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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a dark counter read defect map generator”, “a macro-block dynamic SPAD selection” and “a DSS look-up table generator” in claims 1, 8 and 15, which will be understood as hardware controller/digital processor see Applicant’s paragraphs 66 and 68.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 4-8, 11-14, 15 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iguchi et al. (US 20190170866) in view of Deane (US 20150285625).
Re claims 1, 8 and 15: Iguchi teaches a circuit, a method and a device comprising the circuit (fig. 1, 5, 7-11), comprising: a dark counter read (DCR) defect map generator configured to generate, during startup, a DCR map identifying malfunctioning single photon avalanche diodes (SPADs) in a SPAD array (paragraphs 90-95, identifying defective SPADs in rows and columns, fig. 7 and 8); a macro-block dynamic SPAD selection (DSS) configured to generate, during startup, patterns to be used in accordance with a number of SPADs to be enabled per SPAD cluster (paragraphs 96-101, fig. 9); a DSS generator configured to generate a selection for each SPAD macro-block based on the number of SPADs to be enabled per SPAD cluster (paragraphs 96-101, fig. 1, 5, 7-11); a plurality of local controller circuits (81a/OCj/93), each local controller circuit configured to monitor the number of photons of light detected (paragraphs 96-101, fig. 1, 5, 7-11); and a central controller circuit (95) configured to determine the number of SPADs to be enabled for each SPAD controller based on the number of photons of light detected (paragraphs 96-101, fig. 1, 5, 7-11), but does not specifically teach the DSS generator is a DSS look-up table generator configured to generate a look-up table for each SPAD macro-block based on the number of SPADs to be enabled per SPAD cluster. Deane teaches a DSS look-up table generator configured to generate a look-up table for each SPAD macro-block based on the number of SPADs to be enabled per SPAD cluster (paragraph 123, activated SPADs). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to generate a look up table using the defective map information and the number of SPADs enabled in Iguchi similar to Deane generating a look up table in ROM decoder based on activated SPADs in column in order to reduce the amount of circuitry in the system and only using desired SPADs providing reduction in noise and higher quality light detection.
Re claims 4 and 11: Iguchi as modified by Deane teaches the circuit/method/device, wherein the look-up table for each SPAD macro-block indicates a SPAD pattern identifying SPADs to be turned ON (Deane, paragraph 123, activated SPADs, Iguchi, paragraphs 96-101, fig. 1, 5, 7-11).
Re claims 5 and 12: Iguchi as modified by Deane teaches the circuit/method/device, wherein the generating the look-up table is based on a number of defective SPAD's in a SPAD cluster (Deane, paragraph 123, activated SPADs, Iguchi, paragraphs 96-101, fig. 1, 5, 7-11).
Re claims 6, 13 and 19: Iguchi as modified by Deane the circuit/method/device, wherein the look-up table is stored in a storage memory, wherein the storage memory is one of a volatile or non-volatile memory type (Deane, paragraph 123, ROM).
Re claims 7, 14 and 20: Iguchi as modified by Deane the circuit/method/device, The circuit of claim 6, wherein the number of SPADs to be enabled is further based on DSS patterns stored in the storage memory (Deane, paragraph 123, activated SPADs, Iguchi, paragraphs 96-101, fig. 1, 5, 7-11).
Re claim 18: Iguchi as modified by Deane teaches the device, wherein the look-up table for each SPAD macro-block indicates a SPAD pattern identifying SPADs to be turned ON (Deane, paragraph 123, activated SPADs, Iguchi, paragraphs 96-101, fig. 1, 5, 7-11), and wherein the generating the look-up table is based on a number of defective SPAD's in a SPAD cluster (Deane, paragraph 123, activated SPADs, Iguchi, paragraphs 96-101, fig. 1, 5, 7-11).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16 and 17 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.
In regards to claims 2, 9 and 16, the prior art of record individually or in combination fails to teach the circuit/method/device of claims 1, 8 and 15 as claimed, more specifically in combination with wherein the central controller circuit is further configured to block an output of a SPAD macro-block using a gating circuit based on determining that the SPAD macro-block generates a disproportionate number of ambient events.
Re claims 3, 10 and 17 are objected to because of their dependency on corresponding claims 2, 9 and 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER D BENNETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3419. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 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.
/JENNIFER D BENNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights