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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5-8 and 13-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 17 November 2025.
Therefore, Claims 1-4 and 9-12 will be addressed below.
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 1-3 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell US 20180275249 A1 in view of Ueno US 20220268896 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Campbell teaches an abnormal field of view recognition method applied to a MEMS LiDAR comprising a galvanometer (MEMS scanner with electromagnetic actuation, [0052-57]), comprising:
in response to the MEMS LiDAR being started, respectively adjusting angles of the galvanometer in an X axis and a Y axis (scan patterns shown with changing angles in Figs. 2-18, [0057, 68, 69]);
acquiring echo data from scanning a window at the adjusted angles of the galvanometer in the X axis and the Y axis (scan patterns shown with changing angles in Figs. 2-18, [0057, 68, 69]);
acquiring distances, from the echo data, between an upper edge, a lower edge, a left edge, and a right edge of the window and the MEMS LiDAR (distance measurements along scan patterns include four edges of a window, Figs. 2-18, [0025, 32, 57, 69]); and
Campbell does not explicitly teach determining whether a field of view of the galvanometer is abnormal or not based on the distances between the upper edge, the lower edge, the left edge, and the right edge of the window and the MEMS LiDAR.
Ueno teaches determining abnormal alignment and correction based on measurement of distances to edges of window (Figs. 7-8, [0064-69]; although Ueno shows finding the angle deviations in one dimension, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that if the scanner is scanning in two dimension that these calculations would be necessary in both dimensions)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Campbell to include determining whether a field of view of the galvanometer is abnormal or not based on the distances between the upper edge, the lower edge, the left edge, and the right edge of the window and the MEMS LiDAR similar to Ueno with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping ensure the lidar was correctly aligned.
Regarding claim 2, Campbell teaches the method according to claim 1,
Campbell does not explicitly teach wherein the determining whether a field of view of the galvanometer is abnormal or not based on the distances between the upper edge, the lower edge, the left edge, and the right edge of the window and the MEMS LiDAR comprises: respectively comparing the distances between the upper edge, the lower edge, the left edge, and the right edge of the window and the MEMS LiDAR with a preset distance range; determining that the field of view of the galvanometer is normal if the distances between the upper edge, the lower edge, the left edge, and the right edge of the window and the MEMS LiDAR are all within the preset distance range; and determining that the field of view of the galvanometer is abnormal if at least one of the distances between the upper edge, the lower edge, the left edge, and the right edge of the window and the MEMS LiDAR is not within the preset distance range.
Ueno teaches determining abnormal alignment and correction based on measurement of distances to edges of window and angular distance measurements (using distance measurements to find angular distance and comparing to references, Figs. 7-8, [0064-69]; although Ueno shows finding the angle deviations in one dimension, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that if the scanner is scanning in two dimension that these calculations would be necessary in both dimensions)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Campbell to include respectively comparing the distances between the upper edge, the lower edge, the left edge, and the right edge of the window and the MEMS LiDAR with a preset distance range; determining that the field of view of the galvanometer is normal if the distances between the upper edge, the lower edge, the left edge, and the right edge of the window and the MEMS LiDAR are all within the preset distance range; and determining that the field of view of the galvanometer is abnormal if at least one of the distances between the upper edge, the lower edge, the left edge, and the right edge of the window and the MEMS LiDAR is not within the preset distance range similar to Ueno with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping ensure the lidar was correctly aligned.
Regarding claim 3, Campbell teaches the method according to claim 2,
Campbell does not explicitly teach wherein the determining that the field of view of the galvanometer is normal comprises: determining that a Y-axis scanning of the galvanometer is normal if the distance between the upper edge of the window and the MEMS LiDAR is within the preset distance range and the distance between the lower edge of the window and the MEMS LiDAR is within the preset distance range; and determining that an X-axis scanning of the galvanometer is normal if the distance between the left edge of the window and the MEMS LiDAR is within the preset distance range and the distance between the right edge of the window and the MEMS LiDAR is within the preset distance range.
