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 .
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and examined below.
Response to amendment
This is a Final Office action in response to applicant's remarks/arguments filed on 02/26/2026.
Status of the claims:
Claims 1, 3, 8, and 10 have been amended.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 6-10, filed 02/26/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-15 under 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that Pacala and Kim fail to disclose or suggest:“a Lidar controller for detecting a jitter time from the rotation period of the motor detected by the encoder, creating a histogram including a mode of a jitter time, and performing optical output control, based on the histogram, at a time point of the rotation period of the motor, a time point at which the rotation period of the motor is compensated by the mode of the jitter time, or a time point at which the rotation period of the motor is compensated by an ideal mode of the jitter time...” and Pacala paragraphs [0006] and [0099] do not teach that limitation, and that Kim does not cure the deficiency.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
First, Applicant’s argument appears to read the quoted limitation as though both recited timing-compensation alternatives must be shown. Claim 1 is written in the alternative, reciting compensation by the mode of the jitter time, or compensation by an ideal mode of the jitter time. Thus, the rejection need only show or render obvious one of the two alternatives.
Second, the rejection does not rely on Pacala alone. The rejection is based on the combined teachings of Pacala and Kim. The Office action relies on Pacala for histogram-based jitter analysis and optical-output timing control, and on Kim for encoder-based motor-rotation detection in a LiDAR scanner. The Office action further states that it would have been obvious to combine Pacala’s jitter-analysis and histogram-based timing-compensation techniques with Kim’s motor/encoder-based LiDAR architecture to improve timing accuracy and synchronization during LiDAR scanning.
As to the first recited alternative, Pacala teaches a LiDAR timing-control framework using per-shot jitter, a histogram accumulated over multiple shots/time bins, and analysis of that histogram to adapt timing behavior. Pacala explains that the LiDAR system can collect histogram data for a ranging cycle, analyze the histogram, identify peak time bins, and adaptively modify per-shot jitter or otherwise modify operation in response to the histogram analysis. Pacala also teaches identifying the highest peak bin / main peak from histogram data. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, such histogram analysis teaches a histogram including a representative or most-frequent timing value corresponding to a mode.
Kim teaches the missing motor-rotation timing reference. Kim discloses a LiDAR sensor/control method having a magnet, sensor unit (e.g., Hall sensor), motor driving unit, rotating mirror, and control unit. Kim’s Fig. 5 (Col 6: lines 39-67) shows a motor rotation reference signal and scan signal, and Kim teaches determining scan angle based on rotational velocity and time from a reference position where the magnet is attached. Thus, Kim teaches using encoder-like motor-rotation timing in the LiDAR scanner to control scan timing.
Accordingly, Pacala teaches the histogram-based jitter timing compensation, and Kim teaches the LiDAR motor-rotation reference from which the relevant scan timing is derived. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply Pacala’s histogram-derived jitter timing compensation at time points referenced to Kim’s motor rotation period because both references address timing control in LiDAR operation, and the combination would have predictably improved synchronization between optical output and scan position. The Office action’s articulated rationale therefore remains sound.
Applicant’s further contention that Pacala paragraphs [0006] and [0099] do not alone disclose the entire quoted limitation is also not persuasive because obviousness is determined from the combined teachings of the references, not from one reference in isolation where the rejection relies on multiple references. Here, Kim supplies the motor-rotation/encoder aspect that Applicant says is missing from Pacala, while Pacala supplies the histogram/jitter-based timing compensation.
For at least these reasons, the rejection of claim 1 is maintained.
Applicant indicates that arguments similar to those made for claim 1 apply, mutatis mutandis, to claim 8.
This argument is not persuasive for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Applicant argues that if independent claims 1 and 8 are nonobvious, then dependent claims 2-7 and 9-15 are likewise nonobvious.
This argument is not persuasive because Applicant has not established that independent claims 1 and 8 are patentable over the applied prior art. Since the arguments as to claims 1 and 8 are not persuasive, the rejection of dependent claims 2-7 and 9-15 is maintained.
For these reasons cited above, the rejection of claims 1-15 is maintained.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angus Pacala (WO 2020223561 A1, “Pacala”) in view of Kim et al. (US 11624808 B2, “Kim”).
Regarding claim 1, Pacala teaches a timing compensation device for an optical output signal of a Lidar, comprising:
creating a histogram including a mode of a jitter time (Para 44 “memory 224 … accumulate counts … these time bins … such a time-series … referred to herein as an intensity histogram (or just histogram).”), and
performing optical output control based on the histogram (Para 6 and 99 “processor 222 … analyze the histogram … and adaptively modify the per-shot jitter …”. Pacala further teaches modifying operation at block 1210/1206 after histogram analysis, including adding jitter and changing emitted pulse characteristics, thereby controlling optical output based on the histogram. (Figs. 10-12; at least para 99-102)); and
a light transmitter for outputting laser light to the scanner according to the optical output control of the Lidar controller (Para 37 “light transmission (Tx) module 206 … emitter array 214 … light emission system 238 … determining when a light pulse should be transmitted …”).
Pacala fails to explicitly teach an encoder for detecting a rotation period of a motor provided in a scanner;
a Lidar controller for detecting a jitter time from the rotation period of the motor detected by the encoder,
at a time point of the rotation period of the motor, a time point at which the rotation period of the motor is compensated by the mode of the jitter time, or a time point at which the rotation period of the motor is compensated by an ideal mode of the jitter time, wherein the ideal mode is a design time interval obtained when the magnets of the encoder are ideally arranged.
However, Kim teaches an encoder for detecting a rotation period of a motor provided in a scanner (Col 5: lines 22-26);
a Lidar controller for detecting a jitter time from the rotation period of the motor detected by the encoder (col 7: lines 26-30),
at a time point of the rotation period of the motor (Kim teaches optical scan/output timing referenced to the motor rotation period. Kim discloses the control unit calculating the scan angle based on rotational velocity and time from a reference position where the magnet is attached, and controlling laser emission/scan in accordance with that motor rotational timing (Figs. 5-6, Col 6: line 39 and col 7: line 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the jitter-analysis and histogram-based timing-compensation techniques of Pacala with the motor-and-encoder-based LiDAR architecture of Kim in order to improve timing accuracy and synchronization during LiDAR scanning.
Pacala in view of Kim teaches at a time point of the rotation period of the motor, a time point at which the rotation period of the motor is compensated by the mode of the jitter time (Pacala teaches compensation/control of LiDAR timing by a representative jitter value derived from histogram analysis, while Kim teaches that the relevant timing reference is the motor rotation period in the scanner. Combining the teachings, optical output would be performed at a motor-rotation time point compensated by the histogram-derived representative jitter value. Pacala’s adaptive per-shot jitter selection/modification based on histogram analysis provides the compensation component, and Kim provides the motor-rotation timing reference to which that compensation is applied. See Pacala Figs. 10-12; at least para 99-102; Kim Figs. 5-6, Col 6: line 39 and col 7: line 6),
Regarding claim 2, Pacala, in view of Kim, teaches the timing compensation device of claim 1, wherein the encoder comprises
a first Hall sensor and a second Hall sensor (Kim, col 6: lines 5-11, “a magnet 204 may be formed … and a hall sensor 203 may be formed …”), and
wherein the Lidar controller receives signals of the first Hall sensor and the second Hall sensor and detects the rotation period and jitter time of the motor (Kim, col 6: lines 55-59, “calculate an angle … based on a rotational velocity and time from a reference position where the magnet is attached”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the encoder and dual-Hall-sensor rotation-period detection structure of Kim with the jitter-analysis and timing-compensation techniques taught by Pacala, in order to accurately determine the rotation period and timing jitter of the LiDAR motor.
Regarding claim 3, Pacala, in view of Kim, teaches the timing compensation device of claim 2, wherein the Lidar controller comprises a first timer for storing a clock synchronized with edges of signals of the first Hall sensor and the second Hall sensor (Kim, col 6: lines 55-59; Col 7: lines 52-59. Hall sensor referencing magnet and angle calculation implies timing capture of Hall edges (controller measures time from reference position…).), and
a second timer for storing the clock with the mode or the ideal mode of the jitter time (Pacala, para 5 and claim 5 “second memory circuit can store a master jitter sequence … and the timing controller can be further configured …”).
Regarding claim 4, Pacala, in view of Kim, teaches the timing compensation device of claim 3, wherein the Lidar controller performs optical output control (Pacala, para 6 and 99 “…. adaptively modify the per-shot jitter …”)) in synchronization with the clock of the first timer (Kim, (col 6: lines 55-59; Col 7: lines 52-59 “calculate….time from a reference position…”) when the jitter time detected from the signals of the first Hall sensor and the second Hall sensor is within a jitter tolerance range (Pacala, para 5, 82, claims 2-3 “Per-shot jitter…selected within a predefined range (e.g., up to 20%.....”).
Regarding claim 5, Pacala, in view of Kim, teaches the timing compensation device of claim 4, wherein the Lidar controller sets a jitter time to the jitter tolerance range (Pacala, para 6 and 99 “processor 222 … analyze the histogram … and adaptively modify the per-shot jitter …” The processor modifies the jitter based on the analysis — this corresponds to “set the jitter time … to the jitter tolerance range) when the accumulated number of jitter times (Pacala, para 4 and 41 “... the timing controller can be configured to generate a sequence of trigger pulses … and can be further configured to apply a per-shot jitter …”. Pacala teaches that many pulses are generated and that per-shot jitter is applied. The implication of a “sequence” means multiple jitter times are collected.) is greater than or equal to a predefined value (Pacala, para 4 and claim 1, “a first memory circuit configured to accumulate the histogram across the plurality of shots”. Also, as described at least in para 44, Pacala applies timing correction only after the histogram contains enough jitter samples to produce a meaningful statistical mode. Before this threshold is met, the controller does not adjust timing; after it is met, it does. This matches the claimed conditional behavior.).
Regarding claim 6, Pacala, in view of Kim, teaches the timing compensation device of claim 4, wherein the Lidar controller identifies whether the mode of the jitter time is out of a mode tolerance range (Pacala, para 5, 82, claims 2-3 “Per-shot jitter…selected within a predefined range (e.g., up to 20%....”. If jitter values may be selected within a range, then values outside that range = out of tolerance. Pacala, in para 4 and claim 1, also teaches “a first memory circuit configured to accumulate the histogram across the plurality of shots” and in para 6 and 99 “processor 222 … analyze the histogram … and adaptively modify the per-shot jitter …”). A histogram inherently includes: bins, frequencies, a mode (highest-occurring jitter value) so analyzing the histogram includes checking if the mode is acceptable (“within tolerance”) or requires correction.)
when the jitter time detected in the signals of the first Hall sensor and the second Hall sensor is out of the jitter tolerance range (Kim, col 7: lines 55-59 “The control unit 230 may calculate the angle at which the driving motor or the rotating mirror is rotated, based on rotational velocity and time from a reference position where the magnet is attached...” Hall-sensor edge timing → rotation-period measurements → timing jitter.),
performs optical output control in synchronization with the clock of the second timer for storing the clock synchronized with edges of signals of the first Hall sensor and the second Hall sensor and the mode of jitter time, when the mode of the jitter time is within the mode tolerance range (Kim, col 7: lines 55-59 teaches Hall sensor edge timing “Time from a reference position where the magnet is attached…”and Pacala. para 6 and 99 timing control based on jitter mode “adaptively modify the per-shot jitter…”. When jitter is within tolerance, Pacala uses the mode-based jitter timing (normal operation). Thus: “clock of the second timer” → Hall-sensor timing (Kim) and “mode of jitter time” → jitter mode derived from histogram (Pacala)), and
performs optical output control in synchronization with the clock of the second timer for storing the clock synchronized with edges of signals of the first Hall sensor and the second Hall sensor and the ideal mode of jitter time, when the mode of the jitter time is out of a mode tolerance range (When jitter or histogram indicates undesirable timing behavior, Pacala switches to alternative idealized timing. Pacala para 6 and 99 “adaptively modify the per-shot jitter…” “Modify” → adjust timing away from the jitter pattern → equivalent to fallback ideal-mode timing.).
Regarding claim 7, Pacala, in view of Kim, teaches the timing compensation device of claim 3, wherein the Lidar controller creates the histogram (Pacala, teaches creating a histogram of timing values in para 4 and claim 1, “a first memory circuit configured to accumulate the histogram across the plurality of shots” and para 6 and 99 “processor 222 … analyze the histogram … Pacala’s controller builds and maintains a histogram of timing-related measurements, satisfying “creates the histogram.”), when the number of pulses of the first timer is greater than or equal to a set value (Pacala, teaches accumulation threshold before histogram analysis in para 4 and claim 1, “a first memory circuit configured to accumulate the histogram across the plurality of shots” and para 6 and 99 “A processor is configured to analyze the histogram…”. Analysis requires accumulation → a set value threshold. One of ordinary skill in the art would know a histogram generation requires a minimum number of pulses / shots before creating a histogram. This is directly analogous to the claim’s “set value.”).
Regarding claim 8, Pacala teaches a method for compensating for timing for an optical output signal of a Lidar, comprising the steps of:
a) setting a jitter tolerance range and a mode tolerance range in a controller (Para 5, 82, claims 2-3, “Per-shot jitter can be selected in various ways, e.g., using equal-energy sampling techniques. Jitter values can be selected within a predefined range (e.g., up to 20%, 50%, 100%, 120% or some other fraction of a total number of time bins in the histogram)” and uses thresholds and statistics to distinguish peaks and noise in a histogram, para 88-91 “Process 1000 can identify time bin(s) corresponding to the highest peak in the histogram…” and then compute statistics and determine whether differences are “significant,” based on thresholds like “one standard deviation… two standard deviations… or some other threshold.” );
Pacala fails to explicitly teach b) detecting a jitter time from a rotation period of a motor provided in a scanner detected by an encoder;
c) creating a histogram including a jitter time mode within the rotation period of the motor; and
d) performing optical output control, based on the histogram, at a time point of the rotation period of the motor, a time point at which the rotation period of the motor is compensated by the mode of the jitter time, or a time point at which the rotation period of the motor is compensated by an ideal mode of the jitter time, wherein the ideal mode is a design time interval obtained when the magnets of the encoder are ideally arranged.
Pacala describes per-shot jitter as a time offset for each shot, used in the timing controller that generates trigger pulses (Para 8, 41 and claim 2). Pacala does not tie jitter directly to motor rotation. However, Kim teaches a motor and rotation detection (magnet + Hall, functionally equivalent to encoder) (col 2: lines 14-21 “…a rotating shaft of the driving motor may be connected to the bottom of a backing surface … a magnet may be formed … and a hall sensor may be formed at the bottom surface of the lidar sensor, in response to the position where the magnet is formed.” and col 6: lines 25-31 “In the present embodiment, a rotation of the rotating mirror 201 or the driving motor 202 may be detected through the magnet 204 and the hall sensor 203 in place of the encoder 104 and the encoder detector 103.”) and rotation vs time (Col 6: lines 55-59 “By rotating the driving motor 202 at a designated velocity, the control unit 230 may calculate the angle at which the driving motor 202 or the rotating mirror 201 is rotated, based on a rotational velocity and time from a reference position…” ).
Pacala gives jitter values in the timing domain; Kim gives rotation period vs time via the motor/Hall sensor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to compute jitter time as the deviation between measured rotation period (from Kim) and an ideal period, then feed that as per-shot jitter into Pacala’s timing controller.
Pacala, in view of Kim, teaches c) creating a histogram including a jitter time mode within the rotation period of the motor (Pacala teaches histograms vs time (para 4 and 51 “…to generate, responsive to the trigger pulse, a histogram of received light intensity as a function of time for a sequence of time bins. … The histogram can be accumulated across the plurality of shots” then describes accumulating histograms and identifying the main peak (para 4, 88 “The histogram can be accumulated across all of the shots…”; “…process 1000 can identify time bin(s) corresponding to the highest peak in the histogram, e.g., the peak time bin… for which the number of photons exceeds a threshold.”)). That “time bin with the highest peak” is effectively a mode of the histogram. Pacala’s histograms are built for each shot (within a scanning cycle), which occurs during a rotation of the scanner.) and Kim provides the rotating mirror and driving motor context (so the histogram can be understood as being accumulated across shots during a rotation period). So, Pacala teaches histogram + peak time bin (mode) and Kim the mechanical scan period. By Combining Pacala and Kim: the system creates a histogram of per-shot timing/light over a rotation period and identifies the mode of timing within that period, which satisfies “creating a histogram including a jitter time mode within the rotation period of the motor”); and
d) performing optical output control, based on the histogram.
Pacala teaches a Timing controller applies per-shot jitter and can adaptively modify its behavior based on histogram analysis (Para 6, 41, 86, 99 and claim 8 “…the timing controller can be further configured to apply a per-shot jitter…,” and “the LIDAR system can also include a processor configured to analyze the histogram to determine whether crosstalk is present and to adaptively modify the per-shot jitter… Other operating behaviors can also be adaptively modified…”) and Kim teaches the control unit uses angular position (from magnet/Hall) to control laser output (col 2: lines 46-47 and col 6: lines 60-67 “…control an output of laser by distinguishing between a scan region and a non-scan region based on the calculated angle.”). Pacala shows optical output timing being adjusted based on histogram analysis (crosstalk, jitter). Kim shows laser emission controlled based on rotation/time. One of ordinary skill in the art would combine them so that the timing of laser output during scan is adjusted according to jitter time (derived from motor rotation) and histogram statistics (mode, thresholds).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the jitter-analysis and histogram-based timing-compensation techniques of Pacala with the motor-and-encoder-based LiDAR architecture of Kim in order to improve timing accuracy and synchronization during LiDAR scanning.
Pacala in view of Kim teaches at a time point of the rotation period of the motor, at a time point of the rotation period of the motor, a time point at which the rotation period of the motor is compensated by the mode of the jitter time (Pacala teaches compensation/control of LiDAR timing by a representative jitter value derived from histogram analysis, while Kim teaches that the relevant timing reference is the motor rotation period in the scanner. Combining the teachings, optical output would be performed at a motor-rotation time point compensated by the histogram-derived representative jitter value. Pacala’s adaptive per-shot jitter selection/modification based on histogram analysis provides the compensation component, and Kim provides the motor-rotation timing reference to which that compensation is applied. See Pacala Figs. 10-12; at least para 99-102; Kim Figs. 5-6, Col 6: line 39 and col 7: line 6).
Regarding claim 9, Pacala, in view of Kim, teaches the method of claim 8, wherein step b) comprises detecting the rotation period of the motor and the jitter time by receiving signals from the first Hall sensor and the second Hall sensor included in the encoder (Kim, col 6: lines 5-11, “a magnet 204 may be formed … and a hall sensor 203 may be formed …” and col 6: lines 55-59, “calculate an angle … based on a rotational velocity and time from a reference position where the magnet is attached”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the encoder and dual-Hall-sensor rotation-period detection structure of Kim with the jitter-analysis and timing-compensation techniques taught by Pacala, in order to accurately determine the rotation period and timing jitter of the LiDAR motor.
Regarding claim 10, Pacala, in view of Kim, teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising the steps of: storing a clock synchronized with edges of signals of the first Hall sensor and the second Hall sensor in a first timer (Kim, col 6: lines 55-59; Col 7: lines 52-59. Hall sensor referencing magnet and angle calculation implies timing capture of Hall edges (controller measures time from reference position…).); and
storing the clock with the mode or the ideal mode of the jitter time in a second timer (Pacala, para 5 and claim 5 “second memory circuit can store a master jitter sequence … and the timing controller can be further configured …”).
Regarding claim 11, Pacala, in view of Kim, teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the jitter time mode is a jitter time within the highest frequency detected in the accumulated histogram by monitoring signals of the first Hall sensor and the second Hall sensor included in the encoder by the controller.
Pacala teaches generating and accumulating a timing-domain histogram and identifying the highest peak time bin within that histogram (Pacala, e.g., para 4, 88 “The histogram can be accumulated across all of the shots…”; “…process 1000 can identify time bin(s) corresponding to the highest peak in the histogram, e.g., the peak time bin… for which the number of photons exceeds a threshold.”), the time coordinate of Pacala’s highest-peak bin constitutes the mode (most frequently occurring jitter time). Kim teaches that the controller continuously monitors encoder-equivalent Hall-sensor timing signals derived from the rotating motor to determine rotation timing (col 7: lines 55-59 “The control unit 230 may calculate the angle at which the driving motor or the rotating mirror is rotated, based on rotational velocity and time from a reference position where the magnet is attached...” Hall-sensor edge timing → rotation-period measurements → timing jitter.), providing the timing data that feed the histogram in Pacala.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that, to improve the stability and robustness of timing compensation, it is desirable to treat the most frequently observed jitter time as the representative correction value (the “jitter time mode”) because statistical modes reduce noise sensitivity and avoid mis correction from outliers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to use the jitter time corresponding to the highest-frequency bin in Pacala’s accumulated histogram—derived from the Hall-sensor timing measurements of Kim’s rotation detector—as the jitter-time mode recited in Claim 11. This represents a predictable optimization of the combined systems and requires only routine application of known statistical techniques to known timing-measurement data.
