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. Election/Restrictions Claim FILLIN "Enter claim identification information" \* MERGEFORMAT s 12-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected FILLIN "Enter the appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT invention II , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on FILLIN "Enter mail date of the reply." \* MERGEFORMAT 25 November 2025 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on FILLIN "Enter date IDS was filed" \* MERGEFORMAT 12 June 2024 and 02 August 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Claim Objections Claim FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT s 4 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 4: “the SPAD array” in line 1 should be “the at least one SPAD array” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language. Claim 9: “the SPAD array” in line 7 should be “the at least one SPAD array” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required. 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. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT s 1-11 are 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. Regarding claim 1 , the limitation “optionally relati ng the count of light signals to a property of a particle from which the light signals were emitted, the particle optionally being a cell ” is unclear as it fails to particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Does the invention relate the count to a property or not? Claims 2-11 are rejected for their dependency on claim 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. 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. Claims FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1-3, 6, and 10 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) and (a)(2) 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 ]" Xu et al. (CN 111679290 A) . Regarding claim 1 , Xu teaches a method, comprising: receiving one or more light signals at a point in time, wherein each light signal is captured by a respective pixel of at least one single-photon avalanche diode (SPAD) array (22) , wherein a pixel is activated for a reset time after capturing a light signal (¶2, This invention relates to the field of photoelectric detection technology, and more particularly to a photon counting correction method for single-photon avalanche diode arrays, lidar, and computer-readable media ; ¶11, a: Receive the incident light pulse through the single-photon avalanche diode array ; and ¶4, The diode will then recharge to its pre-breakdown state, allowing for subsequent photon detection. This process determines that a SPAD will have a period of extinguishing and recovery time after detecting a photon ) ; determining a number of activated pixels of the at least one SPAD array (22) during the point in time (¶5, The controller acquires and measures signals from the SPAD array. Specifically, the controller receives the photon detection signal of each SPAD on the SPAD array and counts the number of SPADs on the array triggered by incident photons ) ; and based on the number of activated pixels of the at least one SPAD array (22) for the point in time, adjusting a count of light signals captured by the at least one SPAD array (22) for the point in time (¶13, Correct the photon count of the incident light pulse according to preset conditions ; and see ¶50 for further details) . optionally relating the count of light signals to a property of a particle from which the light signals were emitted, the particle optionally being a cell ( as this limitation is “optional” no art is required to teach ) . Regarding claim 2 , Xu teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: storing the adjusted count in memory (¶51, processing device can store a corresponding lookup table, so as to look up the actual number of photons x that arrives based on the number of triggered single-photon avalanche diodes y. The lookup table is obtained by actual testing and statistics of the device, and the lookup table parameters can be modified in real time through actual testing ) . Regarding claim 3 , Xu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one SPAD array (22) is comprised in at least one SPAD detector (¶4, using SPAD (single-photon avalanche diode) arrays as LiDAR receivers can directly output digital signals without the need for ADC processing, thus showing promising prospects ) . Regarding claim 6 , Xu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the reset time is about 10 ns (¶54, For a specific single-photon avalanche diode, the recovery time can be set in advance, for example, 10ns ) . Regarding claim 10 , Xu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a light signal comprises a photon (¶4, A SPAD is typically a structure consisting of an avalanche photodiode connected in series with a resistor. In a photodiode, when a photon is absorbed, the resulting electron-hole pair is accelerated within the space charge region, gaining sufficient kinetic energy. Through collisional ionization, a secondary electron-hole pair is formed, ultimately triggering a self-perpetual ionization cascade that makes silicon conductive and generates current. The series resistor at the tail of the SPAD will achieve a high voltage division after the photodiode generates current, causing the voltage across the diode to drop below the breakdown voltage, thus preventing avalanche. The diode will then recharge to its pre-breakdown state, allowing for subsequent photon detection. This process determines that a SPAD will have a period of extinguishing and recovery time after detecting a photon ) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 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 nonobviousness . 