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 Priority Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for foreign priority based on a Patent Applications filed on 6/16/22 and 2/8/23. It is noted that Applicant has filed a certified copy of the application as required by 35 U.S.C. 119(b). PATH TO ALLOWANCE Examiner respectfully suggests Applicant telephone Examiner Adams (571-270-3688) prior to filing a response to the instant office action to discuss claim amendments to place this application in a Condition for Allowance. Possible considerations for allowance would be to incorporate some of the subject matter deemed allowable in the instant office action. 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 . 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 non-obviousness. Claims 1 -4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAN (US Pub. No.: 2021-0382150 ) in view of NEUSTADT (US Pub. No.: 2021-0156971 ). As per Claim 1 HAN d iscloses A LIDAR device, comprising ( Figs. 1-7 [Abstract] ) : an optical transmitter for transmitting laser light for detecting an external object ( Figs. 1-7 - unit 100 transmitter and OB outside object [0031-0032] [0044] [0048-0050] ) ; an optical receiver which is disposed to be spaced apart from one side of the optical transmitter and receives laser light that is reflected by the external object ( Figs. 1-7 unit 200 receives and OB outside object – spaced apart from the bottom side of the transmitter [0044] [004 7 -0050] [0063-0065] ) ; and a scanner which is disposed between the optical transmitter ( Figs. 1-7 scanners 110, 120 [0047-0050] [0063-0065] ) , reflects laser light that is transmitted by the optical transmitter to the outside ( Figs. 1-7 unit 200 OB outside object reflects back [0044] [0047-0050] [0063-0065] ) ; reflected from the external object and returned to the optical receiver ( Figs. 1-7 [ 0043- 0044] [0047-0050] [0063-0065] ) HAN does not disclose but NEUSTADT discloses and a scanner which is disposed between the optical receiver ( Figs. 1-4 scanning unit 11 and receiving unit 5 [0023, 0034, 0043] ) and reflects laser light that is reflected ( Figs. 1-4 scanning unit 11 and receiving unit 5 [ 0022- 0023] [0031, 0036, 0039] ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include and a scanner which is disposed between the optical receiver and reflects laser light that is reflected as taught by NEUSTADT into the system of HAN be cause of the benefit taught by NEUSTADT to include an alternatively configured LIDAR with transmission and reception paths between the scanning path for compact scanning effects whereby HAN is improved by the compact efficiency in the alternative LIDAR configurations. As per Claim 2 HAN d iscloses The LIDAR device of claim 1, wherein the scanner comprises a mirror having a plurality of reflective surfaces and an actuator for rotating the mirror such that the plurality of reflective surfaces r otate about a rotation axis ( Figs. 1-7 mirror set with surfaces 111, 121 with rotation capabilities motors 112, 122 [0050-0053] [0061-0062] ) . As per Claim 3 HAN d iscloses The LIDAR device of claim 2, wherein each of the plurality of reflective surfaces has a rectangular shape having size ( Figs. 1-7 mirror set with surfaces 111, 121 – disclosed rectangle form Fig. 4 with a size [0050-0053] [0061-0062] ) (B efore the effective filing date of the claimed invention , it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify HAN to teach specific relativity of mirror sizes because A pplicant has not disclosed that having the same size provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, fu rthermore, would have expected A pplicant's invention to perform equally well with other variants of mirror sizes be cause performance of said invention is not tied to specific sizes – See Claim 4 ) . As per Claim 4 HAN d iscloses The LIDAR device of claim 2, wherein two reflective surfaces among the plurality of reflective surfaces have a rectangular shape with widths ( Figs. 1-7 two surfaces of two mirror s set with surfaces 111, 121– disclosed rectangle form Fig. 4 with a size [0050-0053] [0061-0062] ) (B efore the effective filing date of the claimed invention , it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify HAN to teach specific relativity of mirror sizes and placements because A pplicant has not disclosed that two adjacent reflective surfaces … with different widths provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, fu rthermore, would have expected A pplicant's invention to perform equally well with other variants of mirror sizes and placements be cause performance of said invention is not tied to specific sizes or placements – See Claim 3 ) . Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAN (US Pub. No.: 2021-0382150) in view of NEUSTADT (US Pub. No.: 2021-0156971) , as applied in Claims 1-4 , and further in view of GAO et al (US Pub. No . 2024-0288551) . As per Claim 5 HAN d iscloses The LIDAR device of claim 1, wherein the optical transmitter comprises ( See said analysis for Claim 1 ) HAN and NEUSTADT do not disclose but GAO discloses a plurality of laser devices that are vertically stacked with respect to an installation surface ( Figs. 1-11 2D laser array vertical stack with respective surface placement [0106-0107] ) , and the plurality of laser devices constitute a plurality of transmission channels that are vertically stacked ( Figs. 1-11 2D laser array vertical stack with respective surface placement [0106-0107] ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a plurality of laser devices that are vertically stacked with respect to an installation surface, and the plurality of laser devices constitute a plurality of transmission channels that are vertically stacked as taught by GAO into the system of HAN and NEUSTADT be cause of the benefit taught by GAO further enhance the combined systems with more compact features by including scanning swing flexibility to assist with expand ed area s of scanning with compact systems. Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAN (US Pub. No.: 2021-0382150) in view of NEUSTADT (US Pub. No.: 2021-0156971) in view of GAO et al (US Pub. No. 2024-0288551) , as applied in Claim 5 , and further in view of DAI et al. (US Pub. No.: 2021-0208257) As per Claim 7 HAN d iscloses The LIDAR device of claim 5, wherein the optical receiver comprises ( See said analysis for Claim 1 ) HAN NEUSTADT GAO does not disclose DAI discloses a plurality of detectors that are vertically stacked with respect to an installation surface ( Figs. 1-11 vertically stacked receiver channels with respective surface placement - LIDAR [0034-0035] [0038] ) , and the plurality of detectors constitute a plurality of reception channels that are vertically stacked ( Figs. 1-11 [0034-0035] [0038] ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a plurality of detectors that are vertically stacked with respect to an installation surface, and the plurality of detectors constitute a plurality of reception channels that are vertically stacked as taught by DAI into the system of HAN NEUSTADT GAO be cause of the benefit taught by DAI to disclose a LIDAR system capable of determining angles of transmission for illumination source s of the scanning LIDAR system which will improves the functionality and predictability of the included LIDAR systems. Allowable Subject Matter REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the closest prior art obtained from an Examiner’s search ( HAN , US Pub. No.: 2021-0382150 ; NEUSTADT , US Pub. No.: 2021-0156971 ; GAO , US Pub. No. 2024-0288551 ; DAI , US Pub. No.: 2021-0208257 ) does not teach nor suggest in detail the limitations: “ A LIDAR device, comprising: an optical transmitter comprising a plurality of laser devices that constitute a plurality of transmission channels for transmitting laser light for detecting an external object in an assigned transmission time slot; an optical receiver which is disposed to be spaced apart from one side of the optical transmitter and comprises a plurality of detectors that constitute a plurality of reception channels for receiving laser light that is reflected by the external object in a reception time slot allocated to correspond to the transmission time slot; a scanner which is disposed between the optical transmitter and the optical receiver, reflects laser light that is transmitted by the optical transmitter to the outside, and reflects laser light that is reflected from the external object and returned to the optical receiver; and a signal processor for sequentially processing laser light that is received by the optical receiver according to the order of the reception time slot ” as well as the combination of all the limitations within the independent claims and the enabling portions of the specification. T he closest prior art of record HAN does not teach in detail at least a scanner disposed between an optical transmitter and an optical receiver, or suggests a signal processor for sequentially processing laser light that is received by the optical receiver according to the order of a reception time slot as presented by the Applicant. HAN only discloses a LIDAR device that includes an optical transmitter for transmitting laser light for detecting an external object, an optical receiver which is disposed to be spaced apart from one side of the optical transmitter and receives laser light that is reflected by the external object, and a scanner which is disposed between the optical transmitter. The prior art also includes reflecting laser light that is transmitted by the optical transmitter to the outside and reflected from the external object and returned to the optical receiver . Whereas, as stated above, Applicant’s claimed invention recites a LIDAR device that contains an optical transmitter comprising a plurality of laser devices that constitute a plurality of transmission channels for transmitting laser light for detecting an external object in an assigned transmission time slot as well as an optical receiver which is disposed to be spaced apart from one side of the optical transmitter and comprises a plurality of detectors that constitute a plurality of reception channels for receiving laser light that is reflected by the external object in a reception time slot allocated to correspond to the transmission time slot . The claims further recite a scanner which is disposed between the optical transmitter and the optical receiver, reflects laser light that is transmitted by the optical transmitter to the outside, and reflects laser light that is reflected from the external object and returned to the optical receiver . Finally, the invention claims and a signal processor for sequentially processing laser light that is received by the optical receiver according to the order of the reception time slot . So as indicated by the above statements, Applicant’s arguments and amendment have been considered persuasive, in light of the claim limitations as well as the enabling portions of the specification. The dependent claims further limit the independent claims and are considered allowable on the same basis as the independent claims as well as for the further limitations set forth. Claims 13-20 are allowed. Claims 6, 8-12 is/are objected to as being dependent upon the 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. Claim s 6, 8-12 is/are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: As per Claim 6 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “ The LIDAR device of claim 5, wherein the laser device is an edge emitting laser diode " These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable . As per Claim 8 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “ The LIDAR device of claim 7, wherein the detector is a single-photon avalanche diode (SPAD) " These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable . As per Claim 9 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “ The LIDAR device of claim 8, wherein the plurality of detectors are arranged in a two-dimensional array consisting of X (X is a natural number of 2 or more) rows and Y (Y is a natural number of 2 or more) columns " These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable . As per Claim 10 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “ The LIDAR device of claim 9, wherein the X rows are arranged such that vertical viewing angles are aligned to correspond to the plurality of transmission channels, and only some of the Y columns are arranged to receive the laser light such that detectors that are arranged in columns to receive the laser light constitute a plurality of reception channels corresponding to the plurality of transmission channels " These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable . As per Claim 11 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “ The LIDAR device of claim 10, wherein among the Y columns of the two-dimensional array, detectors that are disposed in columns not receiving the laser light are set to an off state " These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable . As per Claim 12 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “ The LIDAR device of claim 8, wherein the detector is set to an on state only when receiving the laser light " These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable . The closest prior art of record HAN (US Pub. No.: 2021-0382150) for Claims 6, 8, 10-12 does not teach all the elements in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim. HAN only discloses a LIDAR device that includes an optical transmitter for transmitting laser light for detecting an external object , an optical receiver which is disposed to be spaced apart from one side of the optical transmitter and receives laser light that is reflected by the external object , and a scanner which is disposed between the optical transmitter . The prior art also includes reflect ing laser light that is transmitted by the optical transmitter to the outside and reflected from the external object and returned to the optical receiver . As per Claim 9 , said claim is disclosed in DAI (US Pub. No.: 2021-0208275) and would otherwise be rejected but for depending upon allowable Claim 8 . Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT EILEEN M ADAMS whose telephone number is 571-270-3688. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30-5:00 EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571) 272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4688. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service. Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /EILEEN M ADAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481