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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is 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 8: The amplifier system of Claim 6, further comprising a non-volatile memory (NVM) configured to generate the control signal. The limitation “the control signal” lacks proper antecedent basis. However, claim 6 does not previously recite or otherwise establish a control signal. Therefore, it is unclear what control signal is referenced by “the control signal”, rendering the scope of claim 8 indefinite.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 10, 13, 14, 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wurcer (US-20150022267-A1).
Regarding claim 1: Wurcer, Fig. 2, teaches an amplifier system comprising: a logarithmic transimpedance amplifier (20) (paragraph [0038], lines 1-2) having an input configured to receive an input current signal ((IIN) from photodiode 5); and a current pulse injection circuit (feedback circuit 2 in Fig. 2 that is implemented as a capacitor (12), (paragraph [0040], lines 1-2): configured to inject a current pulse into
the input of the logarithmic transimpedance amplifier in response to detecting a transition of
the input current signal from a high current value to a low current value (feedback capacitor (12) is coupled between voltage output VOUT and the inverting input of logarithmic amplifier (20) and provides loop stability and/or avoids overshoot in response to transient input signals; thus, a high-to-low transient of input current (IIN) produces a corresponding transient through feedback capacitor (12), which passes a current pulse to the input of amplifier (20) in response to the transition, (paragraphs [0038]-[0040])).
Regarding claim 4: Wurcer discusses wherein a shape of the current pulse exponentially decays versus time (Wurcer discloses a current-versus-time graph (160) including second plot (162) of third current (I3) versus time (¶ [0088], lines 1-6); Fig. 8 illustrates that waveform (162) exhibits an exponentially decaying shape from approximately 1.03 ms to 1.045 ms).
Regarding claim 5: Wurcer, Fig. 2 further teaches a photodiode configured to generate the input current signal (amplifier (20 receives (IIN) from photodiode (5), paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 10: Wurcer, Fig. 2, teaches a method (compensating for amplifier input recovery time, the method) comprising: receiving an input current signal at an input of a logarithmic transimpedance amplifier (20) receives input current signal (INN) from photodiode (5), paragraph [0038], lines 1-2);
detecting a transition of the input current signal from a high current value to a low current value using a current pulse injection circuit (feedback circuit (2) implemented as feedback capacitor (12), paragraph [0040], lines 1-2; feedback capacitor (12) is coupled between voltage output VOUT and the inverting in put of logarithmic amplifier (20) and provides loop stability and/or avoids overshoot in response to transient input signals; thus, a high-to-low transient of input current (INN) produces a corresponding transient through feedback capacitor (12), (paragraphs [0038]-[0040]); and injecting a current pulse into the input of the logarithmic transimpedance amplifier in response to detecting the transition of the input current signal using the current pulse injection circuit (the corresponding transient passes through feedback capacitor (12) as a current pulse to the input of logarithmic amplifier (20) in response to the transition, (paragraph [0040])).
Regarding claim 13: Wurcer discusses wherein a shape of the current pulse exponentially decays versus time (Wurcer discloses a current-versus-time graph (160) including second plot (162) of third current (I3) versus time (¶[0088], lines 1-6); Fig. 8 illustrates that waveform (162) exhibits an exponentially decaying shape from approximately 1.03 ms to 1.045 ms).
Regarding claim 14: Wurcer, Fig. 2, further teaches generating the input current signal using a photodiode (logarithmic amplifier (202) receives the input current signal (IIN) from photodiode (5), (paragraph [0039])).
Regarding claim 17: Wurcer, Fig. 1, Fig. 2, teaches a photocurrent detection system (amplifier system including a photodiode/current source and logarithmic amplifier, paragraphs [0031], [0039]) comprising:
a photodiode (5) configured to generate an input current signal (current source (4)/photodiode (5) generates/provides input current (IIN) to amplifier (10)/(20), paragraphs [0031], [0039]); and
a semiconductor die comprising a logarithmic transimpedance amplifier (10) having an input configured to receive the input current signal (amplifier 10 is fabricated on an integrated circuit (IC) and receives input current (IIN) at the IC’s pins or pads, paragraph [0031], lines 7-8), and a current pulse injection circuit configured to inject a current pulse into the input of the logarithmic transimpedance amplifier in response to detecting a transition of the input current signal from a high current value to a low current value (feedback capacitor (12) is coupled between voltage output VOUT and the inverting input of logarithmic amplifier (20) and provides loop stability and/or avoids overshoot in response to transient input signals; thus, a high-to-low transient of input current (IIN) produces a corresponding transient through feedback capacitor (12), which passes a current pulse to the input of amplifier (20) in response to the transition, (paragraphs [0038]-[0040])).
Regarding claim 19: Wurcer discusses wherein a shape of the current pulse exponentially decays versus time (Wurcer discloses a current-versus-time graph (160) including second plot (162) of third current (I3) versus time (¶[0088], lines 1-6); Fig. 8 illustrates that waveform (162) exhibits an exponentially decaying shape from approximately 1.03 ms to 1.045 ms).
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.
Claims 2, 11, 18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Wurcer (US-20150022267-A1) in view of Zamprogno et al. (US-20180131342-A1).
Regarding claim 2: Wurcer does not disclose wherein at least one of an amplitude or a duration of the current pulse is set by a control signal.
