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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 18-20 and 23 in the reply filed on 10/24/2025 is acknowledged. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 7 a t line 12 refers to #102 as a driver, however #102 is the laser. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 at line 10 refers to “determining the at least one of” and is believed to more correctly read “determining at least one of”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-3, 8, 9, 19 and 20 (and all claims dependent therefrom; 5, 7, 10-12, 18 and 23) are 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the corresponding second response voltage" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation will be read as “a corresponding…”. Claim 2 refers to “the first representative temperature is a determined ambient temperature of the laser diode”. It is unclear what an ambient temperature of the laser diode is referring to as ambient temperature generally refers to the environment surrounding an object. For purposes of examination, ambient temperature will be understood to be a temperature over the measurement points outlined in “(1)” in claim 1. The term “ like ” in claim 3 line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ like ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of examination, “like” will be understood to be within 10%. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the measured ambient temperature" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation will be read as “the determined ambient temperature” as outlined in claim 2, from which claim 3 depends. Claim 9 refers to “an indication of the ambient temperature”. It is unclear what “an indication” of a value is. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be understood to be referring to the determined ambient temperature of claim 2, from which claim 9 depends. C laim 19 requires “one second criterion” . When using ordinal designations, it is necessary to start with an initial ordinal designation such as "first" and introduce further elements in numerical order from that point. Failure to adhere to such an ordering creates the implication of additional elements without strictly indicating the presence thereof. Due to this implication, it is unclear whether or not the claim actually requires the presence of the implied features. As such, this claim is deemed indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. For the remainder of this action, this claim will be interpreted as requiring no elements other than those explicitly stated. Claim 20 refers to “comprises repeating”. It is unclear what step is being repeated, making the claim indefinite. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be understood to be met by repetition of any step from claim 1. Claim 20 refers to “an indication of central tendency”. It is unclear what “an indication” of a value is and it is unclear what “central tendency” is. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be understood to be met based on providing a notice of the device operation (e.g. health, aging, updated driving value, etc.). 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim (s) 1-3, 5, 7-11, 18, 20 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domer (US 8264171) in view of Castillo et al. (US 2011/0243167) . With respect to claim 1, Domer teaches a method of using and monitoring a temperature of a light emitting diode (fig.2 #114, abstract) associated with illuminating by the LED , the method comprising: driving the LED using a driver circuit (fig.2) to deliver at least a first test current stimulus at a first test current stimulus level (fig.2 1mA) , and measuring a corresponding first response voltage from the LED (col.6 lines 20-51) ; driving the LED using the driver circuit to deliver a second test current stimulus at a second test current stimulus level (fig.2 200 uA) and measuring the corresponding second response voltage (col.6 lines 20-51) ; driving the LED using the d river circuit to issue at least one illumination pulse (fig.3 “highs” of #109) in temporal association with the first and second test current stimuli (fig.3 test pulses #302 between highs) ; and determining the at least one of (1) a temperature differential caused by the illumination (col.11 line 63 to col.12 line 20) or (2) a first representative temperature of the laser diode associated with the illumination (as they are sampled between and among outputs) at least in part using the first response voltage and the second response voltage (fig.4 #410) . Domer does not specify the method is for a laser diode with laser driver. Castillo teaches a similar driver and voltage measurement technique (fig.2, abstract) can be used for either LEDs or laser diodes (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the method of Domer to make use of a laser diode in place of the LED in order to produce coherent light usable in communications and testing environments. With respect to claim 2, Domer, as modified, teaches the first representative temperature is a determined ambient temperature of the laser diode (see 112b above) , and further comprising: driving the laser diode using the laser driver circuit to deliver at least a third test current stimulus at a third test current stimulus level (fig.2 1mA , col.6 line 30, CTAT level) , and measuring a corresponding third response voltage (fig.4 #408) ; and using the determined ambient temperature and the third response voltage to determine a second representative temperature of the laser diode (col.11 35-39, as average of PTAT and CTAT values used) . With respect to claim 3, Domer, as