Ueno teaches determining abnormal alignment and correction based on measurement of distances to edges of window and angular distance measurements (using distance measurements to find angular distance and comparing to references, Figs. 7-8, [0064-69]; although Ueno shows finding the angle deviations in one dimension, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that if the scanner is scanning in two dimension that these calculations would be necessary in both dimensions)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Campbell to include determining that a Y-axis scanning of the galvanometer is normal if the distance between the upper edge of the window and the MEMS LiDAR is within the preset distance range and the distance between the lower edge of the window and the MEMS LiDAR is within the preset distance range; and determining that an X-axis scanning of the galvanometer is normal if the distance between the left edge of the window and the MEMS LiDAR is within the preset distance range and the distance between the right edge of the window and the MEMS LiDAR is within the preset distance range similar to Ueno with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping ensure the lidar was correctly aligned.
Regarding claim 9, Campbell teaches an abnormal field of view recognition device applied to a MEMS LiDAR comprising a galvanometer (MEMS scanner with electromagnetic actuation, [0052-57]), comprising:
an angle adjustment module, configured to respectively adjust angles of the galvanometer in an X axis and a Y axis in response to the MEMS LiDAR being started (scan patterns shown with changing angles using scanner in Figs. 2-18, [0057, 68, 69]);
a data acquisition module, configured to acquire echo data from scanning a window at the adjusted angles of the galvanometer in the X axis and the Y axis (scan patterns shown with changing angles and collecting data in receiver in Figs. 2-18, [0057, 68, 69]);
a distance acquisition module, configured to acquire distances, from the echo data, between an upper edge, a lower edge, a left edge, and a right edge of the window and the MEMS LiDAR (distance measurements along scan patterns include four edges of a window, Figs. 2-18, [0025, 32, 57, 69]); and
a field of view determination module, configured to determine whether a field of view of the galvanometer is abnormal or not based on the distances between the upper edge, the lower edge, the left edge, and the right edge of the window and the MEMS LiDAR.
Campbell does not explicitly teach a field of view determination module, configured to determine whether a field of view of the galvanometer is abnormal or not based on the distances between the upper edge, the lower edge, the left edge, and the right edge of the window and the MEMS LiDAR.
Ueno teaches determining abnormal alignment and correction based on measurement of distances to edges of window (Figs. 7-8, [0064-69]; although Ueno shows finding the angle deviations in one dimension, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that if the scanner is scanning in two dimension that these calculations would be necessary in both dimensions)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Campbell to include a field of view determination module, configured to determine whether a field of view of the galvanometer is abnormal or not based on the distances between the upper edge, the lower edge, the left edge, and the right edge of the window and the MEMS LiDAR similar to Ueno with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping ensure the lidar was correctly aligned.
Regarding claim 10, Campbell teaches the device according to claim 9,
Campbell does not explicitly teach wherein the field of view determination module comprises: a distance comparison unit, configured to respectively compare the distances between the upper edge, the lower edge, the left edge, and the right edge of the window and the MEMS LiDAR with a preset distance range; and a field of view determination unit, configured to determine that the field of view of the galvanometer is normal if the distances between the upper edge, the lower edge, the left edge, and the right edge of the window and the MEMS LiDAR are all within the preset distance range, wherein the field of view determination unit is further configured to determine that the field of view of the galvanometer is abnormal if at least one of the distances between the upper edge, the lower edge, the left edge, and the right edge of the window and the MEMS LiDAR is not within the preset distance range.
Ueno teaches determining abnormal alignment and correction based on measurement of distances to edges of window and angular distance measurements (using distance measurements to find angular distance and comparing to references, Figs. 7-8, [0064-69]; although Ueno shows finding the angle deviations in one dimension, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that if the scanner is scanning in two dimension that these calculations would be necessary in both dimensions)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Campbell to include : a distance comparison unit, configured to respectively compare the distances between the upper edge, the lower edge, the left edge, and the right edge of the window and the MEMS LiDAR with a preset distance range; and a field of view determination unit, configured to determine that the field of view of the galvanometer is normal if the distances between the upper edge, the lower edge, the left edge, and the right edge of the window and the MEMS LiDAR are all within the preset distance range, wherein the field of view determination unit is further configured to determine that the field of view of the galvanometer is abnormal if at least one of the distances between the upper edge, the lower edge, the left edge, and the right edge of the window and the MEMS LiDAR is not within the preset distance range similar to Ueno with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping ensure the lidar was correctly aligned.
Regarding claim 11, Campbell teaches the device according to claim 10,
Campbell does not explicitly teach wherein the field of view determination unit comprises: a Y-axis determination subunit, configured to determine that a Y-axis scanning of the galvanometer is normal if the distance between the upper edge of the window and the MEMS LiDAR is within the preset distance range and the distance between the lower edge of the window and the MEMS LiDAR is within the preset distance range; and an X-axis determination subunit, configured to determine that an X-axis scanning of the galvanometer is normal if the distance between the left edge of the window and the MEMS LiDAR is within the preset distance range and the distance between the right edge of the window and the MEMS LiDAR is within the preset distance range.
Ueno teaches determining abnormal alignment and correction based on measurement of distances to edges of window and angular distance measurements (using distance measurements to find angular distance and comparing to references, Figs. 7-8, [0064-69]; although Ueno shows finding the angle deviations in one dimension, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that if the scanner is scanning in two dimension that these calculations would be necessary in both dimensions)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Campbell to include a Y-axis determination subunit, configured to determine that a Y-axis scanning of the galvanometer is normal if the distance between the upper edge of the window and the MEMS LiDAR is within the preset distance range and the distance between the lower edge of the window and the MEMS LiDAR is within the preset distance range; and an X-axis determination subunit, configured to determine that an X-axis scanning of the galvanometer is normal if the distance between the left edge of the window and the MEMS LiDAR is within the preset distance range and the distance between the right edge of the window and the MEMS LiDAR is within the preset distance range similar to Ueno with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping ensure the lidar was correctly aligned.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell US 20180275249 A1 in view of Ueno US 20220268896 A1 and further in view of Talai US 20230056655 A1.
Regarding claim 4, Campbell teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein after the determining whether a field of view of the galvanometer is abnormal or not based on the distances between the upper edge, the lower edge, the left edge, and the right edge of the window and the MEMS LiDAR, the method further comprises: adjusting the angles of the galvanometer in an X-axis direction and a Y-axis direction to previous angles before the MEMS LiDAR is started if the field of view of the galvanometer is determined to be normal, and driving the galvanometer to scan at the previous angles (normally scans patterns without additional adjustment in Figs. 2-18, [57, 68, 69]); and
Campbell does not explicitly teach outputting a fault code to a master computer if the field of view of the galvanometer is determined to be abnormal.
Ueno teaches abnormality detection ([0113]) and correcting angles ([0061, 63, 72])
Talai teaches outputting calibration errors toa control to help correct calibration errors with the system ([0036, 100]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Campbell to include outputting a fault code to a master computer if the field of view of the galvanometer is determined to be abnormal similar to Ueno and Talai with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping ensure the lidar was correctly aligned and provide options further corrections or alerts if additional correction is necessary (e.g. if a portion of the lidar was installed incorrectly).
Regarding claim 12, Campbell teaches the device according to claim 9, also comprising: an angle recovery module, configured to adjust the angles of the galvanometer in an X-axis direction and a Y-axis direction to previous angles before the MEMS LiDAR starting if the field of view of the galvanometer is determined to be normal and driving the galvanometer to scan at the previous angles (normally scans patterns without additional adjustment in Figs. 2-18, [57, 68, 69]); and
Campbell does not explicitly teach a fault notification module, configured to output a fault code to a master computer if the field of view of the galvanometer is determined to be abnormal.
Ueno teaches abnormality detection ([0113]) and correcting angles ([0061, 63, 72])
Talai teaches outputting calibration errors toa control to help correct calibration errors with the system ([0036, 100]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Campbell to include a fault notification module, configured to output a fault code to a master computer if the field of view of the galvanometer is determined to be abnormal similar to Ueno and Talai with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping ensure the lidar was correctly aligned and provide options further corrections or alerts if additional correction is necessary (e.g. if a portion of the lidar was installed incorrectly).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C FRITCHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5533. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 on 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.
/J.C.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645