Zamprogno teaches wherein at least one of an amplitude or a duration of the current pulse is set by a control signal. (Zamprogno discloses controlling the amplitude of current supplied to a TIA input is controllably variable: the control unit changes the type/number of current sources connect to the TIA input (¶ [0153], lines 2-5), the variable current source may be implemented as a current DAC (¶[0154], lines 2-4) and the current is varied under control signal PRE-CAL (¶[0155], lines 2-5)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the current pulse injection circuit of Wurcer according to the teachings of Zamprogno such that the amplitude of the current pulse is set by a control signal, in order to provide control of the amount of current supplied to the input of the transimpedance amplifier and thereby improve the dynamic range of the amplifier circuit (Zamprogno, ¶ [0150],[0153]-[0155], [0159]).
Regarding claim 11: Wurcer does not disclose further comprising controlling at least one of an amplitude or a duration of the current pulse using a control signal.
Zamprogno teaches further comprising at least one of an amplitude or a duration of the current pulse is set by a control signal. (Zamprogno discloses controlling the amplitude of current supplied to a TIA input is controllably variable: the control unit changes the type/number of current sources connect to the TIA input (¶ [0153], lines 2-5), the variable current source may be implemented as a current DAC (¶[0154], lines 2-4) and the current is varied under control signal PRE-CAL (¶[0155], lines 2-5)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the current pulse injection method of Wurcer according to the teachings of Zamprogno such that the amplitude of the current pulse is set by a control signal, in order to provide control of the amount of current supplied to the input of the transimpedance amplifier and thereby improve the dynamic range of the amplifier circuit (Zamprogno, ¶ [0150],[0153]-[0155], [0159]).
Regarding claim 18: Wurcer does not disclose wherein at least one of an amplitude or a duration of the current pulse is set by a control signal.
Zamprogno teaches wherein at least one of an amplitude or a duration of the current pulse is set by a control signal. (Zamprogno discloses controlling the amplitude of current supplied to a TIA input is controllably variable: the control unit changes the type/number of current sources connect to the TIA input (¶ [0153], lines 2-5), the variable current source may be implemented as a current DAC (¶[0154], lines 2-4) and the current is varied under control signal PRE-CAL (¶[0155], lines 2-5)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the current pulse injection circuit of Wurcer according to the teachings of Zamprogno such that the amplitude of the current pulse is set by a control signal, in order to provide control of the amount of current supplied to the input of the transimpedance amplifier and thereby improve the dynamic range of the amplifier circuit (Zamprogno, ¶ [0150],[0153]-[0155], [0159]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wurcer (US-20150022267-A1) in view of Zamprogno et al. (US-20180131342-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Myers et al. (US-20220321811-A1).
Regarding claim 3: Wurcer in view of Zamprogno does not disclose further comprising a non-volatile memory (NVM) configured to generate the control signal.
Myers teaches further comprising a non-volatile memory (NVM) configured to generate the control signal (Myers teaches a system in which processing/control functions are implemented by programmable processors executing computer programs stored on machine-readable storage, including non-volatile memory such that the stored program information controls operation of the data-processing apparatus (¶[0105]-[0108])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the control functionality of Wurcer as modified by Zamprogno using Myers’ NVM-based programmable control, in order to retain the program/control information used to generate Zamprogno’s control signal when power is removed, thereby permitting the control functionality to be available upon subsequent operation of the system.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wurcer (US-20150022267-A1) in view of Zamprogno et al. (US-20180131342-A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Myers et al. (US-20220321811-A1).
Regarding claim 12: Wurcer in view of Zamprogno does not disclose further comprising generating the control signal using a non-volatile memory (NVM).
Myers teaches further comprising generating the control signal using a non-volatile memory (NVM) (teaches implementing system functions in hardware, firmware, and software using programmable processors and machine-readable storage including non-volatile memory, wherein computer programs stored on the machine-readable storage are executed by, or control the operation of, the data-processing apparatus (¶[0105]-[0108])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the control functionality of Wurcer as modified by Zamprogno using Myers’ NVM-based programmable control, in order to retain the program/control information used to generate Zamprogno’s control signal when power is removed, thereby permitting the control functionality to be available upon subsequent operation of the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6, 7, 9, 15, 16, 20 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 6 and 15: none of the references teach biasing a cathode of the photodiode with a bias voltage that is based on a current of the photodiode minus a threshold current value.
Regarding claims 7 and 16: depend therefrom claims 6 and 15 respectively and include the same allowable features.
Regarding claims 9 and 20: none of the references teach wherein the logarithmic transimpedance amplifier is configured to generate a copy of the input current that is provided to an input of the current pulse injection circuit.
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Laforce (US-20140291488-A1) teaches an optical receiver having a photodetector coupled to a transimpedance amplifier and a bias supply circuit responsive to photodetector current for controlling the photodetector bias and improving recovery following a high optical power pulse.
Wang (US-20160273959-A1) teaches an avalanche photodiode (APD) bias controller that generates a control signal based on detected photocurrent and a bias setting signal to control the APD bias voltage.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to /NATASHA Y MARANO/ whose telephone number is (571)272-9512. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30am - 3:30pm.
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, Jessica Han can be reached at 571-272-2078. 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.
/NATASHA Y MARANO/Examiner, Art Unit 2843 /JOHN W POOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights