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. DETAILED ACTION This office action is in regards to application # 18/005,459 that was filed on 01/13/2023. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are under examination. Claim Objections Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: the word LIDAR in line 1 of claims 1 and 8 need to be in parenthesis. not in quotations. 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 applicant regards as his invention. Claim s 4 , 11, and 20 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. In claim 4, t he recitation “…if there is a predetermined temporal relationship between a time at which a light detection element of the detection system the first detected light signal and a time at which a light detection element of the detector outputs the second detected light signal” in lines 3-6 seem to lack a verb between the ‘detection system’ and ‘the first detected light’ recitations where it is underlined above . Therefore, it is not clear and considered indefinite. Appropriate correction/clarification required. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the detector" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 11 recites the limitation "the step" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 20 recites the limitation "the step" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 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 -3, 8-11, 13-16, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christmas (EP3165815) in view of Geuens et al. (US2020/0124726). Regarding Claim 1 , Christmas discloses a light detection and ranging, "LIDAR" system ( abstract. para. [0090] ) comprising: a spatial light modulator (SLM) ( 140, Fig. 1 ) configured to display a diffractive pattern comprising a hologram of a structured light pattern ( para. [0028, Fig. 1) , wherein the structured light pattern comprises an array of light spots ( para. [102], [0078] ); a light source ( 110, Fig. 1 ) configured to illuminate the diffractive pattern in order to form a holographic reconstruction of the structured light pattern, wherein the structured light pattern is projected onto a scene ( para. [0028], Fig. 1 ) ; a detection system comprising a plurality of light detection elements, each arranged to detect light from a respective individual field of view of the scene and to output a respective detected light signal ( camera 601, Fig. 6, paras. [0073]-[0090] in association with the LIDAR collision avoidance system ) . Christmas is silent to explicitly disclose , but Geuens in the same field of endeavor teaches a LIDAR system (para. [0085] ) wherein a light source projects a pattern of light spots onto a scene ( para. [0094] ) where a first subset of the individual fields of view are illuminated by a light spot of the structured light pattern and a second subset of the individual fields of view are not illuminated by a light spot of the structured light pattern ( Fig. 3a, para. [0098]- [0099] ) ; and a processor configured to identify noise in a first detected light signal ( Fig. 3a, signal detected by detector A related to the first subset of the field of view (FOV), i.e. the illuminated subset ) , relating to an individual field of view of the first subset, using a second detected light signal ( Fig. 3a, signal detected by detector B related to the second subset of the field of view (FOV), i.e. the not illuminated subset ) , relating to an individual field of view of the second subset ( para. [0097] ) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LIDAR system disclosed in Christmas with the subset illuminated and a subset not illuminated detection system and processor as taught in Geuens with a reasonable expectation of success because i t offers significant advantages for enhanced noise identification and removal, thereby boosting the system's overall accuracy, reliability, and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in complex environments. Regarding Claim s 2 and 9 , modified Christmas discloses a light detection and ranging, "LIDAR" system ( Christmas, abstract. para. [0090] ) and method wherein the processor is further configured to reduce the noise in the first detected light signal, or in a signal derived from the first detected light signal, as a result of the identification of the noise ( Geuens, para. [0097] ) . Regarding Claims 3 , 10 , 16, and 19 , broadly interpreted modified Christmas discloses a light detection and ranging, "LIDAR" system ( Christmas, a bstract. para. [0090] ) and method wherein the individual field of view of the first subset, to which the first detected light signal relates, has a predetermined spatial relationship with the individual field of view of the second subset, to which the second detected light signal relates (Geuens , Fig. 1, para. [0094]-[0097] ) . Regarding Claim 8 , the method of claim 8 is rejected under the same rational as the rejected of the apparatus claim 1 above. The method is rejected as it can be practiced by the apparatus disclosed in claim 1. Regarding Claim s 11 and 20 , modified Christmas discloses a light detection and ranging, "LIDAR" system ( Christmas, abstract. para. [0090] ) wherein the step of reducing the noise in the first detected light signal, or in a signal derived from the first detected light signal, comprises subtracting some or all of the second detected light signal from the first detected light signal( Geuens, para. [0097] ). Regarding Claim 13 , Christmas is silent to explicitly disclose, but Geuens in the same field of endeavor teaches a LIDAR system (para. [0085] ) and method wherein the method is a computer-implemented method (para. [0066]-[0067], [0184] ). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LIDAR method disclosed in Christmas to be implemented on a computer as taught in Geuens with a reasonable expectation of success because it offers superior 3D mapping accuracy, fast data acquisition for large areas, the ability to work in low light/adverse weather, and automated data collection, generating precise point clouds for applications in autonomous vehicles. Regarding Claim 14 , Christmas is silent to explicitly disclose, but Geuens in the same field of endeavor teaches a LIDAR system (para. [0085] ) and method with a computer program comprising instructions which, when executed by a data processing apparatus, causes the data processing apparatus to perform a method according to according to claim 8 ( method steps with appropriate software, para. [0184] ). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the LIDAR method disclosed in Christmas on a computer program comprising instruction to be executed by a data processing apparatus as taught in Geuens with a reasonable expectation of success because it offers an instruction to be used on a computer for superior 3D mapping accuracy, fast data acquisition for large areas, the ability to work in low light/adverse weather, and automated data collection, generating precise point clouds for applications in autonomous vehicles. Regarding Claim 15 , Christmas is silent to explicitly disclose, but Geuens in the same field of endeavor teaches a LIDAR system (para. [0085] ) and method with a computer readable medium storing a computer program according to claim 14 (‘….which product may be provided on a computer-readable medium such as an optical, magnetic, or solid-state carrier.’, para. [0184] ). . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the LIDAR method disclosed in Christmas on a computer readable medium storing a computer program as taught in Geuens with a reasonable expectation of success because it offers an storage and portability of instruction to be used on a computer for superior 3D mapping accuracy, fast data acquisition for large areas, the ability to work in low light/adverse weather, and automated data collection, generating precise point clouds for applications in autonomous vehicles. Claim(s) 5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Christmas (EP3165815) in further view of Yamaguchi et al. (US 2013/0050710). Regarding Claims 5 , modified Christmas do not explicitly disclose , but Yamaguchi in the same field of endeavor teaches a LIDAR system wherein the processor is configured to use the second detected light signal to identify noise in a first detected light signal if there is a match between the first detected light signal and the second detected light signal, at least to within a predetermined degree of tolerance, with respect to any of: signal intensity; signal duration; signal shape; or signal pattern ( para. [0108] ) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LIDAR system disclosed in modified Christmas with the process of using the second detected light signal to identify noise in the first detected light signal as taught in Yamaguchi above with a reasonable expectation of success because it effectively distinguish true return signals from random or uncorrelated noise sources to enhanced signal integrity and improved detection performance. Claim(s) 4 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Christmas (EP3165815) in further view of Cohen eta l. (US 2018/0095165). Regarding Claim s 4 and 17-18 , modified Christmas do not explicitly disclose , but Cohen in the same field of endeavor teaches a LIDAR system and method wherein the processor is configured to use the second detected light signal to identify noise in the first detected light signal if there is a predetermined temporal relationship between a time at which a light detection element of the detection system the first detected light signal and a time at which a light detection element of the detector outputs the second detected light signal ( para. [0032] ) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LIDAR system disclosed in modified Christmas with the process of identifying noise in the first detected light signal using a temporal relationship as taught in Cohen with a reasonable expectation of success because it effectively distinguish between genuine return signals from a target scene and spurious noise sources based on their predictable temporal relationship. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Christmas (EP3165815) in further view of Christmas et al. (US 2021/0072379) (referred hereinafter as Christmas-2). Regarding Claim 6 , modified Christmas do not explicitly disclose , but C hristmas-2 in the same field of endeavor teaches a LIDAR system wherein the SLM is configured to dynamically change its displayed diffractive pattern ( para. [0095], “… the light footprint/structured light is changed by sequentially and temporally changing the holograms represented on the SLM …’, para. [0096] ) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the SLM LIDAR system disclosed in modified Christmas with dynamically changing diffractive pattern SLM as taught in C hristmas-2 and change which individual fields of view are comprised within the first subset, and so are illuminated by a light spot of the structured light pattern, and which individual fields of view are comprised within the second subset, and so are not illuminated by a light spot of the structured light pattern with a reasonable expectation of success because it offers unprecedented control over the wavefront of light, which can be modified at the pixel level via electronic control that enables programmability, adaptability, and high-speed control over light. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Christmas (EP3165815) in further view of Wengierow (US 2021/00 88970 ). Regarding Claim 7 , modified Christmas do not explicitly disclose but Christmas- 3 in the same field of endeavor teaches a LIDAR system with a changing grating function to translate the position of the replay field on the replay plane and to form to first color holographic reconstruction at common replay plane ( para. [0137 ). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dynamically changing displayed diffractive pattern of the LIDAR system disclosed in modified Christmas with the grating function as taught in Wengierow with a reasonable expectation of success because it offers non-mechanical beam steering or translation of holographic reconstruction without changing the holograms achieving high diffraction efficiency, improving spectral resolution, and reducing cost by simplifying complex optical systems . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Rowlands et al. (US 11,698,441) discloses a light shaping optic may include a structure disposed on the substrate, wherein the structure is configured to receive one or more input beams of light with a uniform intensity field and less than a threshold total intensity, and wherein the structure is configured to shape the one or more input beams of light to form one or more output beams of light with a non-uniform intensity field and less than the threshold total intensity. . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6607 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM . 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 Joshua Huson can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-5301 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT Assres H. Woldemaryam Primary Examiner (Aeronautics and Astronautics) Art Unit 3642 /ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642