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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 8-9 of the remarks, filed 2/17/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made with Raly (US 2019/0271769 A1) in view of Pomerantz (US 2023/0006531 A1).
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 - 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raly (US 2019/0271769 A1) in view of Pomerantz (US 2023/0006531 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Raly discloses a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) device ([0002]: “relates generally to surveying technology for scanning a surrounding environment, and, more specifically, to systems and methods that use LIDAR technology to detect objects in the surrounding environment.”), comprising: at least one illumination source configured to emit illumination light (Figure 1A, element 112; [0007]: “relates generally to surveying technology for scanning a surrounding environment, and, more specifically, to systems and methods that use LIDAR technology to detect objects in the surrounding environment.”); an optical scanning device disposed in an optical path of the at least one illumination source to redirect the illumination light emitted by the at least one illumination source from the LiDAR device into a three-dimensional (3-D) environment (Figure 1A, element 114; [0116]: “Disclosed embodiments may involve pivoting the light deflector in order to scan the field of view. As used herein the term "pivoting" broadly includes rotating of an object (especially a solid object) about one or more axis of rotation, while substantially maintaining a center of rotation fixed.”);
at least one scanning mechanism configured to rotate the optical scanning device about at least one axis (Figure 1A, element 114; [0116]: “Disclosed embodiments may involve pivoting the light deflector in order to scan the field of view. As used herein the term "pivoting" broadly includes rotating of an object (especially a solid object) about one or more axis of rotation, while substantially maintaining a center of rotation fixed.”; [0260]: “For example, in some embodiments, the at least one processor 118 may be configured to control the at least one light deflector 114 such that the at least one light deflector is pivoted in two orthogonal axes or along two substantially perpendicular axes. In other embodiments, the at least one processor 118 may be configured to control the at least one light deflector 114 such that the at least one light deflector is pivoted along two linearly independent axes, which may enable a two-dimensional scan. Such deflector movement may be obtained by any of the techniques described above. Additionally, in some cases, processing unit 108 may control a rotatable motor for steering the at least one light deflector.”); and
at least one controller configured to ([0421]: “Controller 2320 may include light-source controller 2360, but light-source controller 2360 may also be external and/or independent of controller 2320 (e.g. host 230). In the latter case, it is possible that the light-source may be controlled by both controller 2320 and light-source controller 2360. Controller 2320 may optionally be used in order to regulate operation of the emitter 2310, the steering assembly 2330 and the sensor assembly 2340 in a coordinated manner and optionally in accordance with scene segment inspection characteristics ( e.g. based on internal feedback, host information, or other sources)”): determine a desired scan pattern for the LiDAR device ([0196] discusses various scan patterns utilized by the LiDAR system, logically these must be chosen by the controller; Figure 5B graphically depicts the scan patterns); generate at least one drive waveform ([0771]: “According to some embodiments, a scanning device or LIDAR may utilize piezoelectric actuator micro electro mechanical (MEMS) mirror devices for deflecting a laser beam scanning a field of view. Mirror 8206 deflection is a result of voltage potential applied to the piezoelectric element that is built up on actuator 8210.”) corresponding to (i) the desired scan pattern ([0771]: “The actuation drivers including actuation driver 8208 may push forward a signal that causes an electromechanical reaction in actuators 8210-216 which each, in turn is sampled for feedback. The feedback on the actuators' (8210-8216) positions serves as a signal to mirror driver 8224, enabling it to converge efficiently towards the desired position 8, cp set by the controller 8204, correcting a requested value based on a detected actual deflection.”) and (ii) a scan line compression profile of the optical scanning device ([0145]: “Feedback including Ractive may provide information to determine the actual mirror deflection angle compared to an expected angle, and, if needed, mirror 300 deflection may be corrected. The difference between Rrest and Ractive may be correlated by a mirror drive into an angular deflection value that may serve to close the loop.”); and operate the at least one scanning mechanism based on the at least one drive waveform to provide the desired scan pattern ([0771]: “The actuation drivers including actuation driver 8208 may push forward a signal that causes an electromechanical reaction in actuators 8210-216 which each, in turn is sampled for feedback.”; [0771]: “Mirror 8206 deflection is a result of voltage potential applied to the piezoelectric element that is built up on actuator 8210. Mirror 8206 deflection is translated into an angular scanning”).