Regarding claim 12, Pacala, in view of Kim, teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the jitter time mode is a jitter time set in the controller (Pacala. Para 5, claim 5 “A second memory circuit can store a master jitter sequence containing a sequence of jitter values uniformly distributed over a range of jitter values…” and para 6 and 99 “processor 222 … analyze the histogram … and adaptively modify the per-shot jitter …”. This implies the controller stores and updates jitter values — i.e., jitter time settings (modes) are stored in controller memory.).
Regarding claim 13, Pacala, in view of Kim, teaches the method of claim 10, wherein step d) comprises performing optical output control (Pacala, para 6 and 99 “…. adaptively modify the per-shot jitter …”)) in synchronization with the clock of the first timer (Kim, (col 6: lines 55-59; Col 7: lines 52-59 “calculate…. time from a reference position…”), when the jitter time detected from signals of the first Hall sensor and the second Hall sensor is within the jitter tolerance range (Pacala, para 5, 82, claims 2-3 “Per-shot jitter…selected within a predefined range (e.g., up to 20%....”).
Regarding claim 14, Pacala, in view of Kim, teaches the method of claim 13, wherein step a) comprises setting a jitter time to the jitter tolerance range (Pacala, Para 6 and 99 “processor 222 … analyze the histogram … and adaptively modify the per-shot jitter …” The processor modifies the jitter based on the analysis — this corresponds to “set the jitter time … to the jitter tolerance range) when the accumulated number of jitter times (Pacala, para 4 and 41 “... the timing controller can be configured to generate a sequence of trigger pulses … and can be further configured to apply a per-shot jitter …”. Pacala teaches that many pulses are generated and that per-shot jitter is applied. The implication of a “sequence” means multiple jitter times are collected.) is greater than or equal to a predefined value (Pacala, para 4 and claim 1, “a first memory circuit configured to accumulate the histogram across the plurality of shots”. Also, as described at least in para 44, Pacala applies timing correction only after the histogram contains enough jitter samples to produce a meaningful statistical mode. Before this threshold is met, the controller does not adjust timing; after it is met, it does. This matches the claimed conditional behavior.).
Regarding claim 15, Pacala, in view of Kim, teaches the method of claim 13, wherein step d) comprises the steps of: identifying whether the mode of the jitter time is out of a mode tolerance range (Pacala, para 5, 82, claims 2-3 “Per-shot jitter…selected within a predefined range (e.g., up to 20%....”. If jitter values may be selected within a range, then values outside that range = out of tolerance. Pacala, in para 4 and claim 1, also teaches “a first memory circuit configured to accumulate the histogram across the plurality of shots” and in para 6 and 99 “processor 222 … analyze the histogram … and adaptively modify the per-shot jitter …”). A histogram inherently includes: bins, frequencies, a mode (highest-occurring jitter value) so analyzing the histogram includes checking if the mode is acceptable (“within tolerance”) or requires correction.) when the detected jitter time is out of the jitter tolerance range (Kim, col 7: lines 55-59 “The control unit 230 may calculate the angle at which the driving motor or the rotating mirror is rotated, based on rotational velocity and time from a reference position where the magnet is attached...” Hall-sensor edge timing → rotation-period measurements → timing jitter.);
performing optical output control at a time point when clocks synchronized with edges of signals of the first Hall sensor and the second Hall sensor are compensated with the mode of jitter time, when the mode of the jitter time is within the mode tolerance range (Kim, col 7: lines 55-59 teaches Hall sensor edge timing “Time from a reference position where the magnet is attached…”and Pacala. para 6 and 99 timing control based on jitter mode “adaptively modify the per-shot jitter…”. When jitter is within tolerance, Pacala uses the mode-based jitter timing (normal operation). Thus: “clock of the second timer” → Hall-sensor timing (Kim) and “mode of jitter time” → jitter mode derived from histogram (Pacala)); and
performing optical output control at a time point when clocks synchronized with edges of signals of the first Hall sensor and the second Hall sensor are compensated with the ideal mode of jitter time, when the jitter time mode is out of a mode tolerance range (When jitter or histogram indicates undesirable timing behavior, Pacala switches to alternative idealized timing. Pacala para 6 and 99 “adaptively modify the per-shot jitter…” “Modify” → adjust timing away from the jitter pattern → equivalent to fallback ideal-mode timing.).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEMPSON NOEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-3376. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached on (571) 270-3603. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/JEMPSON NOEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights