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. DETAILED ACTION Priority Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for foreign priority based on a Patent Applications filed on 12/30/20. It is noted that Applicant has filed a certified copy of the application as required by 35 U.S.C. 119(b). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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. Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 8 recites ‘ activate SPADs based on SPAD proximities to the first location ’ whereby it is unclear if ‘ activation ’ occurs for some/all SPADs or for each individual/relative SPAD for location proximity (as recited clearly in Claim 18). Appropriate clarification is required. 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 . 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 non-obviousness. Claims 1 -4, 8 -14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HALL (US Pub. No.: 2019-023796 ) in view of DUTTON et al. (US Pub. No.: 2021-0302550 ). As per Claim 1 HALL discloses A lidar system comprising ( Figs. 1-2 system 100 ) : a housing ( Figs. 1-2 to house the system for compact components or integrated with implied housing [0041-0043] ) ; a laser source configured to generate a pulsed laser during a first time, the laser source being positioned at a first location of the housing ( Figs. 1-6, 8-12 - source 102 – timing diagrams [0039-0043] ) ; an optical module configured receiving a reflected laser signal, the optical module being positioned at a second location of the housing ( Figs. 1-6, 8-12 – lens [0011] positioned with light sensor array 104 [0038-0039] [0041-0043] ) ; a pixel circuit configured to generate electrical outputs based on the reflected laser signal ( Figs. 4-5 ) , the pixel circuit comprising an array of single photon avalanche diodes (SPADs), the pixel circuit being positioned at a third location of the housing and behind the optical module ( Figs. 1-6, 8-12 – lens [0011] positioned with light sensor array 104 and reflective 112 [0038-0039] [0041-0043] – pixel circuit see Fig s . 4 -5 [0047-00 50 ] ) , the array of SPADs comprising a first SPAD and a second SPAD, the first SPAD and the second SPAD being positioned different distances from the first location ( Figs. 1-6, 8-12 – Fig s . 4 -5 array of SPADs at different placements from withing and therefore from at least the FOV 120 [0047-00 50 ] ) ; a logic circuit coupled to the pixel circuit, the logic circuit being configured to activate the first SPAD and deactivate the second SPAD during a second time ( Figs. 1-6, 8-12 logic circuit light control subsystem [0047] SPADs activities OFF/ON [0054] [0058-0059] [0063-0064] [0068-0069]) ; HALL does not disclose but DUTTON discloses a time-to-digital converter (TDC) configured to generate histogram data corresponding to the array of SPADs ( Figs. 1-12 TDC SPAD and respective histograms [0007] [0027-0028] [0037] ) , each of the histogram data comprising n intensity values corresponding to n time bins ( Figs. 1-12 bin peak intensities – respective corresponding [Abstract] [0048-0049] [0058-0062] ) ; a memory device configured to store the histogram data ( Figs. 1-2 data readout circuit 262 - storage for histogram [0037-0038] [0048-0049] ) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a time-to-digital converter (TDC) configured to generate histogram data corresponding to the array of SPADs, each of the histogram data comprising n intensity values corresponding to n time bins; a memory device configured to store the histogram data as taught by DUTTON into the system of HALL be cause of the benefit taught by DUTTON to also host SPAD components but as well further SPAD - TDC data by pairing with respective histograms which would benefit HALL which is directed towards SPAD devices and activation and would benefit from DUTTON related advancements for better data outcomes. As per Claim 2 HALL discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the logic circuit is further configured to activate the N SPAD and deactivate the M SPAD during a NM time ( Figs. 1-6 time gates and SPADs activity [0054] ) ( B efore the effective filing date of the claimed invention , it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify H ALL to teach a specific SPADs to activate/deactivate specific times because A pplicant has not disclosed that activate the second SPAD and deactivate the first SPAD during a t hird time provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, fu rthermore, would have expected A pplicant's invention to perform equally well with other variants of SPADs and times because performance of said invention is not tied to the number of distinct SPADs or time ) As per Claim 3 HALL discloses The system of claim 2, wherein the N SPAD and the M SPAD are activated during an overlapping time interval ( Figs. 1-6 [0054] overlap [0068] ) ( B efore the effective filing date of the claimed invention , it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify H ALL to teach a specific SPADs to activate/deactivate specific times because A pplicant has not disclosed that first SPAD and the second SPAD are activated provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, fu rthermore, would have expected A pplicant's invention to perform equally well with other variants of SPADs and times because performance of said invention is not tied to the number of distinct SPADs or time ) . As per Claim 4 HALL discloses The system of claim 2, wherein HALL does not disclose but DUTTON discloses the histogram data comprising a first histogram associated with the first SPAD and a second histogram associated with the second SPAD, the first histogram being updated during the N time ( Figs. 1-10 SPAD with related histogram as per the TDC [0037] [0067-0068] write back updates [0073-0075] ) ( B efore the effective filing date of the claimed invention , it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify DUTTON to teach a specific SPADs to update specific times because A pplicant has not disclosed that updated during the second time provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, fu rthermore, would have expected A pplicant's invention to perform equally well with other variants of SPADs and times because performance of said invention is not tied to the number of distinct SPADs or time ) ( The motivation that applied in Claim 1 applies equally to Claim 4 ) . As per Claim 8 HALL discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the logic circuit is configured to activate SPADs based on SPAD proximities to the first location ( Figs. 1-6 individual or group SPADs activity [0054] active initially at first location [0057-0059] ) . As per Claim 9 HALL discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the array of SPADs comprise a first detection zone and second detection zone ( in at least Figs. 4, 10 zone selectable regions of interest [0008-0011] [0037] [0061-0063] ) , the N SPAD and a NM SPAD being positioned in the first detection zone, the M SPAD and a MM SPAD being positioned in the second detection zone ( Figs. 1-6 [0054] [0068] ) ( B efore the effective filing date of the claimed invention , it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify H ALL to teach a specific SPADs to activate/deactivate with specific zones because A pplicant has not disclosed that the first SPAD and a third SPAD being positioned in the first detection zone, the second SPAD and a fourth SPAD being positioned in the second detection zone provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, fu rthermore, would have expected A pplicant's invention to perform equally well with other variants of SPADs and zones because performance of said invention is not tied to the number of distinct SPADs or zones ) . As per Claim 10 HALL discloses The system of claim 9, wherein the logic circuit is configured to sequentially activate the first detection zone and the second detection zone ( Figs. 1-4, 10 sequential for the regions [0061-0063] ) . As per Claim 11 HALL discloses The system of claim 9, wherein the logic circuit is configured to sequentially activate the N detection zone and a M detection zone, the N detection zone and the M detection zone being non-adjacent ( Figs. 1-4, 10 sequential for the regions and non-adjacent spaces within FIG. 4 gird [0061-0063] ) ( B efore the effective filing date of the claimed invention , it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify H ALL to teach a specific SPADs to activate/deactivate with specific zones because A pplicant has not disclosed that sequentially activate the first detection zone and a third detection zone, the first detection zone and the third detection zone being non-adjacent provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, fu rthermore, would have expected A pplicant's invention to perform equally well with other variants of SPADs and zones because performance of said invention is not tied to the number of distinct SPADs or zones ) . As per Claim 12 HALL discloses A method of operating a lidar system comprising ( See said analysis for Claim 1 ) : generating a pulsed laser during a first time from a laser source positioned at a first location of a housing ( See said analysis for Claim 1 ) ; receiving a reflected laser signal at an optical module positioned at a second location of the housing ( See said analysis for Claim 1 ) ; generating electrical outputs based on the reflected laser signal at a pixel circuit, the pixel circuit comprising an array of single photon avalanche diodes (SPADs) ( See said analysis for Claim 1 ) , the pixel circuit being positioned at a third location of the housing and behind the optical module ( See said analysis for Claim 1 ) , the array of SPADs comprising a first SPAD and a second SPAD positioned at different distances from the first location ( See said analysis for Claim 1 ) ; activating the first SPAD and deactivating the second SPAD during a second time by a logic circuit coupled to the pixel circuit ( See said analysis for Claim 1 ) ; HALL does not disclose but DUTTON discloses generating histogram data corresponding to the array of SPADs ( See said analysis for Claim 1) , each of the histogram data comprising n intensity values corresponding to n time bins with a time-to-digital converter (TDC) ( See said analysis for Claim 1) ; and storing the histogram data in a memory device ( See said analysis for Claim 1) As per Claim 13 HALL discloses The method of claim 12, further comprising activating the second SPAD and deactivating the first SPAD during a third time ( See said analysis for Claim 2 ) using the logic circuit ( Figs. 1- 5 logic circuit light control subsystem [0047] ) . As per Claim 14 HALL discloses The method of claim 13, further comprising activating the first SPAD and the second SPAD during an overlapping time interval ( See said analysis for Claim 3 ) . Claims 6, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HALL (US Pub. No.: 2019-023796) in view of DUTTON et al. (US Pub. No.: 2021-0302550), as applied in Claims 1-4, 8-14 , and further in view of LIU et al. (US Pub. No: 2018-0108175) As per Claim 6 HALL discloses The system of claim 1, further comprising HALL and DUTTON do not disclose but LIU discloses a processor configured to calculate a target distance using at least a difference between the first time and the second time ( Figs. 1-6 processor 25 [0021. 0057] - Lidar 22 distance [0021] [0041] [0064] ) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a processor configured to calculate a target distance using at least a difference between the first time and the second time as taught by LIU into the system of HALL and DUTTTON be cause of the benefit taught by LIU to include a three-dimensional topographic mapping and distance calculation system for distance measurement and analysis advancements which benefits the included systems that use LIDAR devices for depth measurements and other type relative distance information to improve combine system performance. As per Claim 16 HALL discloses The method of claim 12, further comprising HALL and DUTTON do not disclose but LIU discloses calculating a target distance using at least a difference between the first time and the second time by a processor ( See said analysis for Claim 6 ) . Claims 7, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HALL (US Pub. No.: 2019-023796) in view of DUTTON et al. (US Pub. No.: 2021-0302550), as applied in Claims 1-4, 8 -14 , and further in view of HANRATTY et al (US Pub . No: 2022-0184815) As per Claim 7 HALL discloses The system of claim 1, further comprising coupled to the pixel circuit and the logic circuit (See said analysis for Claim 1) ; HALL and DUTTTON do not disclose but H ANRATTY discloses a quenching circuit ( Figs. 1-7 [0051] ) ; the quenching circuit being configured to reset N SPAD during M time ( Figs. 1-7 [0051] ) ( B efore the effective filing date of the claimed invention , it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify H ANRATTY to teach a specific SPAD to reset at a specific time because A pplicant has not disclosed that reset the second SPAD during the second time provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, fu rthermore, would have expected A pplicant's invention to perform equally well with other variants of SPADs and times because performance of said invention is not tied to the number of distinct SPADs or time ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a quenching circuit ; the quenching circuit being configured to reset N SPAD during M time as taught by HANRATTY into the system of HALL and DUTTTON be cause of the benefit taught by HANRATTY to include quicker SPAD reset values which would improve both systems which incorporate TOF/TDC/SPAD processing requirements . As per Claim 17 HALL discloses The apparatus of claim 12, further comprising coupled to the pixel circuit and the logic circuit ( See said analysis for Claim 7 ) HALL and DUTTTON do not disclose but H ANRATTY discloses resetting the N SPAD during the M time with a quenching circuit ( See said analysis for Claim 7 ) Allowable Subject Matter REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE As per Claim 18 , the following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the closest prior art obtained from an Examiner’s search ( HALL, US Pub. No.: 2019-023796; DUTTON, US Pub. No.: 2021-0302550; HANRATTY, US Pub. No: 2022-0184815 ; LIU, US Pub. No: 2018-0108175 ) does not teach nor suggest in detail the limitations: “ A lidar system, comprising: a laser emitter configured to emit a pulsed laser during a first time, the laser emitter being positioned at a first location; a sensor module positioned at a second location, the sensor module being configured to receive a reflected laser signal and comprising an array of single photon avalanche diodes (SPADs), the array of SPADs comprising a plurality of SPADs positioned at different distances from the laser emitter; a logic circuit coupled to the sensor module, configured to selectively activate SPADs during different times based on the relative distance of the SPADs from the first location; a quenching circuit coupled to the sensor module and the logic circuit, the quenching circuit being configured to reset activated SPADs during the different times; a time-to-digital converter (TDC) configured to generate histogram data corresponding to the activated SPADs in the array; a memory device configured to store the generated histogram data, and a processor configured to analyze the stored histogram to determine distance of a target object ” as well as the combination of all the limitations within the independent claims and the enabling portions of the specification. The closest prior art of record HALL does not teach or suggest at least selectively activat ing SPADs during different times based on relative distance s of the SPADs from a location . HALL is also silent as to a quenching circuit being configured to reset activated SPADs during different times , a time-to-digital converter generat ing histogram data