DETAILED ACTION Claims 1 through 17 and 20 originally filed 12 December 2023. Claim 20 is renumbered as claim 18 so as to render the claim set consecutive. Claims 1 through 18 are addressed by this 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. Information Disclosure Statement The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a), subsection I. states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The disclosure uses the words "grading", "superficial", and "ASCIC" rather than "grating", "sacrificial", and "ASIC" respectively. The word "grading" appears in ¶18, 28, 63, 97, 102, 125, 139, 143, 144, 160, 164, and 165, the word "superficial" appears in ¶149, and the word "ASCIC" appears in ¶170. These are regarded as typographical errors. Appropriate correction is required. The specification is objected to under 37 C.F.R. 1.74. The specification refers to Figure 28 which is not used in the drawings. Appropriate correction is required. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4). The description uses the reference characters "19", "24", "26", "36", "110", "200", "230", "231", and "416" to refer to more than one part each. The same reference character must never be used to designate different parts. In the present case, these reference characters or similar numbers appear in the following locations: "19" is mentioned in ¶108 and ¶145, "24" is mentioned in ¶42, ¶59, ¶76, ¶112, ¶174, and ¶178, "26" is mentioned in ¶59, ¶61, ¶64, ¶71, ¶75, ¶76, ¶86, ¶94, ¶99, ¶102, and ¶105, "36" is mentioned in ¶70 and ¶104, "110" is mentioned in ¶126, ¶127, ¶128, ¶130, ¶132, and ¶216, "200" is mentioned in ¶168, ¶169, ¶170, ¶174, ¶176, and ¶206, "230" is mentioned in ¶168, ¶169, and ¶170, "231" is mentioned in ¶168, ¶169, ¶170, and ¶171, and "416" is mentioned in ¶217 and ¶218 The drawings refer to more than one part each with the reference characters "14", "20", "22", "24", "26", "28", "42", "110", "114", "126", "142", "144", "222", "230", "231", "310", "416", and "436". The same part of an invention must be designated with the same reference character throughout the drawings. In the present case, these reference characters appear in the following locations: The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5). The description includes the reference characters "47", "100", "126", "134", "142", "144", "145", "146", "147", "149", "151", "260", "270", and "446" which do not appear in the drawings. Reference characters mentioned in the description must appear in the drawings. In the present case, these reference characters appear in the following locations: The drawings include the reference characters "2", "3", "10", "16", "19", "29", "30", "32", "41", "45", "116", "118", "120", "214", "216", "220", "224", "229", "426", "1000", “M1”, and “M2” which do not appear in the description. Reference characters not mentioned in the description must not appear in the drawings. In the present case, these reference characters or similar numbers appear in the following locations: "2" is mentioned in ¶6, ¶20, ¶59, ¶78, and ¶111, "3" is mentioned in ¶9, ¶21, ¶25, ¶59, ¶71, ¶105, ¶111, and ¶134, "10" is mentioned in ¶28, ¶59, ¶62, ¶65, ¶68, ¶69, ¶70, ¶74, ¶75, ¶77, ¶78, ¶79, ¶97, ¶99, ¶101, ¶104, ¶105, ¶106, ¶108, ¶109, ¶110, ¶112, ¶114, ¶115, ¶116, ¶122, ¶124, ¶126, ¶130, ¶137, ¶138, ¶139, ¶140, ¶141, ¶143, ¶152, ¶159, ¶160, ¶161, ¶162, ¶164, ¶166, ¶168, ¶169, ¶170, and ¶171, "16" is mentioned in ¶59, ¶76, and ¶108, "19" is mentioned in ¶108 and ¶145, "29" is mentioned in ¶64, ¶65, ¶72, and ¶103, "30" is mentioned in ¶63, ¶70, ¶76, ¶79, ¶99, ¶105, and ¶116, "32" is mentioned in ¶63, ¶65, ¶104, ¶110, ¶148, and ¶149, "41" is mentioned in ¶217, "45" is mentioned in ¶150, "116" is mentioned in ¶126, ¶130, ¶133, and ¶135, "118" is mentioned in ¶126, "120" is mentioned in ¶126, "214" is mentioned in ¶168, ¶169, and ¶170, "216" is mentioned in ¶168 and ¶169, "220" is mentioned in ¶169, "224" is mentioned in ¶168 and ¶169, "229" is mentioned in ¶168, "426" is mentioned in ¶218, "1000" is mentioned in ¶209 and ¶210, "M1" is mentioned in ¶37, ¶38, ¶39, and ¶40, and "M2" is mentioned in ¶135 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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. Claim Objections Claims 1 through 18 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 is objected to for spelling the word "grating" as "grading". This is regarded as a typographical error. Claims 10, 13, and 16 are each objected to for not ending in a period. Claims must end in a period (MPEP §608.01(m)). Claims 11, 16, and 17 are objected to for employing the abbreviation "SOA". No such abbreviation is established within the claims. The abbreviation must be established within the claims. It is understood that the "SOA" of these claims corresponds to the "semiconductor optical amplifier" set forth in the preamble of claim 1. Claims 12 and 13 are objected for spelling the abbreviation "ASIC" as "ASCIC". This is regarded as a typographical error. Claim 13 is objected to for the grammar of the phrase "Wherein the ASCIC controls temperature of coolers and provides a swept source for a drive to tunable VCSEL." A grammatically correct version of this phrase would read "Wherein the ASIC controls temperature of coolers and provides a swept source for to drive the tunable VCSEL." This is regarded as a typographical error. Claims 2 through 9, 14, 15, and 18 are each objected to for depending from claim 1 and inheriting the above noted deficiency. The present claim set is objected to for not complying with 37 CFR 1.75(f). Specifically, the claims must be consecutive, but the claim set lacks claims 18 and 19 yet includes claim 20. Accordingly, claim 20 has been renumbered and entered as claim 18. The effect of this renumbering changes how this claim number is entered. Accordingly, no claim 20 has been entered and it is possible to add claims 19 and 20 by amendment in compliance with 37 CFR 1.126 should such additions become necessary over the course of prosecution. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1 through 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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, this claim requires a "semiconductor optical amplifier" that comprises "a tunable VCSEL." The gain portion of a VCSEL is a semiconductor optical amplifier. However, the claimed "semiconductor optical amplifier" appears to refer to a larger system that includes elements that are not strictly semiconductor optical amplifiers (e.g. the ASIC). Accordingly, it is unclear if the "semiconductor optical amplifier" is a component of the claimed "tunable VCSEL" or if it is another component that is employed with the "tunable VCSEL". This creates confusion over what elements are required by this claim. As such, this claim is 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. For the remainder of this action, this claim will be interpreted as allowing the "semiconductor optical amplifier" set forth in the preamble to be a subcomponent of the subsequently described "tunable VCSEL". Regarding claim 8, this claim requires "a second thermal electric cooler and a second heat sink." However, this claim depends only from claim 1 and no other thermal electric coolers or heat sinks are set forth within the dependency chain of this claim. When using ordinal designations, it is necessary to start with an initial ordinal designation such as "first" and introduce further elements in numerical order from that point. Failure to adhere to such an ordering creates the implication of additional elements without strictly indicating the presence thereof. Due to this implication, it is unclear whether or not the claim actually requires the presence of the implied features. As such, this claim is deemed indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. For the remainder of this action, this claim will be interpreted as requiring no elements other than those explicitly encompassed by this claim. Regarding claim 14, this claim states "Wherein the ASIC provides power to: #." This limitation is incomplete. As such, this claim is 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. For the remainder of this action, this claim will be interpreted as meaning that the "ASIC provides power". Regarding claim 18, this claim requires "An artificial intelligence (AI) engine configured to provide to learn from patterns or features from the module change information and provide learned information to a module setting or operation." However, the phrase "configured to provide to learn" does not make sense. This phrase should read "configured to learn". As such, this claim is 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. For the remainder of this action, this claim will be interpreted such that the noted phrase reads "configured to learn". Further, this limitation of this claim is understood to invoke 112(f) (MPEP §2181I) because it employs a non-structural generic placeholder (MPEP 2181IA¶2), the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, and the generic placeholder is not modified by suffic i ent structure for performing the claimed function. However, “the structure corresponding to a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation for a computer-implemented function must include the algorithm needed to transform the general purpose computer or microprocessor disclosed in the specification” (MPEP §2181IIB¶4). Accordingly, the examiner reviewed the specification but an algorithm for performing the complete function required by the claim could not be found. Specifically, while there is some suggestion that an input array is constructed from unspecified sensor data (¶218), the original disclosure does not include an algorithm, specific to the sensor data, for manipulating that input array to produce a particular result that is used in setting or operating the claimed device. Therefore, “the [application’s] description of the embodiments is simply a description of the outcome of the claimed functions, not a description of the structure, i.e., the computer programmed to execute a particular algorithm” and the description lacks a description of the structure for performing the claimed limitation (MPEP §2181IIB¶7). “The specification must explicitly disclose the algorithm for performing the claimed function, and simply reciting the claimed function in the specification will not be a sufficient disclosure for an algorithm which, by definition, must contain a sequence of steps.” (MPEP §2181IIB¶12). Accordingly, a sufficient algorithm for performing the claimed function was not found. As such, this claim is 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. For the remainder of this action, this claim will be interpreted as meaning that an AI algorithm of some kind is employed within a feedback loop for the laser device. Regarding claims 2 through 18, each of these claims depend properly from claim 1 and inherit all limitations thereof. As such, these claims are also indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. For the remainder of this action, these claims will also be interpreted as noted above regarding claim 1. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Regarding claim 9, this claim only further requires "One or more optical fibers." However, parent claim 1 already requires the "semiconductor optical amplifier" to be "coupled to an optical fiber". This limitation of parent claim 1 necessarily requires the presence of at least one optical fiber. Since parent claim 1 already requires the presence of at least one optical fiber, claim 1 already requires this limitation requiring the presence of one or more optical fibers. As such, this claim is of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 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 through 3, 9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang-Hasnain et al. (Chang-Hasnain, US Pub. 2011/0280269) in view of Andry et al. (Andry, US Pub. 2011/0044369). Chang-Hasnain was part of the IDS received 29 August 2024. Regarding claim 1, Chang-Hasnain discloses, "Coupled to an optical fiber" (p. [0019]). "A tunable VCSEL laser with one or more active regions having quantum wells and barriers" (p. [0079] and Fig. 7, pts. 70 and 104). "The one or more active regions surrounded by one or more p-n junctions" (p. [0079] and Fig. 7, pts. 80, 82, and 84). "The one or more active regions can include a selected shape structure, one or more tunnel junctions (TJ), one or more apertures are provided with the selected shape structure, one or more buried tunnel junctions (BTJ) or oxide confine apertured, additional TJ's, planar structures and or additional BTJ's created during a regrowth process that is independent of a first growth process, the VCSEL having an HCG grading" (p. [0079] and Fig. 7, pts. 74 and 86). Chang-Hasnain does not explicitly disclose, "At least one of an ASIC and driver controller coupled to the VCSEL laser." Andry discloses, "At least one of an ASIC and driver controller coupled to the VCSEL laser" (p. [0033] and Fig. 5, pts. 10 and 78). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chang-Hasnain with the teachings of Andry. In view of the teachings of Chang-Hasnain regarding a VCSEL capable of providing a tunable output wavelength, the additional inclusion of an ASIC and thermal control attached to the VCSEL assembly as taught by Andry would enhance the teachings of Chang-Hasnain by providing a system for operating the VCSEL and controlling the system temperature. Regarding claim 2, Chang-Hasnain does not explicitly disclose, "A cooler coupled to the VCSEL laser." Andry discloses, "A cooler coupled to the VCSEL laser" (p. [0031]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chang-Hasnain with the teachings of Andry for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1. Regarding claim 3, Chang-Hasnain does not explicitly disclose, "A first heatsink." Andry discloses, "A first heatsink" (p. [0031]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chang-Hasnain with the teachings of Andry for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1. Regarding claim 9, Chang-Hasnain discloses, "One or more optical fibers" (p. [0019]). Regarding claim 14, Chang-Hasnain does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the ASIC provides power." Andry discloses, "Wherein the ASIC provides power" (p. [0033] and Fig. 5, pts. 10 and 78). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chang-Hasnain with the teachings of Andry for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1. Claims 4 through 7, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang-Hasnain, in view of Andry, and further in view of Flanders et al. (Flanders, US Pub. 2014/0176958). Regarding claim 4, The combination of Chang-Hasnain and Andry does not explicitly disclose, "An optical isolator coupled to the VCSEL laser." Flanders discloses, "An optical isolator coupled to the VCSEL laser" (p. [0089] and Fig. 9, pts. 112 and 452). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Chang-Hasnain and Andry with the teachings of Flanders. In view of the teachings of Chang-Hasnain regarding a VCSEL capable of providing a tunable output wavelength, the additional inclusion of optical elements necessary to employ the VCSEL light in an OCT system as taught by Flanders would enhance the teachings of Chang-Hasnain and Andry by allowing an OCT system that employs the unique features of a tunable VCSEL based on an integrated tunable mems. Regarding claim 5, The combination of Chang-Hasnain and Andry does not explicitly disclose, "A beam splitter coupled to the VCSEL laser." Flanders discloses, "A beam splitter coupled to the VCSEL laser" (p. [0104] and Fig. 11, pts. 400 and 510). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Chang-Hasnain and Andry with the teachings of Flanders for the reasons provided above regarding claim 4. Regarding claim 6, The combination of Chang-Hasnain and Andry does not explicitly disclose, "A monitor coupled to the VCSEL laser." Flanders discloses, "A monitor coupled to the VCSEL laser" (p. [0109] and Fig. 11, pts. 400 and 552). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Chang-Hasnain and Andry with the teachings of Flanders for the reasons provided above regarding claim 4. Regarding claim 7, The combination of Chang-Hasnain and Andry does not explicitly disclose, "A balance detector coupled to the VCSEL laser." Flanders discloses, "A balance detector coupled to the VCSEL laser" (p. [0109] and Fig. 11, pts. 400 and 552). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Chang-Hasnain and Andry with the teachings of Flanders for the reasons provided above regarding claim 4. Regarding claim 11, The combination of Chang-Hasnain and Andry does not explicitly disclose, "An optical isolator that receives a polarized output beam." "Reduces all or a portion of polarized output beam reflecting back into tunable VCSEL and SOA." Flanders discloses, "An optical isolator that receives a polarized output beam" (p. [0054], [0089], and Fig. 9, pts. 112 and 452). "Reduces all or a portion of polarized output beam reflecting back into tunable VCSEL and SOA" (p. [0054], [0089], and Fig. 9, pts. 112 and 452). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Chang-Hasnain and Andry with the teachings of Flanders for the reasons provided above regarding claim 4. The combination of Chang-Hasnain, Andry, and Flanders does not explicitly disclose, "[The optical isolator] rotates [the beam]." The examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that it was known in the art to design an optical isolator that functions by rotating a polarized beam in a manner that prevents reverse propagation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ an optical isolator that functions on the basis of rotation of the polarized beam, since such a configuration was recognized in the art as suitable for providing the functions of an optical isolator. Regarding claim 16, The combination of Chang-Hasnain and Andry does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a feedback loop provide for sweep rates to be changed." "[The feedback loop] optimizes power into SOA ." Flanders discloses, "Wherein a feedback loop provide for sweep rates to be changed" (p. [0098]). "[The feedback loop] optimizes power into SOA " (p. [0009]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Chang-Hasnain and Andry with the teachings of Flanders for the reasons provided above regarding claim 4. Claims 8, 10, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang-Hasnain, in view of Andry, and further in view of Lo et al. (Lo, US Patent 6,667,998). Regarding claim 8, Chang-Hasnain does not explicitly disclose, "A second heatsink." Andry discloses, "A second heatsink" (p. [0031]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chang-Hasnain with the teachings of Andry for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1. The combination of Chang-Hasnain and Andry does not explicitly disclose, "A second thermal electric cooler." Lo discloses, "A second thermal electric cooler" (col. 5, lines 29-33 and Fig. 3, pt. 318). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Chang-Hasnain and Andry with the teachings of Lo. In view of the teachings of Chang-Hasnain regarding a VCSEL capable of providing a tunable output wavelength, the additional inclusion of a temperature controller for regulating the system temperature on the basis of feedback as well as the additional inclusion of a linearizing function within the feedback process as taught by Lo would enhance the teachings of Chang-Hasnain and Andry by allowing the output wavelength to be additionally controlled according to temperature as well as by allowing processing calculations to be simplified. Regarding claim 10, The combination of Chang-Hasnain and Andry does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a first cooler provides control of temperature for the tunable VCSEL ." Lo discloses, "Wherein a first cooler provides control of temperature for the tunable VCSEL " (col. 5, lines 29-33 and Fig. 3, pts. 102 and 318). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Chang-Hasnain and Andry with the teachings of Lo for the reasons provided above regarding claim 8. Regarding claim 12, The combination of Chang-Hasnain and Andry does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the [ASIC] controls temperature of coolers." Lo discloses, "Wherein the [ASIC] controls temperature of coolers" (col. 5, lines 29-33 and Fig. 3, pts. 102 and 318). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Chang-Hasnain and Andry with the teachings of Lo for the reasons provided above regarding claim 8. Regarding claim 15, The combination of Chang-Hasnain and Andry does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a feedback loop provides for linearization of sweeping." Lo discloses, "Wherein a feedback loop provides for linearization of sweeping" (col. 9, lines 23-39). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Chang-Hasnain and Andry with the teachings of Lo for the reasons provided above regarding claim 8. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang-Hasnain, in view of Andry, in view of Lo, and further in view of Flanders. Regarding claim 13, The combination of Chang-Hasnain and Andry does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the [ASIC] controls temperature of coolers." Lo discloses, "Wherein the [ASIC] controls temperature of coolers" (col. 5, lines 29-33 and Fig. 3, pts. 102 and 318). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Chang-Hasnain and Andry with the teachings of Lo for the reasons provided above regarding claim 8. The combination of Chang-Hasnain, Andry, and Lo does not explicitly disclose, "[The ASIC] provides a swept source for a drive to tunable VCSEL ." Flanders discloses, "[The ASIC] provides a swept source for a drive to tunable VCSEL " (p. [0102] and Fig. 11, pt. 590). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Chang-Hasnain, Andry, and Lo with the teachings of Flanders. In view of the teachings of Chang-Hasnain regarding a VCSEL capable of providing a tunable output wavelength, the additional inclusion of optical elements necessary to employ the VCSEL light in an OCT system as taught by Flanders would enhance the teachings of Chang-Hasnain, Andry, and Lo by allowing an OCT system that employs the unique features of a tunable VCSEL based on an integrated tunable mems. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang-Hasnain, in view of Andry, and further in view of Uchida et al. (Uchida, US Pub. 2015/0029512). Regarding claim 17, The combination of Chang-Hasnain and Andry does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the feedback loop provides for a flattening of SOA out-put power." Uchida discloses, "Wherein the feedback loop provides for a flattening of SOA out-put power" (p. [0052]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Chang-Hasnain and Andry with the teachings of Uchida. In view of the teachings of Chang-Hasnain regarding a VCSEL capable of providing a tunable output wavelength, the additional inclusion of an automatic power control feedback as taught by Uchida would enhance the teachings of Chang-Hasnain and Andry by allowing the output power to be stabilized as the laser is operated. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang-Hasnain, in view of Andry, and further in view of Bukesov et al. (Bukesov, US Pub. 2021/0038310). Regarding claim 18, The combination of Chang-Hasnain and Andry does not explicitly disclose, "An artificial intelligence (AI) engine configured to provide to learn from patterns or features from the module change information and provide learned information to a module setting or operation." Bukesov discloses, "An artificial intelligence (AI) engine configured to provide to learn from patterns or features from the module change information and provide learned information to a module setting or operation" (p. [0149]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Chang-Hasnain and Andry with the teachings of Bukesov. In view of the teachings of Chang-Hasnain regarding a VCSEL capable of providing a tunable output wavelength, the additional use of an AI system for processing or assisting in processing the system control as taught by Bukesov would enhance the teachings of Chang-Hasnain and Andry by allowing for a system control that can account for complex interactions in system inputs. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Sean P Hagan whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1242 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Thursday, 8:30AM-5:00PM . 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 MinSun Harvey can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1835 . 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. /SEAN P HAGAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2828