modified, teaches the third test current stimulus is delivered at a like current level as at least one of the first test current stimulus or the second test current stimulus (fig.2 1mA is same test level in PTAT and CTAT) . With respect to claim 5, Domer, as modified, teaches driving the laser diode using the laser driver circuit to deliver at least a fourth test current stimulus at a fourth test current stimulus level (col.10 lines 15-20, as testing procedure repeated) , different than the third current stimulus level (as it uses the 200uA) , after the at least one illumination pulse (as seen in fig.3) , and measuring a fourth corresponding response voltage (from repeated tests) ; and determining a third representative temperature of the laser diode using at least the third response voltage and the fourth response voltage (based on using average, col.11 35-39 ) . With respect to claim 7, Domer, as modified, teaches measuring an ambient temperature via a temperature detector (fig.2 #104, col.11 lines 63-65) ; and determining the temperature differential of the laser diode using the measured ambient temperature and the first and second response voltages (col.11 line 63 to col.12 line 20) . With respect to claim 8, Domer, as modified, teaches determining a health indication of the laser diode (needed driving adjustment) based at least in part on at least one of (1) the determined second representative temperature of the laser diode (fig.6 #602, using #107 from fig.4 with second temp as input in fig.4) , (2) the measured ambient temperature, or (3) the determined temperature differential. With respect to claim 9, Domer, as modified, teaches the third response voltage is determined, after the illumination pulse (as seen in fig.3) ; and comprising: determining a health indication of the laser diode (needed driving adjustment) based at least in part on at least one of (1) the second representative temperature before or after the illumination pulse (fig.6 #602, using #107 from fig.4 with second temp as input in fig.4) or (2) an indication of the ambient temperature determined using the first and second response voltage. With respect to claim 10, Domer, as modified, teaches establishing or adjusting an illumination power of the laser diode using the determined health indication or the second representative temperature of the laser diode (fig.6 #602, using #107 from fig.4 with second temp as input in fig.4) . With respect to claim 11, Domer, as modified, teaches issuing an alert in response to the health indication of the laser diode meets at least one first criterion (fig.6 signal to PWM controller to update driving can be considered an internal alert) . With respect to claim 18, Domer, as modified, teaches issuing an alert when the determined temperature differential or the first representative temperature meets at least one first criterion (fig.6 signal to PWM controller to update driving can be considered an internal alert) . With respect to claim 20, Domer, as modified, teaches the at least one of determining the temperature differential or the first representative temperature comprises repeating (col.10 lines 15-20) and based thereupon determining an indication of central tendency (fig.6 needed current adjustment) . With respect to claim 23, Domer, as modified, teaches at least one of the first test current stimulus or the second test current includes a pre-bias laser stimulus (fig.3 test currents occur during off times between output current levels understood to be at biasing level, thereby being pre, or before, bias) . Claim (s) 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domer and Castillo in view of Tatah et al. (US 9281659) . With respect to claim 12, Domer, as modified, teaches the method outlined above, but does not teach inhibiting issuing at least one illumination pulse by the laser diode when the indication of health of the laser diode meets at least one second criterion. Tatah teaches a related laser diode temperature method (fig.4) which includes inhibiting illumination based on an indicator of health (col.4 lines 56-64). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the method of Domer to inhibit issuing an illumination pulse based on the laser diode meeting a criterion as demonstrated by Tatah in order to avoid mode-hops (Tatah, col.4 lines 56-64) or other unstable operation. With respect to claim 19, Domer, as modified, teaches the method outlined above, but does not teach inhibiting issuing of at least one illumination pulse by the laser diode when the determined temperature differential or the first representative temperature meets at least one second criterion. Tatah teaches a related laser diode temperature method (fig.4) which includes inhibiting illumination based on an indicator of health (col.4 lines 56-64). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the method of Domer to inhibit issuing an illumination pulse based on the laser diode meeting a criterion as demonstrated by Tatah in order to avoid mode-hops (Tatah, col.4 lines 56-64) or other unstable operation. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2012/0299481, 2008/0319690, 2007/0103095 and GB 2224374 are found to teach devices/methods which appear to at least read on claim 1. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT TOD THOMAS VAN ROY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8447 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F: 8AM-430PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT MinSun Harvey can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1835 . 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. /TOD T VAN ROY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828