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 Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. GB2101412.1 , filed on 2/02/2021 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/01/2025, 11/19/2024, and 8/01/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Drawings Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). In Figure 8, the Programmable Delay 136 appears to be connected to Illumination Laser 133 and not Illumination Laser 132 as disclosed in Pp. 20 , lin. 13-16. The examiner will proceed as if Programmable Delay 136 connects to Illumination laser 132. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Figure 2: As disclosed in Pp. 6, line 24, of the specification, “camera 12” appears to be --Camera 7D--. The examiner will proceed as such. 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. 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. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Pp 3, line 4, "control and processing sub-system 2" appears to be, --the control and processing sub-system 3 --; Pp 6, line 14, "a programmable delay generator, 7C and" appears to be, --a programmable delay generator 7C, and-- ; Pp 6, line 19-20, "active imaging controller 7A, the illumination laser 7A" appears to be, --active imaging controller 7A, the illumination laser 7B-- ; Pp 20, line 17, "the two lasers 1312 133" appears to be, --the two lasers 132 133-- ; Pp 21, lines 10-11, "Ensuring that the FoV of the first gated camera 132 overlaps with the FoV of the second time gated camera 133" appears to be --Ensuring that the FoV of the first time gated camera 137 overlaps with the FoV of the second time gated camera 137'-- . 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. Claims 1-15 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. Regarding claim 1, the limitation “relatively broad spectral linewidth” is unclear. To what degree is the spectral linewidth broad compared to the second laser illuminator? The limitation “relatively long pulse duration” is unclear. To what degree is the pulse duration long compared to the second laser illuminator? The limitation “relatively long gate period” is unclear. To what degree is the gate period long? The limitation “relatively short gate period” is unclear. To what degree is the gate period short? Claims 2-15 are rej ected due to claim dependency. 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. Claims 1, 4-6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 20200200913 A1, "Smith") in view of Maleki et al. (US 20190154832 A1, "Maleki"). Regarding claim 1, Smith teaches an active imaging system comprising: a first laser illuminator and a second laser illuminator, each configured to illuminate a scene, including a target, with pulses of light (Smith, Para [0054] Fig. 4, where the first laser illuminator is second light emitter 32, and the second laser illuminator is first light emitter 30) ; such that pulses of light when emitted from the first laser illuminator will have a relatively long pulse duration compared with pulses of light from the second laser illuminator (Smith, Para [0056], Fig. 1 and Fig. 4, where second light emitter 32 has a longer second time period that extends past the first time period to capture the background of a Field of View (FOV) which includes the target in the foreground) ; a camera system configured and arranged to receive light from both the first laser illuminator and second laser illuminator that has been reflected by a scene (Smith, Para [0056], Fig. 4, where the camera system includes first photodetector 20, and second photodetector 24 for detecting reflected light by first light emitter 30 and second emitter 32 respectively) ; wherein the camera system is configured to: use a relatively long gate period for receiving returns from the first laser illuminator to obtain a first image of the scene including the target (Smith, Para [0056], Fig. 1 and Fig. 4, where second light emitter 32 has a longer second time period that extends past the first time period to capture the background of a Field of View (FOV) which includes the target in the foreground) ; and use a relatively short gate period to receive returns from the second laser illuminator to obtain a second image of the target that selectively excludes non-target elements within the scene (Smith, Para [0056], Fig. 1 and Fig. 4, where first light emitter 32 has a shorter first time period to capture the foreground of a Field of View (FOV) which excludes the non-targets in the background) ; and an image processing means configured to use the second image as a template to selectively remove the non-target elements from the first image (Smith, Para [0019], Fig. 1, where Lidar system 10 can generate a 3D environmental map, meaning there must an image processing means that maps the foreground and background FOV's as detected) . . However, Smith does not teach a relatively broad spectral linewidth . On the other hand, Maleki teaches a narrowing optical cavity for laser sources to have a narrower linewidth for higher signal to noise ratio (Maleki, Para [0039], Fig. 1, where an extended optical cavity for narrower linewidths is taught. Therefore, a narrower cavity can be used for first light emitter 30 to have a narrower linewidth relative to second emitter 32, while still having a shorter pulse duration). Accordingly, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the active imaging system of Smith in view of Maleki , by using a narrower optical cavity for Smith Fig. 4 first light emitter 30 to increase the signal to noise ratio in comparison to second light emitter 32 . See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale G . Regarding claim 4, Smith in view of Maleki teaches an active imaging system according to claim 1, wherein the active imaging system is configured to operate the first and second laser illuminators to illuminate the scene at different times (Smith, Para [0056], Fig. 1 and Fig. 4, where second light emitter 32 has a longer second time period that extends past the first time period to capture the background of a Field of View (FOV) which includes the target in the foreground). Regarding claim 5, Smith in view of Maleki teaches an active imaging system according to claim 4, wherein the first and second laser illuminators are configured to operate at substantially a same centre wavelength (Smith, Para [0056], Fig. 1 and Fig. 4, where first and second light sources 18, and 22 may be the same or different wavelengths) . Regarding claim 6, Smith in view of Maleki teaches an active imaging system according to any claim 1, wherein the first and second laser illuminators are configured to operate at different centre wavelengths (Smith, Para [0056], Fig. 1 and Fig. 4, where first and second light sources 18, and 22 may be the same or different wavelengths) . Regarding claim 8, Smith in view of Maleki teaches an active imaging system according to claim 6, wherein the active imaging system is configured to operate the first and second laser illuminators to illuminate the scene simultaneously (Smith, Para [0056], Fig. 1 and Fig. 4, where the first time period initiates simultaneously with light from both second light emitter 32 and first light emitter 30). Regarding claim 9, Smith in view of Maleki teaches an active imaging system according to claim 6, wherein the camera system comprises; a first camera configured and arranged to capture returns from the first laser illuminator, and a second camera configured and arranged to capture returns from the second illuminator (Smith, Para [0056], Fig. 4, where the camera system includes first photodetector 20, and second photodetector 24 for detecting reflected light by first light emitter 30 and second emitter 32 respectively). Claims 2-3, 7, 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Maleki and Hariharan et al. (US 5585913 A, "Hariharan"). Regarding claim 2, Smith in view of Maleki teaches an active imaging system according to claim 1 . However, Smith in view of Maleki does not teach wherein the first laser illuminator is configured to operate at a pulse repetition rate that is higher than the second laser illuminator . On the other hand, Hariharan teaches two laser sources with differing pulse repetition rates (Hariharan, Col. 8, lin. 60-66, Fig. 4, where two pulse sources have differing repetition rates. In this case Smith Fig. 4 second light emitter 32 would have the higher repetition rate compared to first light emitter 30). Accordingly, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the active imaging system of Smith in view of Maleki and Hariharan, by setting the pulse repetition rate of Smith Fig. 4 second light emitter 32 higher than first light emitter 30 such that a more equally detailed map of the scene’s background, compared to the foreground, can be mapped . See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale G. Regarding claim 3, Smith in view of Maleki and Hariharan teaches an active imaging system according to claim 2, wherein the first illuminator is configured to operate at a pulse repetition rate of at least 2 KHz (Hariharan, Col. 7, lin. 8-24, Fig. 4, where two pulse sources have differing repetition rates where the first repetition rate can reach up to 100 MHz) . Regarding claim 7, Smith in view of Maleki teaches an active imaging system according to claim 1. However, Smith in view of Maleki does not teach wherein the camera system comprises: a single detector configured and arranged to capture returns from both the first and second laser illuminators to obtain first and second images. On the other hand, Hariharan teaches a single detector that captures the return pulses from two source lasers (Hariharan, Col. 9, lin. 22-26, Fig. 4, where filter/detector collects returns from dual sources 101 and 102). Accordingly, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the active imaging system of Smith in view of Maleki and Hariharan, by using a single detector to capture return pulses instead of two to improve efficiency. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale B. Regarding claim 10, Smith in view of Maleki and Hariharan teaches an active imaging system according to claim 2, wherein the active imaging system is configured to operate the first and second laser illuminators to illuminate the scene at different times (Smith, Para [0056], Fig. 1 and Fig. 4, where second light emitter 32 has a longer second time period that extends past the first time period to capture the background of a Field of View (FOV) which includes the target in the foreground) . Regarding claim 11, Smith in view of Maleki and Hariharan teaches an active imaging system according to claim 10, wherein the first and second laser illuminators are configured to operate at substantially a same centre wavelength (Smith, Para [0056], Fig. 1 and Fig. 4, where first and second light sources 18, and 22 may be the same or different wavelengths) . Regarding claim 1 2 , Smith in view of Maleki and Hariharan teaches an active imaging system according to claim 10, wherein the first and second laser illuminators are configured to operate at different centre wavelengths (Smith, Para [0056], Fig. 1 and Fig. 4, where first and second light sources 18, and 22 may be the same or different wavelengths) . Regarding claim 1 3 , Smith in view of Maleki and Hariharan teaches an active imaging system according to claim 10, wherein the camera system comprises: a single detector configured and arranged to capture returns from both the first and second laser illuminators to obtain first and second images (Hariharan, Col. 9, lin. 22-26, Fig. 4, where filter/detector collects returns from dual sources 101 and 102) . Regarding claim 14 Smith in view of Maleki and Hariharan teaches an active imaging system according to claim 7, wherein the active imaging system is configured to operate the first and second laser illuminators to illuminate the scene simultaneously (Smith, Para [0056], Fig. 1 and Fig. 4, where the first time period initiates simultaneously with light from both second light emitter 32 and first light emitter 30) . Regarding claim 15 Smith in view of Maleki and Hariharan teaches an active imaging system according to claim 7, wherein the camera system comprises: a first camera configured and arranged to capture returns from the first laser illuminator, and a second camera configured and arranged to capture returns from the second illuminator (Smith, Para [0056], Fig. 4, where the camera system includes first photodetector 20, and second photodetector 24 for detecting reflected light by first light emitter 30 and second emitter 32 respectively) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ZAKI HAWKINS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6595 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 7:30am-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 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. /ZAKI KEHINDE HAWKINS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645 /YUQING XIAO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645