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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains legal phraseology such as “comprises”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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) 1-2, 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0352445 A1 (“Field”) in view of US 2016/0284743 A1 (“Mellot”).
Regarding claim 1, Field discloses A SPAD macro-cell, comprising: an array of SPAD unit, each of which comprises a SPAD and a quenching circuit for the SPAD (e.g. see photodetector array 1002 in Fig. 10, i.e. implementation of photodetector array 104 in Fig. 1, including SPAD 1006 and SPAD circuit 1008, paragraphs [0048]-[0056], and see quench circuit, paragraphs [0024]-[0025]); a combination tree to combine output signals from the SPAD units (e.g. see the outputs of each SPAD circuit 1008 accumulated using a tree of XOR gates 1010 (an XOR tree), paragraphs [0048]-[0056]); and a time-to-digital converter (TDC) operably connected to an output of the combination tree
(e.g. see accumulated output 1102 sampled by a TDC, paragraphs [0048]-[0056]).
Although Field discloses the SPAD macro-cell, it is noted Field differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose characterized in that, the SPAD macro-cell is divided to a plurality of sub-cells; and the SPAD macro-cell further comprises a control circuit configured to enable at least one or some SPAD units in each sub-cell in a time period and enable another one or some other SPAD units in each sub-cell in the next time period. Mellot however, teaches characterized in that, the SPAD macro-cell is divided to a plurality of sub-cells (e.g. see SPAD array 110 in Fig. 4 divided into a plurality of subsets of SPAD cells, e.g. 402-416, paragraphs [0028]-[00029], [0033]-[0039]); and the SPAD macro-cell further comprises a control circuit configured to enable at least one or some SPAD units in each sub-cell in a time period and enable another one or some other SPAD units in each sub-cell in the next time period (e.g. see control circuit 220 in Fig. 2 and Fig. 6A adapted to enable only a subset of the SPAD cells of the SPAD array 110 based on a measured count rate determined during successive periods, paragraphs [0028]-[00029], [0033]-[0039]).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Field and Mellot before him/her, to modify the Photodetector architectures for time-correlated single photon counting of Field with Mellot in order to improve the sensitivity of the SPAD array by preventing an overly high count rate that is likely to lead to events being missed.
Regarding claim 2, Field in view of Mellot further teaches wherein the control circuit is configured to enable each SPAD unit at least once after at least two time period (Mellot: e.g. see control circuit 220 in Fig. 2 and Fig. 6A adapted to enable only a subset of the SPAD cells of the SPAD array 110 based on a measured count rate determined during successive periods, paragraphs [0028]-[00029], [0033]-[0039]). The motivation above in the rejection of claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 9, Field further discloses wherein the combination tree is a OR tree or XOR tree (e.g. see the outputs of each SPAD circuit 1008 accumulated using a tree of XOR gates 1010 (an XOR tree), paragraphs [0048]-[0056]).
Regarding claim 10, Field in view of Mellot further teaches wherein the time period is a laser pulse period (Mellot: e.g. see control circuit 220 in Fig. 2 and Fig. 6A adapted to enable only a subset of the SPAD cells of the SPAD array 110 based on a measured count rate determined during successive periods, paragraphs [0028]-[00029], [0033]-[0039], and see laser mod 118 in Fig. 1 for generating laser pulses, paragraphs [0026], [0030]-[0031]). The motivation above in the rejection of claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 11, Field further discloses a SPAD detector comprises at least one SPAD macro-cell according to claim 1 (e.g. see photodetector system 102 in Fig. 1, paragraphs [0024]-[0025]).
Regarding claim 12, Field in view of Mellot further teaches wherein the control circuit is configured to enable each SPAD unit at least once after at least two time period (Mellot: e.g. see control circuit 220 in Fig. 2 and Fig. 6A adapted to enable only a subset of the SPAD cells of the SPAD array 110 based on a measured count rate determined during successive periods, paragraphs [0028]-[00029], [0033]-[0039]);
SPADs in the first SPAD macro-cell present a first enable pattern at a time period, and SPADs in the second SPAD macro-cell present a second enable pattern which is different from the first enable pattern at the same time period (Mellot: e.g. see SPAD array 110 in Fig. 4 divided into a plurality of subsets of SPAD cells, e.g. 402-416, paragraphs [0028]-[00029], [0033]-[0039]; thus, enabling a subset of the SPAD cells enable different patterns). The motivation above in the rejection of claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites analogous limitations to the claim above and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claim(s) 3, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0352445 A1 (“Field”) in view of US 2016/0284743 A1 (“Mellot”) in further view of US 2021/0247499 A1 (“Zhu”).
Regarding claim 3, although Field in view of Mellot teaches the control circuit is configured to enable a SPAD unit, it is noted Field differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose wherein the control circuit is configured to enable a SPAD unit by reducing excess bias across a SPAD comprised in the SPAD unit. Zhu however, teaches wherein the control circuit is configured to enable a SPAD unit by reducing excess bias across a SPAD comprised in the SPAD unit (e.g. see Fig. 6 showing a detector array with individually addressable and controlled photosensors including SPADs and see a SPAD may be disabled or powered-off by lowering the SPAD's bias voltage below breakdown such as through the control switch CTL2 (CTL2 is on), switch CTL3 (CTL3 is off) and CTL1 (CTL1 is off). Similarly, the SPAD may be enabled or powered-on by switching on CTL1 and CTL3, and switching off CTL2, paragraph [0090]).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Field, Mellot and Zhu before him/her, to incorporate Zhu into the Photodetector architectures for time-correlated single photon counting of Field as modified by Mellot in order to reduce power consumption of the system.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites analogous limitations to the claim above and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claim(s) 4, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0352445 A1 (“Field”) in view of US 2016/0284743 A1 (“Mellot”) in further view of WO 2022/187929 A1 (“Saha”).
Regarding claim 4, although Field in view of Mellot teaches the control circuit is configured to enable the SPAD unit, it is noted Field differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose wherein each SPAD unit further comprises a buffer operably connected to an output of the SPAD; the control circuit is configured to enable the SPAD unit by enabling the buffer comprised in the SPAD unit. Saha however, teaches wherein each SPAD unit further comprises a buffer operably connected to an output of the SPAD (e.g. see buffers shown in Fig. 6, paragraph [0068]); the control circuit is configured to enable the SPAD unit by enabling the buffer comprised in the SPAD unit (e.g. see time-gating buffers 610 can turn the SPADs on and off independently, paragraph [0068]).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Field, Mellot and Saha before him/her, to incorporate Saha into the Photodetector architectures for time-correlated single photon counting of Field as modified by Mellot in order to achieve greater speed and responsivity, greater efficiency, less noise, less nonlinearities, and improved scalability.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites analogous limitations to the claim above and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8, 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2021/0190950 A1, McLeod et al., Method for operating TOF ranging array, corresponding circuit and device
WO 2020/181048 A1, Henderson et al., Extended dynamic range and reduced power imaging for lidar detector arrays
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCIS G GEROLEO whose telephone number is (571)270-7206. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am - 3:30 pm.
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, Anna M Momper can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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.
/Francis Geroleo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights