DETAILED 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 .
Status of Claims
This is a first office action for application Serial No. 18/795,594 filed on 08/06/2024. Claims 7-26 have been examined.
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 7-26 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites: "A control system for an array of optical emitters, configured to:
route light to the array of optical emitters according to a temporal pattern to interrogate portions of a field of view, wherein the temporal pattern comprises:
an order of interrogation for the array of optical emitters; and
a duration defining a period of time for a corresponding optical emitter of the array of optical emitters to interrogate a respective portion of the portions of the field of view;
determine, based on the interrogation, a distance between an object within the field of view and the array of optical emitters; and
update the temporal pattern based on the distance and the object being within one or more of the portions of the field of view."
This language is vague and indefinite for at least the following reasons:
Means-Plus-Function Language: The following claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
“A control system … configured to: route … determine … update.”
However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Intended Use: The claim contains the following language that is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether the scope of this language is intended to affirmatively require specific performance or whether this language is deliberately articulated as an expression of intended use:
“A control system … configured to: route … determine … update … view.”
“a temporal pattern to interrogate portions of a field of view”
“an order of interrogation for the array of optical emitters”
“a duration defining a period of time for a corresponding optical emitter of the array of optical emitters to interrogate a respective portion of the portions of the field of view”
Accordingly, this language does not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference. See In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641; In re Yanush, 177 USPQ 705; In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530; In re Casey, 512 USPQ 235; In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458; Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2nd 1647.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"A control system for an array of optical emitters, configured to:
route light to the array of optical emitters according to a temporal pattern [intended to interrogate portions of a field of view], wherein the temporal pattern comprises:
an order of interrogation of the array of optical emitters; and
a duration defining a period of time wherein a corresponding optical emitter of the array of optical emitters
determine, based on the interrogation, a distance between an object within the field of view and the array of optical emitters; and
update the temporal pattern based on the distance and the object being within one or more of the portions of the field of view."
Claim 8 recites: "The control system of claim 1, configured to change the duration for the corresponding optical emitter responsive to the determination of the distance."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 7 above. Moreover, this language is further rejected as vague and indefinite for at least the following reasons:
Invalid claim dependency: The claim depends from a cancelled claim.
Antecedent Basis: The following term(s) lack(s) proper antecedent basis:
“The control system of claim 1”
“the corresponding optical emitter”
“the determination of the distance”
“the distance”
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The control system of claim 7, [intended to change a duration for a corresponding optical emitter responsive to a determination of a distance]."
Claim 9 recites: "The control system of claim 1, configured to change the order of interrogation for the array of optical emitters responsive to the determination of the distance."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claims 7 and 8 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The control system of claim 7, [intended to change an order of interrogation for an array of optical emitters responsive to a determination of a distance]."
Claim 16 is further rejected as depending from this claim.
Claim 10 recites: "The control system of claim 1, wherein the control system is coupled to a laser configured to produce the light."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claims 7 and 8 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The control system of claim 7, wherein the control system is coupled to a laser configured to produce a light."
Claim 11 recites: "The control system of claim 3, wherein to update the temporal pattern, the control system is configured to change a power level of the laser."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claims 7 and 8 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The control system of claim 7, [intended to update a temporal pattern, the control system is configured to change a power level of a laser]."
Claim 12 recites: "The control system of claim 1, wherein to update the temporal pattern, the control system is configured to change a revisit rate."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The control system of claim 7, [intended to update a temporal pattern, the control system is configured to change a revisit rate]."
Claim 13 recites: "The control system of claim 1, wherein to update the temporal pattern, the control system is configured to change a dwell time per portion for one or more optical emitters."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claims 7 and 8 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The control system of claim 7, [intended to update a temporal pattern, the control system is [intended to change a dwell time per portion for one or more optical emitters]]."
Claim 14 recites: "The control system of claim 1, configured to scan a first subset of the portions more frequently than a second subset based on the updated temporal pattern."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claims 7-8 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The control system of claim 7, configured to scan a first subset of an updated temporal pattern."
Claims 21-23 are further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 15 recites: "The control system of claim 1, wherein an objective lens couples the light to the array of optical emitters."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claims 7 and 8 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The control system of claim 7, wherein an objective lens couples an array of optical emitters."
Claim 16 recites: "The control system of claim 9, comprising a switching network to route the light to an optical emitter of the array of optical emitters."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claims 7-8 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The control system of claim 9, comprising a switching network [intended to route an array of optical emitters]."
Claim 17 recites: "The control system of claim 1, wherein the temporal pattern comprises a first time period between two consecutive pulses of the light from the corresponding optical emitter."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claims 7 and 8 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The control system of claim 7, wherein a temporal pattern comprises a first time period between two consecutive pulses of an optical emitter."
Claim 24 is further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 18 recites: "The control system of claim 1, wherein the temporal pattern comprises a second time period between an actuation of a first light emitter and an actuation of a second light emitter."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claims 7 and 8 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The control system of claim 7, wherein a temporal pattern comprises a second time period between an actuation of a first light emitter and an actuation of a second light emitter."
Claim 19 recites: "The control system of claim 1, wherein each portion of the one or more portions of the field of view corresponds to at least one optical emitter of the array of optical emitters."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claims 7 and 8 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The control system of claim 1, wherein each portion of a field of view corresponds to at least one optical emitter of an array of optical emitters."
Claim 26 is further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 20 recites: "A method for controlling an array of optical emitters, comprising:
routing, by a controller, light to the array of optical emitters according to a temporal pattern to interrogate portions of a field of view, wherein the temporal pattern comprises:
an order of interrogation for the array of optical emitters; and
a duration defining a period of time for a corresponding optical emitter of the array of optical emitters to interrogate a respective portion of the portions of the field of view;
determining, by the controller, based on the interrogation, a distance between an object within the field of view and the array of optical emitters; and
updating, by the controller, the temporal pattern based on the distance and the object being within one or more of the portions of the field of view."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claims 7 and 8 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"A method for controlling an array of optical emitters, comprising:
routing, by a controller, light to the array of optical emitters according to a temporal pattern [intended to interrogate portions of a field of view], wherein the temporal pattern comprises:
an order of interrogation of the array of optical emitters; and
a duration defining a period of time wherein a corresponding optical emitter of the array of optical emitters
determining, by the controller, based on the interrogation, a distance between an object within the field of view and the array of optical emitters; and
updating, by the controller, the temporal pattern based on the distance and the object being within one or more of the portions of the field of view."
Claim 21 recites: "The method of claim 14, wherein updating the temporal pattern comprises changing, by the controller, the duration for the corresponding optical emitter responsive to the determination of the distance."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 7 and 8 above. Moreover, this language is further rejected as vague and indefinite for at least the following reasons:
Hybrid Claim: The language of the claim is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether the claim is intended to be directed towards an apparatus or method claim, and accordingly, whether the structural claim language and/or functional claim language is intended to be limiting. Namely, the claim begins with the language: “The method of claim 14 …,” however, the claim 14 is directed to a system.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The method of claim 20, wherein updating a temporal pattern comprises changing, by a controller, a duration of an optical emitter responsive to a determination of a distance."
Claim 22 recites: "The method of claim 14, wherein updating the temporal pattern comprises changing, by the controller, the order of interrogation for the array of optical emitters responsive to the determination of the distance."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claims 7-8 and 21 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The method of claim 20, wherein updating a temporal pattern comprises changing, by a controller, an order of interrogation of an array of optical emitters responsive to a determination of a distance."
Claim 23 recites: "The method of claim 14, comprising producing, by a laser, the light."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claims 7-8 and 21 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The method of claim 20, comprising producing, by a laser, a light."
Claim 24 recites: "The method of claim 17, wherein updating the temporal pattern comprises changing, by the controller, a power level of the laser."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claims 7-8 and 21 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The method of claim 20, wherein updating a temporal pattern comprises changing, by a controller, a power level of a laser."
Claim 25 recites: "A LiDAR system comprising:
an array of optical emitters; and
a control system configured to:
route light to the array of optical emitters according to a temporal pattern to interrogate portions of a field of view, wherein the temporal pattern comprises:
an order of interrogation for the array of optical emitters; and
a duration defining a period of time for a corresponding optical emitter of the array of optical emitters to interrogate a respective portion of the portions of the field of view;
determine, based on the interrogation, a distance between an object within the field of view and the array of optical emitters; and
update the temporal pattern based on the distance and the object being within one or more of the portions of the field of view.”
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claims 7-8 and 21 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"A LiDAR system comprising:
an array of optical emitters; and
a control system [intended to:
route light to the array of optical emitters according to a temporal pattern [intended to interrogate portions of a field of view], wherein the temporal pattern comprises:
an order of interrogation of the array of optical emitters; and
a duration defining a period of time wherein a corresponding optical emitter of the array of optical emitters
determine, based on the interrogation, a distance between an object within the field of view and the array of optical emitters; and
update the temporal pattern based on the distance and the object being within one or more of the portions of the field of view].”
Claim 26 recites: “The LiDAR system of claim 19, wherein each portion of the one or more portions of the field of view corresponds to at least one optical emitter of the array of optical emitters.”
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claims 7-8 and 21 above. Moreover, this language is further rejected as vague and indefinite for at least the following reasons:
Not further limiting: The claim recites: “The LiDAR system of claim 19,” however, the body of the current claim recites the language of claim 19, verbatim.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
“The LiDAR system of claim 25, wherein each portion of a field of view corresponds to at least one optical emitter of an array of optical emitters.”
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 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 7-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spector (US 2018/0175961 A1) in view of Smits (US 2016/0335778 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Spector discloses a control system for an array of optical emitters (see e.g. at least Abstract, Fig. 1, and related text), configured to:
route light to the array of optical emitters according to a temporal pattern (see e.g. at least ¶ 30, 58, 71-72, 109, 116, cl. 24, Fig. 1, 23, 25, and related text, receiving a time-varying illumination pattern and directing the time-varying illumination pattern to a particular output of the nanophotonic array, so that the time-varying illumination from the output is directed to the lenticular lens) [intended to interrogate portions of a field of view] (id., see also e.g. at least ¶ 15, 21, 26-27), wherein the temporal pattern comprises:
an order of interrogation of the array of optical emitters (id., see also e.g. at least ¶ 69, Fig. 3, 5, and related text); and
a duration defining a period of time wherein a corresponding optical emitter of the array of optical emitters interrogate a respective portion of the portions of the field of view (see e.g. at least ¶ 30, 58, 71-72, 109, 116, cl. 24, Fig. 1, 23, 25, and related text); and
determine, based on the interrogation, a distance between an object within the field of view and the array of optical emitters (see e.g. at least ¶ 3-4, 30, 57-58, 71-72, 109, 116, cl. 24, Fig. 1, 23, 25, and related text).
Additionally, Smits teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Spector including namely: updating a temporal pattern based on a distance and an object being within one or more portions of a field of view (Smits: ¶ 73, 171, 174, 189, 199, 234, 308, 364-365, Fig. 3-4, 13B, 16A-17B, 30-31, and related text).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Spector by updating the temporal pattern based on the distance and the object being within one or more of the portions of the field of view as taught by Smits in order to enhance the imaging of a target by modifying the illumination of a target so as to adjust the number of photons reflected from a target to enhance the image of the target (Smits: p. 3).
Regarding claims 8, Modified Spector teaches a system/method [intended to change a duration for a corresponding optical emitter responsive to a determination of a distance] (Spector: see e.g. at least ¶ 30, 58, 71-72, 109, 116, cl. 24, Fig. 1, 23, 25, and related text; Smits: ¶ 73, 171, 174, 189, 199, 234, 308, 358-365, Fig. 3-4, 13B, 16A-17B, 30-31, and related text).
Regarding claims 9, Modified Spector teaches a system/method [intended to change an order of interrogation for an array of optical emitters responsive to a determination of a distance] (Spector: see e.g. at least ¶ 69, Fig. 3, 5, and related text; Smits: ¶ 73, 171, 174, 189, 199, 234, 308, 358-365, Fig. 3-4, 13B, 16A-17B, 30-31, and related text).
Regarding claim 10, Modified Spector teaches that the control system is coupled to a laser configured to produce a light (Spector: e.g. at least transmitter 114, laser, modulated laser 2304, tunable laser 2504, see e.g. at least ¶ 57, 109, 116, Fig. 1, 23, 25, and related text; Smits: see e.g. at least ¶ 77, Fig. 1A-1C, and related text).
Regarding claim 11, Modified Spector teaches a system [intended to update a temporal pattern, the control system is configured to change a power level of a laser] (Smits: see e.g. at least ¶ 131-132, 257, 304, 308-310, 317, Fig. 2A, and related text).
Regarding claim 12, Modified Spector teaches a system [intended to update a temporal pattern, the control system is configured to change a revisit rate] (Spector: see e.g. at least ¶ 30, 58, 71-72, 109, 116, cl. 24, Fig. 1, 23, 25, and related text; Smits: ¶ 73, 171, 174, 189, 199, 234, 308, 358-365, Fig. 3-4, 13B, 16A-17B, 30-31, and related text).
Regarding claim 13, Modified Spector teaches a system [intended to update a temporal pattern, the control system is [intended to change a dwell time per portion for one or more optical emitters]] (Spector: see e.g. at least ¶ 30, 58, 71-72, 109, 116, cl. 24, Fig. 1, 23, 25, and related text; Smits: ¶ 73, 171, 174, 189, 199, 234, 308, 358-365, Fig. 3-4, 13B, 16A-17B, 30-31, and related text).
Regarding claim 14, Modified Spector teaches a system [intended to scan a first subset of portions more frequently than a second subset based on an updated temporal pattern] (Spector: see e.g. at least ¶ 30, 58, 71-72, 109, 116, cl. 24, Fig. 1, 23, 25, and related text; Smits: ¶ 73, 171, 174, 189, 199, 234, 308, 358-365, Fig. 3-4, 13B, 16A-17B, 30-31, and related text).
Regarding claim 15, Modified Spector teaches that an objective lens couples light to an array of optical emitters (Spector: e.g. at least lens 102, 2312, see e.g. at least ¶ 55, 109, 116, Fig. 1, 23, 25, and related text).
Regarding claim 16, Modified Spector teaches a switching network [intended to route light to an optical emitter of an array of optical emitters] (Spector: e.g. at least optical switch network 104, 2302, 2500, see e.g. at least ¶ 53-55, 109, 116, Fig. 1, 23, 25, and related text).
Regarding claim 17, Modified Spector teaches that a temporal pattern comprises a first time period between two consecutive pulses of light from an optical emitter (Spector: see e.g. at least ¶ 30, 58, 71-72, 109, 116, cl. 24, Fig. 1, 23, 25, and related text; Smits: ¶ 64, 71, 77, 79, 270, 273-274, Fig. 1C, 17A-17C, and related text).
Regarding claim 18, Modified Spector teaches that a temporal pattern comprises a second time period between an actuation of a first light emitter and an actuation of a second light emitter (Spector: see e.g. at least ¶ 30, 58, 71-72, 109, 116, cl. 24, Fig. 1, 23, 25, and related text; Smits: ¶ 64, 71, 77, 79, 270, 273-274, Fig. 1C, 17A-17C, and related text).
Regarding claim 19, Modified Spector teaches that each portion of one or more portions of a field of view corresponds to at least one optical emitter of an array of optical emitters (Spector: see e.g. at least ¶ 30, 58, 71-72, 109, 116, cl. 24, Fig. 1, 23, 25, and related text; Smits: ¶ 73, 171, 174, 189, 199, 234, 308, 358-365, Fig. 3-4, 13B, 16A-17B, 30-31, and related text).
Claim 20 is directed to substantially similar subject matter as claim 7, but in computer-implemented method form. This claim is similarly rejected for the same reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 21, Modified Spector teaches that updating a temporal pattern comprises changing, by a controller, a duration of an optical emitter responsive to a determination of a distance (Spector: see e.g. at least ¶ 30, 58, 71-72, 109, 116, cl. 24, Fig. 1, 23, 25, and related text; Smits: ¶ 73, 171, 174, 189, 199, 234, 308, 358-365, Fig. 3-4, 13B, 16A-17B, 30-31, and related text).
Regarding claim 22, Modified Spector teaches that updating a temporal pattern comprises changing, by a controller, an order of interrogation of an array of optical emitters responsive to a determination of a distance (Spector: see e.g. at least ¶ 69, Fig. 3, 5, and related text; Smits: ¶ 73, 171, 174, 189, 199, 234, 308, 358-365, Fig. 3-4, 13B, 16A-17B, 30-31, and related text).
Regarding claim 23, Modified Spector teaches producing, by a laser, a light (Spector: e.g. at least transmitter 114, laser, modulated laser 2304, tunable laser 2504, see e.g. at least ¶ 57, 109, 116, Fig. 1, 23, 25, and related text; Smits: see e.g. at least ¶ 77, Fig. 1A-1C, and related text).
Regarding claim 24, Modified Spector teaches that updating a temporal pattern comprises changing, by a controller, a power level of a laser (Smits: see e.g. at least ¶ 131-132, 257, 304, 308-310, 317, Fig. 2A, and related text).
Claim 25 is directed to substantially similar subject matter as claim 7, but in non-transitory computer readable medium and computer-implemented method form. This claim is similarly rejected for the same reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 26, Modified Spector teaches that each portion of one or more portions of a field of view corresponds to at least one optical emitter of an array of optical emitters (Spector: see e.g. at least ¶ 30, 58, 71-72, 109, 116, cl. 24, Fig. 1, 23, 25, and related text; Smits: ¶ 73, 171, 174, 189, 199, 234, 308, 358-365, Fig. 3-4, 13B, 16A-17B, 30-31, and related text).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES J HAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3980. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th and every other F (7:30 AM - 5 PM).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christian Chace can be reached on 571-272-4190. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 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.
/CHARLES J HAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662