wherein at least one of the first and the second light detection element includes a photodiode (photodiodes shown in Fig. 3A, [61, 72-73]).
Regarding claim 12, Seliuchenko, as modified above, teaches:
The time-of-flight demodulation portion of claim 11,
Seliuchenko does not teach:
wherein the substrate includes the first and the second light detection elements.
However, Ni teaches:
Photodiodes on a substrate (#4 of Fig. 10, indium phosphide substrate, #101 is an array of InGaAs photodiodes [93], the photodiodes are formed by layers #3 and #5 [67])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the photodiodes of Seliuchenko to be on an InP substrate and use InGaAs photodiodes similar to Ni with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of improving detection in the SWIR band (Ni : [4]), which in turn can increase accuracy while maintaining safety by allowing for higher eye-safe power emission (Mayor, “The 1.5 to 1.8 micron band of the spectrum has the highest maximum permissible exposure for the human eye in the optical electromagnetic spectrum.”).
Regarding claim 13, Seliuchenko, as modified above, teaches:
The time-of-flight demodulation portion of claim 12,
Seliuchenko does not teach:
further including a further substrate including the amplifier.
However, Ni teaches:
An amplifier on a further substrate (#2 of Fig. 10, readout circuit, the readout circuit is on a silicon substrate [93] and is similar to Fig. 3 [94])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the readout circuitry of Seliuchenko to be on a separate substrate and include an amplifier similar to Ni with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of further boosting the imaging signal for easier detection without increasing the size of pixels.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 4 line 21 – page 5 line 19, filed 05/19/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-4, 8, 14, and 16-17 under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Seliuchenko and Franke for claims 1, 3-4, 14, and 16-17 and a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Seliuchenko, Franke, and Ni for claim 8.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6 lines 3-9 , filed 05/19/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 2, 5, 11-13, 15, and 18 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Seliuchenko and Franke for claims 2, 5, 15 and 18 and a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Seliuchenko, Franke, and Ni for claims 11-13.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 lines 5-11 , filed 05/19/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 6-7, 9-10, and 19-20 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Seliuchenko, Franke, and Ni for claims 6-7, 9-10, and 19-20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVIRAJ D SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-9128. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am-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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at (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
Prosecution Insights