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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/04/2025 with respect to claims 12 - 14 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Please refer to the following office action, which clearly sets forth the reasons for non-persuasiveness.
Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach "for at least one of the SPDs, the persistence condition comprises the positive observation status for the same SPD in at least M observation windows over the past N observation windows" of amended claim 1. Neither Bulteel nor Victor discloses, teaches, or suggests that for at least one SPD, the persistence condition should hold true for that same SPD. Bulteel teaches a coincidence condition, wherein a correlated detection should hold true over a group of SPDs. (See Bulteel, Fig. 3A.) However, a skilled artisan would have known that a persistence condition is not the same as a coincidence condition. Bulteel discloses using photon arrival time correlation to avoid unwanted detection. (See Bulteel, [0026].) However, unlike Bulteel, amended claim 1 of the current application filters unwanted detections by detecting a persistence condition when observation of the same SPD occurs over multiple (at least M) observation windows. Bulteel does not teach any such method.
Victor also teaches a coincidence condition, wherein detection should hold true over the whole receptive field in order to increment a counter, wherein the receptive field comprises a group of SPDs. (See Victor, [0012].) Victor discloses that a feature is detected if all SPDs are triggered: "each neural feature circuit is configured to generate a neural feature trigger signal and an inhibit signal if all the SPAD sensors in the subgroup trigger." (See Victor, [0018].) Therefore, modifying the method of Victor from requiring the persistence condition to hold true for a group of SPDs to requiring the persistence condition to hold true for a single SPD would fundamentally change the operation of Victor. Such a modification would prevent the Victor from detecting the neural features it is designed to identify.
Accordingly, the combination of Bulteel and Victor does not disclose, teach, or suggest amended claim 1. Because amended claim 1 is patentable over the cited references claim 1, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 and its dependents are allowable over the cited references, and that the rejection of the claim 1 as allegedly unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.§§ 102 and 103 should be withdrawn.
Independent claims 12 and 14 are also directed to a single photon detector SPD. For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that the cited references fail to teach independent claims 12 and 14. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejections of claims 12 and 14, and their respective dependent claims, under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
Examiner notes that in response to Applicant's argument that claims 12 – 14 do not include certain features of Applicant's invention, the limitations on which the Applicant relies (i.e., argued limitations above seeming to refer to limitations of claim 1 and not included in claims 12 - 14) are not stated in the claims. It is the claims that define the claimed invention, and it is the claims, not specifications that are anticipated or unpatentable. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc. , 7 USPQ 2d 1064.
In response to Applicant's arguments, 37 CFR § 1.111 (C) requires applicant to "clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections." In this case, applicant has failed to clearly point out patentable novelty and failed to show how the amendment avoids the combination of references applied against the claim.
Hence the rejection is maintained.
Applicant has amended claim 12 to overcome the objection to the claim provided in the previous office action.
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 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 12 - 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bulteel (US PgPub No. 20190326347).
Regarding claim 12, Bulteel teaches a detector element for detecting an electromagnetic radiation (figure 1 item 100 with item 122; single-photon avalanche diodes), comprising: a single photon detector SPD (figure 1 item 122 capturing light from item 102 going to item 130) configured to generate a signal that describes a status of the occurrence or non-occurrence of an observation by the SPD of the electromagnetic radiation to be detected for consecutive observation windows (paragraph 0019 – 0022; propagate light to SPD and get occurrence or non-occurrence figure 1 item 108; figure 1 item 108 graph, also paragraph 0023 voltage drop); a memory element that remembers the status of the SPD at an end of at least N previous observation windows, wherein N is a natural number equal to or greater than 1 (paragraph 0019 memory; figure 1 item 108 graph, also paragraph 0023 voltage drop; also figure 3A item 300A); and a logical circuit configured to generate a confirmation signal if the signal of the SPD, at the end of a current observation window and from at least M of the N previous observation windows, indicates an observation by the SPD, wherein M is a natural number equal to or greater than 1 and at most equal to N (figure 3A item 300A and 300B pulses 1 – 4 and paragraph 0028).
Regarding claim 13, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 12, Bulteel teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Bulteel teaches a sensor system comprising a matrix/array of detector elements (figure 1) according to claim 12 (please see claim 12 above); and a circuit for reading the detector elements in the matrix/array (figure 1 and figure 3A item 300A and figure 4).
Regarding claim 14, Bulteel teaches a sensor system comprising a matrix/array of detector elements (figure 1 item 100 with items 122; single-photon avalanche diodes array 120), whereby the detector elements comprise a single photon detector SPD (figure 1 item 100 with item 122; single-photon avalanche diodes) configured to generate a signal that describes a status of the occurrence or non-occurrence of an observation by the SPD of the electromagnetic radiation (photons) to be detected for consecutive observation windows (paragraph 0019 – 0022; propagate light to SPD and get occurrence or non-occurrence figure 1 item 108; figure 1 item 108 graph, also paragraph 0023 voltage drop); a logical circuit for reading the signals of the detector elements in the matrix/array, the logical circuit being provided with one or more memory elements (figure 1 and figure 3A item 300A and figure 4; paragraph 0019 memory; figure 1 item 108 graph, also paragraph 0023 voltage drop); whereby the one or more memory elements are configured to remember the status of the SPD at an end of at least N previous observation windows per SPD, wherein N is a natural number equal to or greater than 1 (paragraph 0019 memory; figure 1 item 108 graph, also paragraph 0023 voltage drop; also figure 3A item 300A); whereby the logical circuit is configured to generate a confirmation signal for an SPD if the signal of the SPD at an end of a current observation window and at least M of the N previous observation windows of the SPD indicates an observation by the SPD, wherein M is a natural number between 1 and N (figure 3A item 300A and 300B pulses 1 – 4 and paragraph 0028).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 11 and 15 - 16 are allowed.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claim 1, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest capturing photons on the SPDs; generating a detection signal, by the SPDs; providing the detection signal to an evaluation circuit, whereby the detection signal indicates: a positive observation status when an observation takes place by the SPD of an electromagnetic radiation to be detected, and a negative observation status in [[the]]an absence of the observation by the SPD of the electromagnetic radiation to be detected; evaluating the detection signal of the SPD by the evaluation circuit for the respective SPD; generating a confirmation signal for the SPD in accordance with a persistence condition being met by the detection signal for the respective SPD; and for at least one of the SPDs, the persistence condition comprises the positive observation status for the same SPD in at least M observation windows over the past N observation windows, wherein M is greater than 1 and less than or equal to N; in combination with other elements of the claim.
Regarding claims 2 – 11 and 15 - 16, claims 2 – 11 and 15 - 16 are allowed as being dependent from allowed independent claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
VAN DER TEMPEL (US PgPub No. 2024/0080581) teaches a system of single photon detector.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Usman A Khan whose telephone number is (571)270-1131. The examiner can normally be reached on M - Th 5:30 AM - 2 PM, F 5:30 AM - Noon.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached on (571)272-7564. 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.
Usman Khan
/USMAN A KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
01/29/2026