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 § 102 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. Claim(s) 21, 35, 40 and claims bellow are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D1 US 20220043159 A1. Regarding claims bellow D1 teaches 21, 35, 40 (Original) A method for LiDAR the method comprising: emitting light from an illumination source;(204 fig. 2) rotating a mirror;(232) reflecting, using the mirror, light from the illumination source into an environment, while rotating the mirror, (fig. 2) wherein:the mirror comprises a first side and second side;(fig. 2) the first side has a first width;(fig. 7, 8)[0085-0090] the second side has a second width; and(fig. 7, 8)[0085-0090] the second width is not equal to the first width; (fig. 7, 8)[0085-0090] detecting, using a detector(276), light emitted by the illumination source, after light from the illumination source is reflected by the mirror into the environment; and(fig. 2) calculating a distance to an object in the environment based on the detector detecting the light emitted by the illumination source.[0042] 22. (Original) The system of claim 21, wherein: the system comprises:a detector arranged to receive light emitted by the illumination source, after light from the illumination source is reflected by the mirror into the environment; and(fig. 2 ) one or more memory devices comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, performs a step for calculating a distance to an object in the environment based on the detector receiving the light emitted by the illumination source; and[0026] the mirror rotates about a vertical axis to reflect light from the illumination source into a horizontal field of view.(fig. 2) 24. (Original) The system of claim 21, wherein the mirror comprises three sides.(fig. 4, 6, 7, 8) 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) 23, 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1. Regarding claims 23, 36 D1 teaches 23, 36 (Original) The system of claim 21, wherein the first width is greater than the second width[0085-0090] and equal to or less than three times the second width[0079] but does not teach equal to or less than four times the second width. But this is just a matter of design choice in order to provide desired FOV as explained by the example in [0079] It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by D1 in order to achieve desired FOVs. Claim(s) 25, 26 , 31, 32, 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1. Regarding claim 25 D1 does not teach 25. (Original) The system of claim 21, wherein the first side and the second side have a reflectance, at a wavelength of the illumination source, equal to or greater than 90%. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by D1 to include high reflectance mirrors in order to avoid heating of the mirror and energy loss of the beam. Regarding claim 26 D1 does not teach 26. (Original) The system of claim 21, wherein the illumination source is a laser array comprising a plurality of lasers. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by D1 to include multiple lasers in order to scan multiple points at the time. Although D1 does not explicitly teach 31. (Original) The system of claim 21, further comprising a first lens and a second lens, wherein: the first lens is characterized by a first focal length; the second lens is characterized by a second focal length; the first lens is positioned a first distance from the mirror; the first distance is equal to the first focal length; the second lens is positioned a second distance from the first lens; and the second distance is equal to a sum of the first focal length and the second focal length. 32, 39 (Original) The system of claim 21, comprising a lens, wherein: light from the illumination source passes through the lens to the mirror; and light passes from the mirror through the lens to a detector. Using different lenses and their specific locations is just a matter of the design choice and obvious in order to provide desired beam quality at the different optical elements (such as mirror or beamsplitter) and collection at the detector. Although D1 does not explicitly teach 34. (Original) The system of claim 21, further comprising a beam splitter between the illumination source and the mirror. Using beam splitter in lidars well known and provided in order to provide reference/feedback beam to the sensor. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by D1 in order to provide reference beam to the system. Claim(s) 28, 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of D2 US 20070181810 A1 . Regarding claims 28, 29, 37 D1 teaches 28 , 37 (Original) The system of claim 21, wherein: the mirror rotates about a vertical axis to reflect light from the illumination source in a horizontal field of view; and (fig. 2 ) but does not teach while D2 teaches the illumination source is arranged to translate vertically to scan in a vertical dimension. (fig. 5a, 5b) 29. (Original) The system of claim 21, wherein: the illumination source comprises a plurality of lasers arranged in a first row and a second row; .(fig. 5a, 5b) the illumination source is arranged to translate vertically to scan in a vertical dimension; .(fig. 5a, 5b) and a distance of vertical movement is equal to a distance between a center of the first row and a center of the second row, plus or minus ten percent of the distance.(obvious design choice [0036-0038]) 30, 38 (Original) The system of claim 21, wherein: the illumination source comprises: a first plurality of laser diodes arranged in a first region; and a second plurality of laser diodes arranged in a second region; and(fig. 1) the first plurality of laser diodes are arranged in the first region in a higher density than the second plurality of laser diodes are arranged in the second region.[0023] It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by D1 with teaching by D2 in order to scan large area simultaneously by using small amount of individual lasers. [0036] Claim(s) 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of D3 US 20180284237 A1 . Regarding claim 33 D1 does not teach but D3 teaches 33. (Original) The system of claim 21, wherein: illumination source is a first illumination source; the system comprises a second illumination source; the mirror comprises a third side; and the second illumination source is arranged opposite the first illumination source so that the first illumination source illuminates the first side of the mirror while the second illumination source illuminates the third side of the mirror.(fig. 3B) It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by D1 with teaching by D3 in order to illuminate two different FOV’s simultaneously. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 27 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 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-7845 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 7am - 5 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Yuqing Xiao can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-3603 . 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. /HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645