DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, intermediate mirror in claim 8,22 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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. 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. (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. Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13, 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20190310351 A1 (Hughes et al) . Claim 1 ,15,31 and 32 (mutatis mutandis) . Hughes teaches a scanning lidar system for performing a redundant beam scan to reduce data loss resulting from obscurants (In light of specification redundant beam scan is interpreted as multiple scans and multiple scans inherently reduce data loss . Hughes teaches scanning multiple pulses in para 196, para 02 ) , the system comprising: a first light source configured to emit a first light beam comprising a first light pulse (see fig. 4 Ref 110A1) ; a second light source configured to emit a second light beam comprising a second light pulse and having a spatial displacement relative to the first light source (see fig. 4 Ref 110A2) ; a mirror assembly configured to adjust an azimuth emission angle and an elevation emission angle of the first light pulse and the second light pulse (see fig. 4 Ref80, 60-1) ; an optical window configured to transmit the first light pulse and the second light pulse (see figure 6A Ref 242-1,242-2 and para 124) , wherein the spatial displacement of the second light source relative to the first light source is such that the first light pulse and the second light pulse produce two pixels corresponding to a same portion of an image, wherein the two pixels are used to render the same portion of the image (see figure 4 Ref122A-1 and 122A-2) ; and a receiver configured to receive the first light pulse and the second light pulse that are scattered by one or more targets, the receiver including two or more detectors, wherein each detector is configured to detect the first light pulse or the second light pulse and output an electric signal for generating the two pixels (see figure 4 Receiver 18C-1 and para 109-110 and note separate APDs) . Claim 3 and 17 (mutatis mutandis) . Hughes teaches the scanning lidar system of claim 1, wherein the mirror assembly comprises an azimuth mirror configured to adjust the azimuth emission angle of the first light pulse and the second light pulse ( see fig.4 note the polygon mirror 80 ). Claim 4 and 18 (mutatis mutandis) . Hughes teaches the scanning lidar system of claim 3, wherein the azimuth mirror is configured to adjust the azimuth emission angle of the first light pulse and the second light pulse by rotating at least 35 degrees along an axis that is orthogonal to a propagation axis of the first light pulse and the second light pulse (see figure 4 Ref 80) . Claim 5 and 19 (mutatis mutandis) . Hughes teaches the scanning lidar system of claim 3, wherein the azimuth mirror comprises a polygonal mirror (see fig.4 note the polygon mirror 80) . Claim 6 and 20 (mutatis mutandis) . Hughes teaches the scanning lidar system of claim 3, wherein the mirror assembly comprises an elevation mirror configured to adjust the elevation emission angle of the first light pulse and the second light pulse (see fig. 4 Ref 60-1) . Claim 7 and 21 (mutatis mutandis) . Hughes teaches the scanning lidar system of claim 6, wherein the elevation mirror is configured to adjust the elevation emission angle of the first light pulse and the second light pulse by rotating up to 15 degrees along an axis that is orthogonal to a propagation axis of the first light pulse and the second light pulse (see fig. 4 Ref 60-1) . Claim 9 and 23 (mutatis mutandis) . Hughes teaches the scanning lidar system of claim 1, wherein the two or more detectors comprises a first detector configured to receive a first portion of the first light pulse, and a second detector configured to receive a second portion of the second light pulse (para 110) . Claim 10 and 24 (mutatis mutandis) . Hughes teaches the scanning lidar system of claim 1, wherein the first light source has an angular displacement relative to the second light source (see fig. 4 Ref 110A1 and 110A2) . Claim 11 and 25 (mutatis mutandis) . Hughes teaches the scanning lidar system of claim 10, wherein the angular displacement is in an orthogonal direction relative to the spatial displacement of the first light source from the second light source (see fig. 4 Ref 110A1 and 110A2) . Claim 13 and 27 (mutatis mutandis) . Hughes teaches the scanning lidar system of claim 1, wherein the first light pulse and the second light pulse have approximately identical wavelengths (para 138) . Claim 14 and 2 8 (mutatis mutandis) . Hughes teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the average diameter of the obscurant expected to contact the optical window is approximately 1 millimeter (para 92 note rain) . Claim 29. The method of claim 15, wherein the spatial displacement of the second light source relative to the first light source is such that the first light pulse and the second light pulse produce two pixels corresponding to a same portion of an image, wherein the two pixels are used to render the same portion of the image (see figure 4 Ref122A-1 and 122A-2) . Claim 30 . The method of claim 29, wherein the two or more detectors are configured to output the electric signal for generating the two pixels (para 76-78) . 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. Claim(s) 2,16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190310351 A1 (Hughes et al). Claim 2 and 16 (mutatis mutandis) . Hughes teaches the scanning lidar system of claim 1. Hughes fails to explicitly teach that the spatial displacement of the second light source relative to the first light source is approximately 7 millimeters, such that the displacement is greater than an average diameter of an obscurant expected to contact the optical window. However. Hughes teaches that the distance between two light sources is approximately 5mm (para 103 note receiver 18 is in between the two light sources and active region of the receiver is approximately 5mm and average an average diameter of an obscurant is 1mm ( in light of specification of instant application para 40 ) ). Hughes discloses the claimed invention except for the distance between the two light sources is 7mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Hughes such that the distance between the two light sources is approximately 7mm instead of 5mm , since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch , 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Claim(s) 8 , 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190310351 A1 (Hughes et al) in view of US 20210103056 A1 ( Braunreiter ). Claim 8 and 22 (mutatis mutandis) . Hughes teaches the scanning lidar system of claim 6. Hughes fails to explicitly teach but Braunreiter teaches wherein the mirror assembly comprises an intermediate mirror configured to reflect the first light pulse and the second light pulse from the azimuth mirror to the elevation mirror (see figure 2. And note mirror 216 is the intermediate mirror). It would have been obvious to have combined the references of Hughes and Braunreiter and modify the lidar system such that the mirror assembly comprises an intermediate mirror configured to reflect the first light pulse and the second light pulse from the azimuth mirror to the elevation mirror. The motivation to do so would be to illuminate target in desired way. Claim(s) 12,26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190310351 A1 (Hughes et al) in view of US 20200363511 A1 (Takeda). Claim 12 and 26 (mutatis mutandis) . Hughes teaches the scanning lidar system of claim 1. Hughes teaches that any desired beam diameter can be achieved but fails to explicitly teach that the first light pulse and the second light pulse have a beam diameter at the optical window of approximately 2 millimeters. However, Takeda teaches that the beam diameter is 2mm (Para 67 note 2mm beam diameter) It would have been obvious to have combined the references of Hughes and Takeda and modify the lidar system such that the first light pulse and the second light pulse have a beam diameter at the optical window of approximately 2 millimeters The motivation to do so would be to detect an object at an longer distance (Takeda para 8). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SANJIDA NASER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5233 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8-5 EST . 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 Isam Alsomiri can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6970 . 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. /SANJIDA NASER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645 /ISAM A ALSOMIRI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645