Raly does not teach and Pomerantz does teach wherein the scan line compression profile ([0373]: “Such distortions result in an undesirable point cloud with a non-uniform resolution, shaped irregularly as opposed to a desired shape.”; [0261]: “The resonant oscillation is faster at the center of the rotation, and slower at the edges, as represented in FIG. 13.”; Non-uniform resolution means that some regions are undesirably compressed. Figures 68-69) of the optical scanning device is calculated from a reflection matrix corresponding to previously determined physical or simulated properties of the optical scanning device to correct for scan line compression ([0172]: “Feedback including Ractive may provide information to determine the actual mirror deflection angle compared to an expected angle, and, if needed, mirror 300 deflection may be corrected.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the actual mirror deflection angle is considered a previously determined physical property of the device and therefore the set of angles can be construed as a reflection matrix.) and wherein the scan line compression profile comprises a mapping of actual versus desired geometric beam positions across the field of view ([0172]: “Feedback including Ractive may provide information to determine the actual mirror deflection angle compared to an expected angle, and, if needed, mirror 300 deflection may be corrected.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the actual mirror deflection angle is considered a previously determined physical property of the device.), and the drive waveform is generated by mathematically inverting this mapping to linearize the spatial scan pattern ([0172]: “This embodiment may be used for dynamic tracking of the actual mirror position and may optimize response, amplitude, deflection efficiency, and frequency for both linear mode and resonant mode MEMS mirror schemes.”; [0373]: “Such distortions result in an undesirable point cloud with a non-uniform resolution, shaped irregularly as opposed to a desired shape. FIG. 65, is an illustration of an undesirable distortion of the scan lines (i.e. the projections of the scanning light beam onto an image plane). In this example, a desirable rectangular projection is distorted into a curved surface.” [0380]: “In another embodiment, the scanning pattern can be pre-distorted in order to compensate for distortions, and a corrected point cloud may be obtained.” The pre-distortion requires that a correction is derived from the known deviations between, for example, the actual vs. desired mirror behavior. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this derivation is taken to be equivalent to a mathematical inversion. [0388] discloses that the pre-distorted scan pattern is applied to the actuators controlling the scanner, therefore, a waveform must be applied to this device.) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LiDAR device of Raly with the teaching to correct a scan profile by the method of Pomerantz. Pomerantz notes in [0262] that “more uniform resolution potential may be desirable,” and in [0288] that “maintaining a uniform velocity throughout the entire range of motion of the oscillator provides better results.” Implementing would therefore be advantageous to the user wishing to have more uniform sampling across the field of view, which can simplify interpretation and processing in downstream data analysis steps.
Regarding Claim 2, Raly further discloses wherein the at least one controller, in operating the at least one scanning mechanism, is configured to control (i) a first scanning mechanism configured to rotate the optical scanning device about a first axis to deflect the illumination light in a first scan direction and (ii) a second scanning mechanism configured to rotate the optical scanning device about a second axis to deflect the illumination light in a second scan direction, the second axis being orthogonal to the first axis. ([0260]: “For example, in some embodiments, the at least one processor 118 may be configured to control the at least one light deflector 114 such that the at least one light deflector is pivoted in two orthogonal axes or along two substantially perpendicular axes.”)
Regarding Claim 3, Raly discloses all the limitations of Claim 2 as discussed in the analysis above. Figure 32C discloses that the LiDAR device of Raly does measure the two-axis angular deflection of the scanning mirrors, as evidenced by the position feedback mechanisms (Figure 32C, element 3256; [0576]). Raly further discloses in [0576] that “sensors 3228 (e.g. FIG. 32B) may be used to obtain data indicative of position, orientation, velocity or acceleration of the at least one light deflector.” During the scan, the device therefore gathers angle measurements over the scan range in the first scan direction.
However, Raly does not explicitly state that the measurements are represented as a percentage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to represent the compression profile of the scanner as a deflection percentage. It is common in the field of art to present a measurement, especially if it has a fixed, defined operational range, as a percentage. Representing a measurement value as a percent, which is known to be in a limited operational range, does not involve an inventive step.
Regarding Claim 4, Raly further teaches representing an actual amount of deflection provided by the optical scanning device in the second scan direction relative to a desired amount of deflection to be provided by the optical scanning device in the second direction ([0145]: “Feedback including Ractive may provide information to determine the actual mirror deflection angle compared to an expected angle, and, if needed, mirror 300 deflection may be corrected. The difference between Rrest and Ractive may be correlated by a mirror drive into an angular deflection value that may serve to close the loop.”; [0591]: “The resistivity of the semiconductor layer 3243 may be measured in an active stage (denoted "Ractive" in the diagram) when the mirror is deflected at a certain angular position and compared to the resistivity at a resting state (Rrest). A feedback including Ractive may provide information to measure/determine the actual mirror deflection angle compared to an expected angle. Based on this information, if there is a difference between the expected angle/orientation/position of mirror 3236, then actuator 3240 may be controlled in order to alter the angle/orientation/position of mirror 3236 in conformance with what is expected.”)
However, Raly does not explicitly teach representing the deflection as a percentage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to represent the compression profile of the scanner as a deflection percentage. It is common in the field of art to present a measurement, especially if it has a fixed, defined operational range, as a percentage. Representing a measurement value as a percent, which is known to be in a limited operational range, does not involve an inventive step.
Regarding Claim 5, Raly further teaches wherein the at least one drive waveform is configured to compensate for differences between the desired amount of deflection and the actual amount of deflection to provide the desired scan pattern. ([0590]: “When processor 118 causes mirror 3236 to be moved ( e.g., between dwell times at different instantaneous locations), if processor 118 observes signals from the position feedback sensor that are not consistent with signals expected for the proscribed movement, then processor 118 may issue position control signals to at least one actuator of mirror 3236, in response to the signals of the position feedback sensor. It will be clear to a person of skill in the art that such position control signals may also be issued by processor 118 to any other type of light deflector 114”).
Regarding Claim 6, which depends from rejected Claim 3, Raly further teaches wherein the scan line compression profile of the optical scanning device provides an indication of at least one geometrically compressed region in a field of view of the LiDAR device ([0145]: “When the piezoelectric material is activated it exerts force on actuator 302 and causes it to bend.” And [0771]: “The actuation drivers including actuation driver 8208 may push forward a signal that causes an electromechanical reaction in actuators 8210-216 which each, in turn is sampled for feedback. The feedback on the actuators' (8210-8216) positions serves as a signal to mirror driver 8224, enabling it to converge efficiently towards the desired position 8, cp set by the controller 8204, correcting a requested value based on a detected actual deflection.”) Taken together, these indicate that the feedback information covers the scan region and that a comparison between the actual mirror deflection angle and the expected angle occurs, and therefore that the measured offset of angle indicates a geometrically compressed region.
Regarding Claim 7, which depends from rejected Claim 6, the teaching that the at least one geometrically compressed region corresponds to at least one portion of the optical scan range in the first scan direction is inherent in the device of Raly. Raly teaches that the pulse width of emitted light may be short ([0218]: “a pulse width of between about 2 ns and about 100 ns.”), meaning that the field of view in pulsed operation is illuminated by discrete spots. Therefore the angle and deviation measurements in the first and second scan directions will correspond to each other. Thus the scan compression profile will correspond to a region of the field of view, and as well to any deviation therein.
Regarding Claim 8, which depends from rejected Claim 6, Raly further teaches wherein the at least one drive waveform is configured to adjust an amount of deflection provided by the optical scanning device in the second scan direction at a variable rate based on the scan line compression profile. ([0771]: Mirror 8206 deflection is translated into an angular scanning pattern that may not behave in a linear fashion, for a certain voltage level actuator 8210 does not translate to a constant displacement value. A scanning LID AR system ( e.g., LID AR system 100) where the field of view dimensions are deterministic and repeatable across different devices is optimally realized using a closed loop method that provides an angular deflection feedback from position feedback and sensor 8226 to mirror driver 8224 and/or controller 8204.) The feedback implemented in the mirror control system necessarily bases the amount of mirror deflection on the scan line compression profile, which it is noted above may not behave linearly.
Regarding Claim 9, Raly further teaches wherein the at least one drive waveform is configured to adjust the amount of deflection provided by the optical scanning device in the second scan direction at a non-linear rate over the at least one geometrically compressed region. ([0771]: Mirror 8206 deflection is translated into an angular scanning pattern that may not behave in a linear fashion, for a certain voltage level actuator 8210 does not translate to a constant displacement value. A scanning LID AR system ( e.g., LID AR system 100) where the field of view dimensions are deterministic and repeatable across different devices is optimally realized using a closed loop method that provides an angular deflection feedback from position feedback and sensor 8226 to mirror driver 8224 and/or controller 8204.) Furthermore, Figure 32C shows that there are multiple feedback sensors covering both axes of the scanning mirrors, thereby providing non-linear control along the second scan axis as well.
Regarding Claim 10, which depends from rejected Claim 8, Raly further teaches wherein the at least one drive waveform is configured to adjust the amount of deflection provided by the optical scanning device in the second scan direction at a substantially linear rate outside of the at least one geometrically compressed region. ([0771]: Mirror 8206 deflection is translated into an angular scanning pattern that may not behave in a linear fashion, for a certain voltage level actuator 8210 does not translate to a constant displacement value. A scanning LID AR system ( e.g., LID AR system 100) where the field of view dimensions are deterministic and repeatable across different devices is optimally realized using a closed loop method that provides an angular deflection feedback from position feedback and sensor 8226 to mirror driver 8224 and/or controller 8204.) In contrast to Claim 9, if the position feedback and sensor indicate that the angle deflection is low or zero, as in the area outside the geometrically compressed region, then the mirror driver will control the second scan direction at a substantially linear rate.
Regarding Claim 11, Raly discloses a method of operating a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) device ([0002]: “relates generally to surveying technology for scanning a surrounding environment, and, more specifically, to systems and methods that use LIDAR technology to detect objects in the surrounding environment.”), the method comprising: determining a desired scan pattern for the LiDAR device ([0196] discusses various scan patterns utilized by the LiDAR system, logically these must be chosen by the controller; Figure 5B graphically depicts the scan patterns); emitting illumination light from at least one illumination source (Figure 1A, element 112; [0007]: “relates generally to surveying technology for scanning a surrounding environment, and, more specifically, to systems and methods that use LIDAR technology to detect objects in the surrounding environment.”); generating at least one drive waveform ([0771]: “According to some embodiments, a scanning device or LIDAR may utilize piezoelectric actuator micro electro mechanical (MEMS) mirror devices for deflecting a laser beam scanning a field of view. Mirror 8206 deflection is a result of voltage potential applied to the piezoelectric element that is built up on actuator 8210.”) corresponding to (i) the desired scan pattern ([0771]: “The actuation drivers including actuation driver 8208 may push forward a signal that causes an electromechanical reaction in actuators 8210-216 which each, in turn is sampled for feedback. The feedback on the actuators' (8210-8216) positions serves as a signal to mirror driver 8224, enabling it to converge efficiently towards the desired position 8, cp set by the controller 8204, correcting a requested value based on a detected actual deflection.”) and (ii) a scan line compression profile of an optical scanning device ([0145]: “Feedback including Ractive may provide information to determine the actual mirror deflection angle compared to an expected angle, and, if needed, mirror 300 deflection may be corrected. The difference between Rrest and Ractive may be correlated by a mirror drive into an angular deflection value that may serve to close the loop.”) disposed in an optical path of the at least one illumination source (Figure 1B, element 114), the optical scanning device being configured to redirect the illumination light emitted by the at least one illumination source from the LiDAR device into a three-dimensional (3-D) environment (Figure 1A, element 114; [0116]: “Disclosed embodiments may involve pivoting the light deflector in order to scan the field of view. As used herein the term "pivoting" broadly includes rotating of an object (especially a solid object) about one or more axis of rotation, while substantially maintaining a center of rotation fixed.”); and
controlling at least one scanning mechanism based on the at least one drive waveform , the at least one scanning mechanism being configured to rotate the optical scanning device about at least one axis to provide the desired scan pattern ([0771]: “The actuation drivers including actuation driver 8208 may push forward a signal that causes an electromechanical reaction in actuators 8210-216 which each, in turn is sampled for feedback.”; [0771]: “Mirror 8206 deflection is a result of voltage potential applied to the piezoelectric element that is built up on actuator 8210. Mirror 8206 deflection is translated into an angular scanning”).
Raly does not teach and Pomerantz does teach wherein the scan line compression profile ([0373]: “Such distortions result in an undesirable point cloud with a non-uniform resolution, shaped irregularly as opposed to a desired shape.”; [0261]: “The resonant oscillation is faster at the center of the rotation, and slower at the edges, as represented in FIG. 13.”; Non-uniform resolution means that some regions are undesirably compressed. Figures 68-69) of the optical scanning device is calculated from a reflection matrix corresponding to previously determined physical or simulated properties of the optical scanning device to correct for scan line compression ([0172]: “Feedback including Ractive may provide information to determine the actual mirror deflection angle compared to an expected angle, and, if needed, mirror 300 deflection may be corrected.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the actual mirror deflection angle is considered a previously determined physical property of the device and therefore the set of angles can be construed as a reflection matrix.) and wherein the scan line compression profile comprises a mapping of actual versus desired geometric beam positions across the field of view ([0172]: “Feedback including Ractive may provide information to determine the actual mirror deflection angle compared to an expected angle, and, if needed, mirror 300 deflection may be corrected.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the actual mirror deflection angle is considered a previously determined physical property of the device.), and the drive waveform is generated by mathematically inverting this mapping to linearize the spatial scan pattern ([0172]: “This embodiment may be used for dynamic tracking of the actual mirror position and may optimize response, amplitude, deflection efficiency, and frequency for both linear mode and resonant mode MEMS mirror schemes.”; [0373]: “Such distortions result in an undesirable point cloud with a non-uniform resolution, shaped irregularly as opposed to a desired shape. FIG. 65, is an illustration of an undesirable distortion of the scan lines (i.e. the projections of the scanning light beam onto an image plane). In this example, a desirable rectangular projection is distorted into a curved surface.” [0380]: “In another embodiment, the scanning pattern can be pre-distorted in order to compensate for distortions, and a corrected point cloud may be obtained.” The pre-distortion requires that a correction is derived from the known deviations between, for example, the actual vs. desired mirror behavior. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this derivation is taken to be equivalent to a mathematical inversion. [0388] discloses that the pre-distorted scan pattern is applied to the actuators controlling the scanner, therefore, a waveform must be applied to this device.) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LiDAR device of Raly with the teaching to correct a scan profile by the method of Pomerantz. Pomerantz notes in [0262] that “more uniform resolution potential may be desirable,” and in [0288] that “maintaining a uniform velocity throughout the entire range of motion of the oscillator provides better results.” Implementing would therefore be advantageous to the user wishing to have more uniform sampling across the field of view, which can simplify interpretation and processing in downstream data analysis steps.
Regarding Claim 12, Raly further discloses wherein controlling the at least one scanning mechanism comprises controlling (i) a first scanning mechanism configured to rotate the optical scanning device about a first axis to deflect the illumination light in a first scan direction and (ii) a second scanning mechanism configured to rotate the optical scanning device about a second axis to deflect the illumination light in a second scan direction, the second axis being orthogonal to the first axis ([0260]: “For example, in some embodiments, the at least one processor 118 may be configured to control the at least one light deflector 114 such that the at least one light deflector is pivoted in two orthogonal axes or along two substantially perpendicular axes.”).
Regarding Claim 13, Raly discloses all the limitations of Claim 12 as discussed in the analysis above. Figure 32C discloses that the LiDAR device of Raly does measure the two-axis angular deflection of the scanning mirrors, as evidenced by the position feedback mechanisms (Figure 32C, element 3256; [0576]). Raly further discloses in [0576] that “sensors 3228 (e.g. FIG. 32B) may be used to obtain data indicative of position, orientation, velocity or acceleration of the at least one light deflector.” During the scan, the device therefore gathers angle measurements over the scan range in the first scan direction.
However, Raly does not explicitly state that the measurements are represented as a percentage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to represent the compression profile of the scanner as a deflection percentage. It is common in the field of art to present a measurement, especially if it has a fixed, defined operational range, as a percentage. Representing a measurement value, which is known to be in a limited operational range, as a percent does not involve an inventive step.
Regarding Claim 14, which depends from rejected Claim 13, Raly further teaches representing an actual amount of deflection provided by the optical scanning device in the second scan direction relative to a desired amount of deflection to be provided by the optical scanning device in the second direction ([0145]: “Feedback including Ractive may provide information to determine the actual mirror deflection angle compared to an expected angle, and, if needed, mirror 300 deflection may be corrected. The difference between Rrest and Ractive may be correlated by a mirror drive into an angular deflection value that may serve to close the loop.”; [0591]: “The resistivity of the semiconductor layer 3243 may be measured in an active stage (denoted "Ractive" in the diagram) when the mirror is deflected at a certain angular position and compared to the resistivity at a resting state (Rrest). A feedback including Ractive may provide information to measure/determine the actual mirror deflection angle compared to an expected angle. Based on this information, if there is a difference between the expected angle/orientation/position of mirror 3236, then actuator 3240 may be controlled in order to alter the angle/orientation/position of mirror 3236 in conformance with what is expected.”)
However, Raly does not explicitly teach representing the deflection as a percentage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to represent the compression profile of the scanner as a deflection percentage. It is common in the field of art to present a measurement, especially if it has a fixed, defined operational range, as a percentage. Representing a measurement value as a percent, which is known to be in a limited operational range, does not involve an inventive step.
Regarding Claim 15, which depends from rejected Claim 14, Raly further teaches wherein the at least one drive waveform is configured to compensate for differences between the desired amount of deflection and the actual amount of deflection to provide the desired scan pattern. ([0590]: “When processor 118 causes mirror 3236 to be moved ( e.g., between dwell times at different instantaneous locations), if processor 118 observes signals from the position feedback sensor that are not consistent with signals expected for the proscribed movement, then processor 118 may issue position control signals to at least one actuator of mirror 3236, in response to the signals of the position feedback sensor. It will be clear to a person of skill in the art that such position control signals may also be issued by processor 118 to any other type of light deflector 114”).
Regarding Claim 16, which depends from rejected Claim 13, Raly further teaches wherein the scan line compression profile of the optical scanning device provides an indication of at least one geometrically compressed region in a field of view of the LiDAR device ([0145]: “When the piezoelectric material is activated it exerts force on actuator 302 and causes it to bend.” And [0771]: “The actuation drivers including actuation driver 8208 may push forward a signal that causes an electromechanical reaction in actuators 8210-216 which each, in turn is sampled for feedback. The feedback on the actuators' (8210-8216) positions serves as a signal to mirror driver 8224, enabling it to converge efficiently towards the desired position 8, cp set by the controller 8204, correcting a requested value based on a detected actual deflection.”) Taken together, these indicate that the feedback information covers the scan region and that a comparison between the actual mirror deflection angle and the expected angle occurs, and therefore that the measured offset of angle indicates a geometrically compressed region.
Regarding Claim 17, which depends from rejected Claim 16, the teaching that the at least one geometrically compressed region corresponds to at least one portion of the optical scan range in the first scan direction is inherent in the device of Raly. Raly teaches that the pulse width of emitted light may be short ([0218]: “a pulse width of between about 2 ns and about 100 ns.”), meaning that the field of view in pulsed operation is illuminated by discrete spots. Therefore the angle and deviation measurements in the first and second scan directions will correspond to each other. Thus the scan compression profile will correspond to a region of the field of view, and as well to any deviation therein.
Regarding Claim 18, which depends from rejected Claim 16, Raly further teaches wherein the at least one drive waveform is configured to adjust an amount of deflection provided by the optical scanning device in the second scan direction at a variable rate based on the scan line compression profile. ([0771]: Mirror 8206 deflection is translated into an angular scanning pattern that may not behave in a linear fashion, for a certain voltage level actuator 8210 does not translate to a constant displacement value. A scanning LID AR system ( e.g., LID AR system 100) where the field of view dimensions are deterministic and repeatable across different devices is optimally realized using a closed loop method that provides an angular deflection feedback from position feedback and sensor 8226 to mirror driver 8224 and/or controller 8204.) The feedback implemented in the mirror control system necessarily bases the amount of mirror deflection on the scan line compression profile, which it is noted above may not behave linearly.
Regarding Claim 19, which depends from rejected Claim 18, Raly further teaches wherein the at least one drive waveform is configured to adjust the amount of deflection provided by the optical scanning device in the second scan direction at a non-linear rate over the at least one geometrically compressed region. ([0771]: Mirror 8206 deflection is translated into an angular scanning pattern that may not behave in a linear fashion, for a certain voltage level actuator 8210 does not translate to a constant displacement value. A scanning LID AR system ( e.g., LID AR system 100) where the field of view dimensions are deterministic and repeatable across different devices is optimally realized using a closed loop method that provides an angular deflection feedback from position feedback and sensor 8226 to mirror driver 8224 and/or controller 8204.) Furthermore, Figure 32C shows that there are multiple feedback sensors covering both axes of the scanning mirrors, thereby providing non-linear control along the second scan axis as well.
Regarding Claim 20, which depends from rejected Claim 18, Raly further teaches wherein the at least one drive waveform is configured to adjust the amount of deflection provided by the optical scanning device in the second scan direction at a substantially linear rate outside of the at least one geometrically compressed region. ([0771]: Mirror 8206 deflection is translated into an angular scanning pattern that may not behave in a linear fashion, for a certain voltage level actuator 8210 does not translate to a constant displacement value. A scanning LID AR system ( e.g., LID AR system 100) where the field of view dimensions are deterministic and repeatable across different devices is optimally realized using a closed loop method that provides an angular deflection feedback from position feedback and sensor 8226 to mirror driver 8224 and/or controller 8204.) In contrast to Claim 9, if the position feedback and sensor indicate that the angle deflection is low or zero, as in the area outside the geometrically compressed region, then the mirror driver will control the second scan direction at a substantially linear rate.
Regarding Claim 21, Raly discloses a vehicle ([0122]: “Consistent with the present disclosure, LIDAR system 100 may be used in autonomous or semi-autonomous road-vehicles (for example, cars, buses, vans, trucks and any other terrestrial vehicle). Autonomous road-vehicles with LIDAR system 100 may scan their environment and drive to a destination vehicle without human input. Similarly, LIDAR system 100 may also be used in autonomous/semiautonomous aerial-vehicles (for example, UAV, drones, quadcopters, and any other airborne vehicle or device); or in an autonomous or semi-autonomous water vessel (e.g., boat, ship, submarine, or any other watercraft).”, comprising: at least one LIDAR device of Claim 1, wherein each LIDAR device is configured to provide navigation and/or mapping for the vehicle and is disposed in an interior of the vehicle and/or on an exterior of the vehicle ([0003]: “With the advent of driver assist systems and autonomous vehicles, automobiles need to be equipped with systems capable of reliably sensing and interpreting their surroundings, including identifying obstacles, hazards, objects, and other physical parameters that might impact navigation of the vehicle. To this end, a number of differing technologies have been suggested including radar, LIDAR, camera-based systems, operating alone or in a redundant manner.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Del Gaizo (US 2022/0120945A1) discloses an optical mirror assembly and feedback sensor which allows for precise control and correction of mirror orientation in LiDAR applications.
Chen (CN 103543526A) discloses a control system for an array of mirrors in a LiDAR system which allows for compensation and correction of deviations in real time.
Campbell (US 2019/0107623) discloses a LiDAR system with a control system capable of adjusting the scan pattern of the system independently in the horizontal and vertical directions.
Druml (US 2023/0051926 A1) discloses a LiDAR system which uses a lookup table to compensate for phase errors of mirror oscillations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN WADE CLOUSER whose telephone number is (571)272-0378. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5:00.
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, ISAM ALSOMIRI can be reached at (571) 272-6970. 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.
/B.W.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645