CTNF 18/322,285 CTNF 100564 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 6, line 3, the limitation states that the for an inoperable emitter, the light at the target will now equal (110%-x)*Intensity, however given the context of the drawings and specification, specifically Fig. 14 and paragraph [0058], it seems likely this should instead read “(100%-x)*Intensity” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1-3, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dunphy et al. (United States Patent No. 11892572 B1), hereinafter Dunphy . Regarding claim 1, Dunphy teaches an optical transmitter, comprising: a laser diode array configured to emit corresponding laser pulses ([Col. 3, line 65-67] Additionally or alternatively, examples could include a 2-dimensional array of light sources that are optically coupled to a 2-dimensional SLM pixel array; [Col. 5, line 6-9] In some examples, the at least one light-emitter device 110 is configured to emit respective light beams 112 toward an environment 10 via the micromirror devices 120.); a micro-optics module configured to focus the laser pulses into a scanning beam ([Col. 6, line 38-40] For example, the transmit lens 114 could be configured to focus the respective light beams along a portion of the shared micromirror axis.); and a drive motor configured to rotate the optical transmitter to the scanning beam covers a horizontal field of view ([Col. 6, line 20-23] In some examples, the optical transmitter module 100 may also include a base 140 configured to rotate or pivot about a first axis so as to sweep respective transmit axes about an azimuth range.). Regarding claim 2, Dunphy teaches the optical transmitter of claim 1, wherein the micro-optics is disposed a predetermined distance in front of the laser diode array ([Fig. 3]; [Col. 5, line 15-17] In some examples, micromirror devices 120 could be disposed at an image plane of a transmit lens 114 that is optically-coupled to the light-emitter devices 110.). Regarding claim 3, Dunphy teaches the optical transmitter of claim 1, wherein the laser diode array include n number of laser emitters configured to emit n number of laser pulses ([Col. 8, line 6-9] As illustrated in FIG. 3, the plurality of light-emitter devices 110a, 110b, 110c, and 110d could be configured to emit respective light beams 112a, 112b, 112c, and 112d toward transmit lens 114). Regarding claim 7, Dunphy teaches the optical transmitter of claim 1, wherein the laser diode array comprise a vertically stacked array of light emitters ([Fig. 3]). Regarding claim 8, Dunphy teaches the optical transmitter of claim 1, wherein the optical transmitter is an autonomous vehicle optical transmitter ([Col. 10, line 30-33] FIGS. 5A, 5B, 5C, 5D, and 5E illustrate a vehicle 500, according to an example embodiment. In some embodiments, the vehicle 500 could be a semi- or fully-autonomous vehicle; [Col. 10, line 39-40] In some examples, the vehicle 500 may include one or more sensor systems 502, 504, 506, 508, 510, and 512) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunphy in view of Ghosh et al. (United states Patent Application Publication 20150362585 A1), hereinafter Ghosh Regarding claim 4, Dunphy teaches the optical transmitter of claim 3, Dunphy fails to teach the transmitter wherein n=48 However, Ghosh teaches a transmitter wherein n=48 ([0067] The number of VCSEL arrays in an array chip and their individual emission properties are selected according to the required output power, shape, and size of the illumination area required for a given sensing, imaging or scanning environment.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Dunphy to comprise the array dimensions similar to Ghosh, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of implementing a specific dimension of a light emitting array to attenuate into a desired intensity . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunphy in view of Uyeno et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 20220229160 A1), hereinafter Uyeno . Regarding claim 5, Dunphy teaches the optical transmitter of claim 3, Dunphy fails to teach the transmitter wherein the micro-optics module focuses the laser pulses into the scanning beam to have a specific intensity of cumulative light at a target However, Uyeno teaches the transmitter wherein the micro-optics module focuses the laser pulses into the scanning beam to have a specific intensity of cumulative light at a target ([0038] More specifically, the Piston capability can be used to focus the beam such as to form a “fan” or “spot” beam. The Piston capability can also be used to adjust the size, divergence or intensity profile of the beam, produce deviations in the wavefront of the beam to compensate for atmospheric distortions, adjust phase to maintain a zero phase difference across the beam, add optical power to focus or defocus the beam or to improve the formation and steering of the beam by approximating a continuous surface across the micro-mirrors, which reduces unwanted diffraction to increase power in the optical beam.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Dunphy to comprise the module focusing system to increase intensity similar to Uyeno, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of rendering a higher intensity scan to areas of interest to scan a dynamic environment. Regarding claim 6, Dunphy, as modified above, teaches the optical transmitter of claim 5, Dunphy fails to teach the transmitter wherein when a corresponding laser emitter "x" is inoperable, the micro-optics module focuses the laser pulses into the scanning beam to have the specific intensity of the cumulative light at the target that is equal to (110%-x)*Intensity. However, Uyeno teaches the transmitter wherein when a corresponding laser emitter "x" is inoperable, the micro-optics module focuses the laser pulses into the scanning beam to have the specific intensity of the cumulative light at the target that is equal to (110%-x)*Intensity ([0038] More specifically, the Piston capability can be used to focus the beam such as to form a “fan” or “spot” beam. The Piston capability can also be used to adjust the size, divergence or intensity profile of the beam, produce deviations in the wavefront of the beam to compensate for atmospheric distortions, adjust phase to maintain a zero phase difference across the beam, add optical power to focus or defocus the beam or to improve the formation and steering of the beam by approximating a continuous surface across the micro-mirrors, which reduces unwanted diffraction to increase power in the optical beam.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Dunphy to comprise the module focusing system to increase intensity and compensate for deactivated emitters similar to Uyeno, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of rendering a higher intensity scan to areas of interest to scan a dynamic environment, while compensating for emitters deactivated or not functioning . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunphy in view of Schmidtlin et al. (United States Patent No. 11486970 B1), hereinafter Schmidtlin . Regarding claim 9, Dunphy teaches the optical transmitter of claim 1, Dunphy fails to teach the transmitter further comprising: a controller configured to perform an initial number of line scans and determine a scan path to reach a predetermined optimal position. However, Schmidtlin teaches the transmitter further comprising: a controller configured to perform an initial number of line scans and determine a scan path to reach a predetermined optimal position ([Col. 5 Line 29-39] For example, some embodiments of the present technology use one or more light sources that produce light signals of different wavelengths and/or along different optical paths...This allows for tuning the signals to appropriate transmit powers and the possibility of having overlapping scan areas that cover scans of different distances.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Dunphy to comprise the controller determined scan path designed to optimize similar to Schmidtlin, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of self-calibrating the transmitter to optimize in a range of environments. Regarding claim 10, Dunphy, as modified, teaches the optical transmitter of claim 9, Dunphy fails to teach the transmitter wherein the controller is further configured to determine the scan path based on a predetermined function. However, Schmidtlin teaches the transmitter wherein the controller is further configured to determine the scan path based on a predetermined function ([Col. 5, line 62-64] LiDAR system 100 transmits light pulse 102 along path 104 as determined by the steering system of LiDAR system 100.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Dunphy to comprise predetermined scan path similar to Schmidtlin, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of ensuring a base-line function by which to determine the optimal scan path for a diverse range of environments. Regarding claim 11, Dunphy, as modified teaches the optical transmitter of claim 10, wherein the controller is further configured to determine an alignment of the optical transmitter based on the determined scan path ([Col.5 line 18-34] In some example embodiments, each of the micromirror devices 120 could include a steerable reflective surface 122 configured to dynamically reduce or minimize light that interacts with the retroreflector object 14…Furthermore, the micromirror devices 120 can be individually addressed so that each micromirror device 120 could be maintained at respective, controllable angles.). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT WILLIAM VASQUEZ JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday, Flex Friday, 8:00-5:00 PST. 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, HELAL ALGAHAIM can be reached at (571)270-5227. 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. /ROBERT W VASQUEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3645 /HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/322,285 Page 2 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/322,285 Page 3 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/322,285 Page 4 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/322,285 Page 5 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/322,285 Page 6 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/322,285 Page 7 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/322,285 Page 8 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/322,285 Page 9 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/322,285 Page 10 Art Unit: 3645