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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims recite “outputs an angular signal” in line 2 after the preamble. It is suggest this be amended to “outputting an angular signal”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
No rejection under 35 USC 101 is made to the claims as the recitation of “corrects a resonance drive waveform of a drive signal that drives” is a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 8, 10, 11, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iida et al. (US 2018/0106903 A1), hereinafter “Iida”, and further in view of Kudo (JP 2017203840 A), references to English machine translation, hereinafter “Kudo”.
Regarding claim 1, Iida teaches a distance measurement apparatus of a scanning type provided with a two-dimensional micro electro mechanical system (MEMS) mirror that reflects a laser beam (abstract, figs 14-17), the distance measurement apparatus comprising:
a first detector (Fig. 17, ref 2042) that detects a mirror angle of the two-dimensional MEMS mirror (ref 2012) and outputs an angular signal that indicates the mirror angle (paragraphs [0110]-[0111], [0133]); and
a processor (ref 2070) corrects a resonance drive waveform of a drive signal that drives, of two mutually orthogonal axes of the two-dimensional MEMS mirror, one axis on a resonance drive side on a basis of a reference (paragraphs [0067]-[0072]).
Iida is silent regarding the processor calculates an amplitude error and a phase error between amplitude and a phase of the angular signal and amplitude and a phase of a reference angle signal, and driving based on the amplitude error and the phase error.
However, Kudo teaches a laser scanner (abstract), including wherein the processor calculates an amplitude error and a phase error between amplitude and a phase of the angular signal and amplitude and a phase of a reference angle signal, and driving based on the amplitude error and the phase error (paragraphs [0028]-[0034])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Iida with the teaching of Kudo by including wherein the processor calculates an amplitude error and a phase error between amplitude and a phase of the angular signal and amplitude and a phase of a reference angle signal, and driving based on the amplitude error and the phase error in order to have more accurate diving of the MEMS mirror.
Regarding claim 4, Iida teaches wherein the resonance drive waveform includes a sinusoidal wave (Fig. 10, paragraphs [0100]-[0101]).
Regarding claim 8, Iida teaches a mirror control method of controlling a two-dimensional micro electro mechanical system (MEMS) mirror that reflects a laser beam (abstract, figs 14-17) comprising:
detecting a mirror angle of the two-dimensional MEMS mirror (ref 2012) and outputs an angular signal that indicates the mirror angle (Fig. 17, ref 2042, paragraphs [0110]-[0111], [0133]); and
correcting a resonance drive waveform of a drive signal that drives, of two mutually orthogonal axes of the two-dimensional MEMS mirror, one axis on a resonance drive side (paragraphs [0067]-[0072]).
Iida is silent regarding calculating an amplitude error and a phase error between amplitude and a phase of the angular signal and amplitude and a phase of a reference angle signal, and on a basis of the amplitude error and the phase error.
However, Kudo teaches a laser scanner (abstract), including calculating an amplitude error and a phase error between amplitude and a phase of the angular signal and amplitude and a phase of a reference angle signal, and driving based on the amplitude error and the phase error (paragraphs [0028]-[0034])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Iida with the teaching of Kudo by including calculating an amplitude error and a phase error between amplitude and a phase of the angular signal and amplitude and a phase of a reference angle signal, and on a basis of the amplitude error and the phase error in order to have more accurate diving of the MEMS mirror.
Regarding claim 10, Iida teaches claim 8, wherein the resonance drive waveform of the drive signal that drives the axis on the resonance drive side is corrected while a drive frequency of the drive signal is maintained constant (paragraph [0123]).
Regarding claim 11, Iida teaches wherein the resonance drive waveform includes a sinusoidal wave (Fig. 10, paragraphs [0100]-[0101]).
Regarding claim 14, Iida teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program causing a computer to execute a processing of controlling a two-dimensional micro electro mechanical system (MEMS) mirror that reflects a laser beam (abstract, figs 14-17), the processing comprising:
detecting a mirror angle of the two-dimensional MEMS mirror (ref 2012) and outputs an angular signal that indicates the mirror angle (Fig. 17, ref 2042, paragraphs [0110]-[0111], [0133]); and
correcting a resonance drive waveform of a drive signal that drives, of two mutually orthogonal axes of the two-dimensional MEMS mirror, one axis on a resonance drive side (paragraphs [0067]-[0072]).
Iida is silent regarding calculating an amplitude error and a phase error between amplitude and a phase of the angular signal and amplitude and a phase of a reference angle signal, and on a basis of the amplitude error and the phase error.
However, Kudo teaches a laser scanner (abstract), including calculating an amplitude error and a phase error between amplitude and a phase of the angular signal and amplitude and a phase of a reference angle signal, and driving based on the amplitude error and the phase error (paragraphs [0028]-[0034])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Iida with the teaching of Kudo by including calculating an amplitude error and a phase error between amplitude and a phase of the angular signal and amplitude and a phase of a reference angle signal, and on a basis of the amplitude error and the phase error in order to have more accurate diving of the MEMS mirror.
Regarding claim 16, Iida teaches wherein the resonance drive waveform includes a sinusoidal wave (Fig. 10, paragraphs [0100]-[0101]).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iida and Kudo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakagawa et al. (US 2018/0290460 A1), hereinafter “Nakagawa”.
Regarding claim 2, Iida is silent regarding a second detector that detects a temperature of the two-dimensional MEMS mirror, wherein the processor calculates an amplitude correction value of the angular signal on a basis of the temperature, and calculates the amplitude error between the amplitude of the angular signal corrected by the amplitude correction value and the amplitude of the reference angle signal.
However, Nakagawa teaches a laser scanning device (abstract) including a second detector that detects a temperature of the two-dimensional MEMS mirror, wherein the processor calculates an amplitude correction value of the angular signal on a basis of the temperature, and calculates the amplitude error between the amplitude of the angular signal corrected by the amplitude correction value and the amplitude of the reference angle signal (paragraphs [0029], [0051]-[0058]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Iida with the teaching of Nakagawa by including a second detector that detects a temperature of the two-dimensional MEMS mirror, wherein the processor calculates an amplitude correction value of the angular signal on a basis of the temperature, and calculates the amplitude error between the amplitude of the angular signal corrected by the amplitude correction value and the amplitude of the reference angle signal in order to improve accuracy of the measurement.
Regarding claim 3, Iida is silent regarding wherein the first detector and the second detector are incorporated in the two-dimensional MEMS mirror.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the first detector and the second detector are incorporated in the two-dimensional MEMS mirror as it has been held "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice." In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). One would place the sensors on the MEMS mirror in order to have a more accurate temperature measurement.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iida and Kudo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kobori et al. (US 2018/0176524), hereinafter “Kobori ”.
Regarding claim 5, Iida is silent regarding wherein the processor is configured to: obtain first amplitude that corresponds to a peak-to-peak value of the angular signal for each cycle of the angular signal, obtain second amplitude that corresponds to a peak-to-peak value of the reference angle signal for each cycle of the reference angle signal, and obtain the amplitude error between the first amplitude and the second amplitude; and obtain a first phase that corresponds to one of rising or falling zero crossing of the angular signal for each cycle of the angular signal, obtain a second phase that corresponds to the one of zero crossing of the reference angle signal, and obtain the phase error between the first phase and the second phase.
However, Kobori teaches a laser projection device (abstract) including wherein the processor is configured to: obtain first amplitude that corresponds to a peak-to-peak value of the angular signal for each cycle of the angular signal, obtain second amplitude that corresponds to a peak-to-peak value of the reference angle signal for each cycle of the reference angle signal, and obtain the amplitude error between the first amplitude and the second amplitude; and obtain a first phase that corresponds to one of rising or falling zero crossing of the angular signal for each cycle of the angular signal, obtain a second phase that corresponds to the one of zero crossing of the reference angle signal, and obtain the phase error between the first phase and the second phase (Fig. 4, paragraphs [0030]-[0045]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Iida with the teaching of Kobori by including wherein the processor is configured to: obtain first amplitude that corresponds to a peak-to-peak value of the angular signal for each cycle of the angular signal, obtain second amplitude that corresponds to a peak-to-peak value of the reference angle signal for each cycle of the reference angle signal, and obtain the amplitude error between the first amplitude and the second amplitude; and obtain a first phase that corresponds to one of rising or falling zero crossing of the angular signal for each cycle of the angular signal, obtain a second phase that corresponds to the one of zero crossing of the reference angle signal, and obtain the phase error between the first phase and the second phase in order to have more accurate correction of the measurement.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iida and Kudo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dussan et al. (US 2021/0003679), hereinafter “Dussan”.
Regarding claim 7, Iida is silent regarding wherein the drive signal that drives another axis of the two axes has a non-resonance drive waveform.
However, Dussan teaches a LIDAR system (abstract) including wherein the drive signal that drives another axis of the two axes has a non-resonance drive waveform (paragraph [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Iida with the teaching of Dussan by including wherein the drive signal that drives another axis of the two axes has a non-resonance drive waveform in order to better manage bandwidth through intelligent range point target selection, paragraph [0032]
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iida and Kudo as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Nakagawa.
Regarding claim 9, Iida is silent regarding wherein a temperature of the two-dimensional MEMS mirror is detected, and the amplitude error with the amplitude of the reference angle signal is calculated after the amplitude of the angular signal is corrected on a basis of the temperature.
However, Nakagawa teaches a laser scanning device (abstract) including wherein a temperature of the two-dimensional MEMS mirror is detected, and the amplitude error with the amplitude of the reference angle signal is calculated after the amplitude of the angular signal is corrected on a basis of the temperature (paragraphs [0029], [0051]-[0058]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Iida with the teaching of Nakagawa by including wherein a temperature of the two-dimensional MEMS mirror is detected, and the amplitude error with the amplitude of the reference angle signal is calculated after the amplitude of the angular signal is corrected on a basis of the temperature in order to improve accuracy of the measurement.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iida and Kudo as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Kobori.
Regarding claim 12, Iida is silent regarding obtaining first amplitude that corresponds to a peak-to-peak value of the angular signal for each cycle of the angular signal, obtain second amplitude that corresponds to a peak-to-peak value of the reference angle signal for each cycle of the reference angle signal, and obtain the amplitude error between the first amplitude and the second amplitude; and obtaining a first phase that corresponds to one of rising or falling zero crossing of the angular signal for each cycle of the angular signal, obtain a second phase that corresponds to the one of zero crossing of the reference angle signal, and obtain the phase error between the first phase and the second phase.
However, Kobori teaches a laser projection device (abstract) including obtaining first amplitude that corresponds to a peak-to-peak value of the angular signal for each cycle of the angular signal, obtain second amplitude that corresponds to a peak-to-peak value of the reference angle signal for each cycle of the reference angle signal, and obtain the amplitude error between the first amplitude and the second amplitude; and obtaining a first phase that corresponds to one of rising or falling zero crossing of the angular signal for each cycle of the angular signal, obtain a second phase that corresponds to the one of zero crossing of the reference angle signal, and obtain the phase error between the first phase and the second phase (Fig. 4, paragraphs [0030]-[0045]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Iida with the teaching of Kobori by including obtaining first amplitude that corresponds to a peak-to-peak value of the angular signal for each cycle of the angular signal, obtain second amplitude that corresponds to a peak-to-peak value of the reference angle signal for each cycle of the reference angle signal, and obtain the amplitude error between the first amplitude and the second amplitude; and obtaining a first phase that corresponds to one of rising or falling zero crossing of the angular signal for each cycle of the angular signal, obtain a second phase that corresponds to the one of zero crossing of the reference angle signal, and obtain the phase error between the first phase and the second phase in order to have more accurate correction of the measurement.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iida and Kudo as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Dussan.
Regarding claim 13, Iida is silent regarding wherein the drive signal that drives another axis of the two axes has a non-resonance drive waveform.
However, Dussan teaches a LIDAR system (abstract) including wherein the drive signal that drives another axis of the two axes has a non-resonance drive waveform (paragraph [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Iida with the teaching of Dussan by including wherein the drive signal that drives another axis of the two axes has a non-resonance drive waveform in order to better manage bandwidth through intelligent range point target selection, paragraph [0032]
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iida and Kudo as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Nakagawa.
Regarding claim 15, Iida is silent regarding wherein a temperature of the two-dimensional MEMS mirror is detected, and the amplitude error with the amplitude of the reference angle signal is calculated after the amplitude of the angular signal is corrected on a basis of the temperature.
However, Nakagawa teaches a laser scanning device (abstract) including wherein a temperature of the two-dimensional MEMS mirror is detected, and the amplitude error with the amplitude of the reference angle signal is calculated after the amplitude of the angular signal is corrected on a basis of the temperature (paragraphs [0029], [0051]-[0058]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Iida with the teaching of Nakagawa by including wherein a temperature of the two-dimensional MEMS mirror is detected, and the amplitude error with the amplitude of the reference angle signal is calculated after the amplitude of the angular signal is corrected on a basis of the temperature in order to improve accuracy of the measurement.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iida and Kudo as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Kobori.
Regarding claim 17, Iida is silent regarding obtaining first amplitude that corresponds to a peak-to-peak value of the angular signal for each cycle of the angular signal, obtain second amplitude that corresponds to a peak-to-peak value of the reference angle signal for each cycle of the reference angle signal, and obtain the amplitude error between the first amplitude and the second amplitude; and obtaining a first phase that corresponds to one of rising or falling zero crossing of the angular signal for each cycle of the angular signal, obtain a second phase that corresponds to the one of zero crossing of the reference angle signal, and obtain the phase error between the first phase and the second phase.
However, Kobori teaches a laser projection device (abstract) including obtaining first amplitude that corresponds to a peak-to-peak value of the angular signal for each cycle of the angular signal, obtain second amplitude that corresponds to a peak-to-peak value of the reference angle signal for each cycle of the reference angle signal, and obtain the amplitude error between the first amplitude and the second amplitude; and obtaining a first phase that corresponds to one of rising or falling zero crossing of the angular signal for each cycle of the angular signal, obtain a second phase that corresponds to the one of zero crossing of the reference angle signal, and obtain the phase error between the first phase and the second phase (Fig. 4, paragraphs [0030]-[0045]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Iida with the teaching of Kobori by including obtaining first amplitude that corresponds to a peak-to-peak value of the angular signal for each cycle of the angular signal, obtain second amplitude that corresponds to a peak-to-peak value of the reference angle signal for each cycle of the reference angle signal, and obtain the amplitude error between the first amplitude and the second amplitude; and obtaining a first phase that corresponds to one of rising or falling zero crossing of the angular signal for each cycle of the angular signal, obtain a second phase that corresponds to the one of zero crossing of the reference angle signal, and obtain the phase error between the first phase and the second phase in order to have more accurate correction of the measurement.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a distance measurement apparatus, the apparatus comprising, among other essential elements, wherein the processor: obtains a proportional gain Kpw and an integral gain Kiw and outputs an amplitude command value Rw represented by Rw=Kpw×Δw+Kiw×∫Δw where Δw represents the amplitude error; obtains a proportional gain Kph and an integral gain Kih and outputs a phase command value Rh represented by Rh=Kph×Δh+Kih×∫Δh where Δh represents the phase error; and generates, on a basis of the amplitude command value Rw and the phase command value Rh, a drive signal D(t) represented by D(t)=Rw×sin(2×n×fd×t+Rh) where t represents a time, n represents a circular constant, and fd represents a drive frequency of the drive signal that drives the axis on the resonance drive side, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 1 and the above claim.
The Examiner has reviewed the PCT International search report and the JPO Office Action of November 14, 2023, stating that the subject matter of claim 6 is “common technical knowledge and well-known features”. However, the Examiner has not found evidence of these features being either common or well-known to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing. The Examiner has extensively searched the features and consulted other patent examiners who concurred that the claimed limitations are non-obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Umeda (US 20140294128) teaches phase error is detected from the amplitude and the phase at the peak position, but is directed towards signal processing in a frequency devising multiplexing device and method. Even assuming this is the same method as claimed, Umeda is not in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, and one having ordinary skill in the art in distance measurement scanning would not combine the technique of Umeda with the prior art of record to render the claims obvious.
Hamada (US 6977879) teaches adjusting phase of a clock signal based on phase error, including an edge detection circuit detects a rising edge portion or a falling edge portion and adjusting the gain so that the peak-to-peak value of the amplitude of the phase error output remains constant, the readout signal having different amplitudes can be processed. Hamada is directed towards a clock of a magneto-optical disk, and it not in the same field of endeavor as the instant application. One having ordinary skill in the art in distance measurement scanning would not combine the technique of Hamada with the prior art of record to render the claims obvious.
Iida (US 2022/0411258) teaches a similar device, but the claims are directed towards shifting a center angle of the scanning angle on the basis of office correction. No double patenting rejection is made as the claims are not obvious variants.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIC J BOLOGNA whose telephone number is (571)272-9282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at (571) 272-3995. 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.
/DOMINIC J BOLOGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877