DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the filing of 6-29-2024. Claims 17-19 are pending and have been considered below:
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.
Claims 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Schie et al. (“Schie” 20190332929 A1) in view of Wang et al. (“Wang” 20200033456 A1).
Claim 17: Schie discloses a calibration circuit, wherein a maximum charge pulse width is provided to a multiply and add switch charge circuit (Paragraph 65; multiply and add circuit provided) or neuron and are adjusted against the maximum pulse width so as to replicate said maximum pulse width for a weight magnitude of 1 (Paragraph 65; magnitude can be adjusted to implement desired weight);
Schie may not explicitly capture a local charge movement device magnitudes are adjusted. Therefore, Wang is provided because it discloses a SPAD circuit (local charge movement device because it converts a single incident photon into a localized avalanche of charge carriers, producing a detectable electrical pulse) and further provides magnitude adjustment capability (Paragraph 61; capability to bias circuit).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement and provide charge movement capability within the system of Schie. One would have been motivated to provide the functionality as a technique of effectively capturing and manipulating the voltage offering high speed operations.
Claim 18: Schie and Wang discloses a calibration circuit of claim 17, wherein a minimum charge width is provided to a local neuron to set a minimum proportional pulse width, through a bias input or fixed delay element, to match said pulse width which correlates to charge zero or other minimum charge value (Schie: Paragraph 62-63 and 65-66; provides pulse width and provides adjustment with magnitude at 0).
Claim 19: Schie and Wang discloses a calibration circuit of claim 17, wherein the maximum pulse width is set in conformance with a CMOS image sensor global shutter device (Wang: Paragraph 89, 98 and 111 (CMOS)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
FLETCHER US 20020180388 A1 [0018]
LIME ET AL. US 20160190912 A1 [0079]
ALLINSON ET AL. 20170112457 A1
Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
In the interests of compact prosecution, Applicant is invited to contact the examiner via electronic media pursuant to USPTO policy outlined MPEP § 502.03. All electronic communication must be authorized in writing. Applicant may wish to file an Internet Communications Authorization Form PTO/SB/439. Applicant may wish to request an interview using the Interview Practice website: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice.
Applicant is reminded Internet e-mail may not be used for communication for matters under 35 U.S.C. § 132 or which otherwise require a signature. A reply to an Office action may NOT be communicated by Applicant to the USPTO via Internet e-mail. If such a reply is submitted by Applicant via Internet e-mail, a paper copy will be placed in the appropriate patent application file with an indication that the reply is NOT ENTERED. See MPEP § 502.03(II).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERROD KEATON whose telephone number is 571-270-1697. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 5:00pm.
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 MICHELLE BECHTOLD can be reached at 571-431-0762. 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.
/SHERROD L KEATON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2148 8-31-2026
Prosecution Insights