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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed 9/10/2024 has been considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings filed 6/29/2023 are approved by the examiner. 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)(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 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Abari et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0361126) . With respect to claim 1, Abari et al disclose: A LiDAR apparatus [ taught by figure 4B ] comprising: a light source module configured to generate light; an optical transmitter configured to emit the light generated by the light source module to outside the LiDAR apparatus [ taught by light sources (402) and (404) ] ; an optical receiver configured to receive light from outside the LiDAR apparatus [ taught by receiver (412) ] ; an optical detector configured to detect the light received by the optical receiver [ taught by TOF sensor 2 (430), TOF sensor (426) and imaging sensor (418) ] ; and a processor configured to control an operation of each of the light source module and the optical transmitter [ taught by the computer system in figure 6 ] , wherein the light source module comprises: a first tunable laser light source configured to emit first light in a first wavelength band [ taught by light source (402) operating at 840nm to 904nm; paragraph [0021] ] ; a second tunable laser light source configured to emit second light in a second wavelength band different from the first wavelength band [ taught by light source (404) operating at 1550nm ] ; and a light selection element configured to select and output one of the first light and the second light [ taught by optical switch (434); paragraph [0023]] . Paragraph [0023] states, “… FIG. 4B illustrates a similar configuration as FIG. 4A with the addition of an optical switch or an optical combiner for more refined control of first and second light sources 402 and 404 . As illustrated in the example of FIG. 4B , combined first and second light sources 402 and 404 are both connected to optical switch 434 , which may switch between first light source 402 and second light source 404 in order to trigger them at the same time, or at different times. In particular embodiments, first light source 402 and second light source 404 may be triggered to transmit light at different times with a time period offset as determined by timing system 210…” . The teaching above anticipates claims 3 and 11. 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abari et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0361126) in view of Tavalle et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0012147). Paragraphs [0110] and [0111] of Tavalle et al establish that it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have used Mach-Zehnder interferometers for the function of switching in a LIDAR. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in using a Mach-Zehnder interferometer in the device of Abari et al because element (434) required know means to provide the function of switching. Claim s 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abari et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0361126) in view of LaChapelle et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0236417). Figure 39 of LaChapelle et al teaches that it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have used an amplifier in combination with a light source wherein the amplifier included: a lower contact layer (822), a gain material layer provided on the lower contact layer ( part of SOA junction (800) ), and an upper contact layer provided on the gain material layer (810). Therefore, it would obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in amplifying the output of the two source lasers of Abari et al, as set forth by claim 3, when seeking to increase output power of the sources. With regard to claim 14, tuning differently the composition of the materials used in the amplifiers to amplify the light source would have been required in that both light sources provided different wavelength ranges. Clai ms 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abari et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0361126) in view of LaChapelle et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0213628). Figure 56 of LaChapelle et al teaches that it was known before the effective filing date of the present application to have transmitted a series of pulses with a partially overlapping wavelength (claim 9) wherein each pulse of a particular wavelength scan an assigned angle. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted the device of Abari et al in accordance with the teaching of LaChapelle et al, when seeking to scan a volume using multiple wavelengths. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4-8, 10 and 15-20 are 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to FILLIN "Insert the name of the examiner designated to be contacted first regarding inquiries about the Office action." \* MERGEFORMAT MARK HELLNER at telephone number FILLIN "Insert the individual area code and phone number of the examiner to be contacted." \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6981 . Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. /MARK HELLNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645