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. Claim FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Xu et al. (CN 111679290 A) in view of Wang et al. ( USPGPub 20230054279 A1) . Regarding claim 4 , Xu teaches the SPAD array (22) (¶2, This invention relates to the field of photoelectric detection technology, and more particularly to a photon counting correction method for single-photon avalanche diode arrays, lidar, and computer-readable media ). However, Xu fails to explicitly teach wherein the SPAD array comprises a 32 x 32 array of pixels. However, Wang teaches wherein the SPAD array comprises a 32 x 32 array of pixels (¶82, The pixels can be arranged in an array with array size from a few, 2-100, to thousands and millions and tens and hundreds of millions ) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xu to incorporate the teachings of Wang to have the array of SPADs be the above mentioned size because a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions (MPEP 2144.05 II A). Claim FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Xu et al. (CN 111679290 A) in view of Alvarez et al. ( USPGPub 20230174970 A1) . Regarding claim 5 , Xu teaches the SPAD array (22) (¶2, This invention relates to the field of photoelectric detection technology, and more particularly to a photon counting correction method for single-photon avalanche diode arrays, lidar, and computer-readable media ). However, Xu fails to explicitly teach receiving a plurality of light signals, wherein each light signal is captured by a respective pixel of a different one of a plurality of single-photon avalanche diode (SPAD) array. However, Alvarez teaches receiving a plurality of light signals, wherein each light signal is captured by a respective pixel of a different one of a plurality of single-photon avalanche diode (SPAD) array (¶117, The MCAM system can use multiple micro-cameras 301 to capture light from multiple sample areas, with each micro camera capturing light from a sample area onto a digital image sensor, such as a charged coupled device (CCD), complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) pixel array, or single-photon avalanche diode (SPAD) array ) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xu to incorporate the teachings of Alvarez to further include a plurality of SPAD arrays because [t] he invention seeks to bridge the benefits of single-cell sequencing…and the benefits of single-cell spatial context…by using a multi-camera array microscope (MCAM) to observe a large area continuously (synchronous and continuous information in space and time) so that the cells or components from a specimen can be uniquely identified as they are isolated and analyzed ( Alvarez, ¶ 35). Claims FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Xu et al. (CN 111679290 A) in view of Cao et al. ( USPGPub 20190113435 A1) . Regarding claim 7 , Xu teaches the pixels having a rest time (¶4, The diode will then recharge to its pre-breakdown state, allowing for subsequent photon detection. This process determines that a SPAD will have a period of extinguishing and recovery time after detecting a photon ). However, Xu fails to explicitly teach wherein the reset time is unique to each respective pixel. However, Cao teaches wherein the reset time is unique to each respective pixel (¶38, The reset period may be any duration, depending on the type of multi-photon counting detector… the duration of each reset period may independently range from 0.0001 μs to 1000 μs , such as from 0.001 μs to 750 μs , such as from 0.01 μs to 500 μs and including from 0.1 μs to 100 μs . Each reset period may be the same duration or a different duration ) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xu to incorporate the teachings of Cao to further include different reset times in order to improve detection at different ranges (see US 20210389467 A1). Regarding claim 11 , Xu teaches counting light signals (¶2, This invention relates to the field of photoelectric detection technology, and more particularly to a photon counting correction method for single-photon avalanche diode arrays, lidar, and computer-readable media ). However, Xu fails to explicitly teach relating the count of light signals to a property of a particle from which the light signals were emitted, the particle being a cell. However, Cao teaches relating the count of light signals to a property of a particle from which the light signals were emitted, the particle being a cell (¶4, One technique that utilizes light detection to characterize the components in a sample is flow cytometry… The flow cytometer transports the particles (including cells) in the fluid sample as a cell stream to a flow cell, while also directing the sheath fluid to the flow cell. Within the flow cell, a liquid sheath is formed around the cell stream to impart a substantially uniform velocity on the cell stream. The flow cell hydrodynamically focuses the cells within the stream to pass through the center of a light source in a flow cell. Light from the light source can be detected as scatter or by transmission spectroscopy or can be absorbed by one or more components in the sample and re-emitted as luminescence ) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xu to incorporate the teachings of Cao to utilize the above mentioned detection method to determine the properties of cells because analyte detection in physiological fluids, e.g., blood or blood derived products, can be important where the results may play a prominent role in the treatment protocol of a patient in a variety of disease conditions ( Cao, ¶ 2). Allowable Subject Matter Claim FILLIN "Enter claim identification information" \* MERGEFORMAT s 8-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding claim 8 , the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach the method of claim 1 as claimed , further comprising: determining a correction factor for the received one or more light signals based on the number of activated pixels for the point in time; and adjusting the count of light signals based on the correction factor, more specifically in combination with wherein the count of light signals is defined as FinalCorrectedValue in the following equation: FinalCorrectedValue= CorrectedValue 1-( PreviousPixelCount TotalPixels × PixelResetTime DetectionPeriod ) . Claim 9 would be allowed for its dependency on claim 8. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Eshel et al. ( USPGPub 20210389467 A1): Eshel is drawn to a LIDAR device that uses a plurality of different types of detectors that subsequently have different recovery times, which improves detection at different ranges (¶175). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ERIN R GARBER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4663 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 0730-1730 . 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 Georgia Y Epps can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2328 . 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. /ERIN R GARBER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2878