corresponding to activated array SPADs , and silent as to stor ing the generated histogram data with a processor configured to analyze the stored histogram to determine distance of a target object as presented by the Applicant. HALL only discloses a lidar with a housing , a laser source configured to generate a pulsed laser during a first time, the laser source being positioned at a first location of the housing . HALL teaches further an optical module configured receiving a reflected laser signal, the optical module being positioned at a second location of the housing and a pixel circuit configured to generate electrical outputs based on the reflected laser signal, the pixel circuit comprising an array of single photon avalanche diodes (SPADs), the pixel circuit being positioned at a third location of the housing and behind the optical module, the array of SPADs comprising a first SPAD and a second SPAD, the first SPAD and the second SPAD being positioned different distances from the first location . Finally, the prior art discloses a logic circuit coupled to the pixel circuit, the logic circuit being configured to activate the first SPAD and deactivate the second SPAD during a second time . Whereas, as stated above, Applicant’s claimed invention recites a lidar system that includes a laser emitter configured to emit a pulsed laser during a first time, the laser emitter being positioned at a first location . The claims further recite a sensor module positioned at a second location, the sensor module being configured to receive a reflected laser signal and comprising an array of single photon avalanche diodes (SPADs), the array of SPADs comprising a plurality of SPADs positioned at different distances from the laser emitter . Further, the invention claims a logic circuit coupled to the sensor module, configured to selectively activate SPADs during different times based on the relative distance of the SPADs from the first location and a quenching circuit coupled to the sensor module and the logic circuit, the quenching circuit being configured to reset activated SPADs during the different times . Finally, the claimed invention includes a time-to-digital converter configured to generate histogram data corresponding to the activated SPADs in the array and a memory device configured to store the generated histogram data, and a processor configured to analyze the stored histogram to determine distance of a target object . So as indicated by the above statements, Applicant’s arguments and amendment have been considered persuasive, in light of the claim limitations as well as the enabling portions of the specification. The dependent claims further limit the independent claims and are considered allowable on the same basis as the independent claims as well as for the further limitations set forth. Claim 18 is allowed. Claims 5, 15 is/are objected to as being dependent upon the 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. Claims 5, 15 is/are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: As per Claim 5 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “ The system of claim 2, wherein the second time is associated with a first proximity between the first SPAD and the first location, and the third time is associated with a second proximity between the second SPAD and the first location " These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable . As per Claim 15 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “ The method of claim 13, wherein the second time is associated with a first proximity between the second SPAD and the first location, and the third time is associated with a second proximity between the second SPAD and the first location " These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable . The closest prior art of record HALL for Claims 5, 15 does not teach all the elements in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim. HALL only discloses a lidar with a housing , a laser source configured to generate a pulsed laser during a first time, the laser source being positioned at a first location of the housing . HALL teaches further an optical module configured receiving a reflected laser signal, the optical module being positioned at a second location of the housing and a pixel circuit configured to generate electrical outputs based on the reflected laser signal, the pixel circuit comprising an array of single photon avalanche diodes (SPADs), the pixel circuit being positioned at a third location of the housing and behind the optical module, the array of SPADs comprising a first SPAD and a second SPAD, the first SPAD and the second SPAD being positioned different distances from the first location . Finally, the prior art discloses a logic circuit coupled to the pixel circuit, the logic circuit being configured to activate the first SPAD and deactivate the second SPAD during a second time . Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT EILEEN M ADAMS whose telephone number is 571-270-3688. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30-5:00 EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571) 272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4688. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service. Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /EILEEN M ADAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481