Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
1. This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on January 3, 2023. Claims 1-28 are pending.
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.
2. Claims 1-2, 6, 9, 12-14, 16, 17 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oldham et al (WO 2020087015 A1), hereinafter Oldham, in view of Helsel et al (US 6285489 B1), hereinafter Helsel.
3. Regarding Claims 1, 17 & 20:
Oldham teaches, a scanning output controlled by a multiple-axis scanner, within a selected region of interest (Rol) in a field of view (FoV), ([0031]: The present techniques include a sharpness-based method and system for tracking phase shifting during scanning ( e.g ., Lissajous scanning) with a two-axis MEMS micro-mirror. The MEMS mirrors may be electrostatic scanning mirrors with two axes of rotation to develop an image in one or more image plane. The axes may be scanned with high frequencies to generate a Lissajous scan). Oldham further teaches, ([0062]: Lissajous scanning may result in non-uniform scan density, wherein the number of data points sampled per unit area over the field of view differs between regions of the scanner). Oldham teaches, as a function of a first drive signal having a first set of one or more frequency components and of a second drive signal having a second set of one or more frequency components, ([0034]: The displacement of a scanner may be modeled as a function of time. If the scanner is driven along a particular axis with a driving voltage). Oldham further teaches, ([0004]: Various beam steering patterns, such as raster, spiral, and Lissajous, can be chosen depending on the imaging application and actuator capabilities. The scan pattern may have a direct effect on image resolution, field of view (FOV), and frame rate (FR). For instance, Lissajous scanning is obtained when both axes of motion are operated with a constant sinusoidal input, which may have differing frequency and/or phase). Oldham teaches, using the plurality of drive signals at the multiple-axis scanner to control the scanning output, to cause the scanning output to traverse the selected Rol more times than other portions of the FoV and spatially sample the target area via a higher concentrations of samples in the Rol, ([0041]: It should be noted that in Lissajous scanning a point from the object can be scanned multiple times, to increase the FF, leading to non-uniform scan density).
Oldham does not teach, adaptively scanning a target area and modulating one or more aspects of at least the first drive signal to produce a plurality of drive signals including the modulated first drive signal.
However, Helsel teaches a scanning system. ([Col. 13, Lines 44-50]: Because the circuit 122 can use the sense signal as the basic clock signal for the ramp signal, timing of the ramp signal is inherently synchronized to the horizontal position of the scan. However, one skilled in the art will recognize that, for some embodiments, a controlled phase shift of the ramp signal relative to the sense signal may optimize performance). Helsel further teaches, ([Col. 15, Lines 26-29]: the correction scanner 154 can scan sinusoidally to remove a significant portion of the scan error; or, the correction mirror can scan in a ramp pattern for more precise error correction). Helsel continues to teach, ([Col. 14, Lines 36-40]: Another approach to reducing the error is to add one or more higher order harmonics to the scanner drive signal so that the scanning pattern of the resonant correction scanner 130 shifts from a sinusoidal scan closer to a sawtooth wave).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Oldham with Helsel, since it is the same field of endeavor and results would have been predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify Oldham with Helsel to include modulating one or more aspects of at least the first drive signal to produce a plurality of drive signals, since (Helsel: [Col. 14, Lines 18-26]: The use of the resonant scanner 130 can reduce the complexity of the electrical components for driving the scanner 130 and can improve the scanning efficiency relative to previously described approaches. Resonant scanners tend to have a sinusoidal motion, rather than the desired ramp-type motion described above. However, if the frequency, phase, and amplitude of the sinusoidal motion are selected appropriately, the correction mirror 100 can reduce the pinch error significantly).
4. Regarding Claim 17:
Oldham teaches, a circuit based device and signal processing circuitry, ([0063]: The scanner 602 may have a controller 604 operatively connected to the database 616 via a link connected to an input/output (I/O) circuit 614). Oldham further teaches, ([0068] Unless specifically stated otherwise, discussions herein using words such as “processing,”“computing,”“calculating,”“determining,”“presenting,” “displaying,” or the like may refer to actions or processes of a machine ( e.g ., a computer) that manipulates or transforms data represented as physical {e.g., electronic, magnetic, or optical) quantities within one or more memories {e.g., volatile memory, non-volatile memory, or a combination thereof), registers, or other machine components that receive, store, transmit, or display information.
5. Regarding Claim 20:
Oldham teaches, a storage device, instructions, and a computer, ([Abstract]: A phase correcting scanner includes one or more processors, one or more scanner adapted to sequentially sample an object to generate a vector of raw data representing the object in a Lissajous pattern, and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to receive the vector of raw data).
6. Regarding Claim 2:
Oldham does not teach, the multiple-axis scanner is driven to follow an optimized scanning trajectory, set as a function of a scanning-pattern optimization process, and to produce a corresponding sampling pattern.
However, Helsel teaches, ([Col. 13, Lines 31-34]: the position of the beam can be determined by optically or electrically monitoring the position of the horizontal or vertical scanning mirrors or by monitoring current induced in the mirror drive coils). Helsel further teaches, ([Col. 13, Lines 47-50]: one skilled in the art will recognize that, for some embodiments, a controlled phase shift of the ramp signal relative to the sense signal may optimize performance).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Oldham with Helsel, since it is the same field of endeavor and results would have been predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify Oldham with Helsel to include a scanning-pattern optimization process, since (Helsel: [Col. 13, Lines 50-54]: Where the correction mirror 100 is scanned resonantly, as described below with reference to FIG. 18, the ramp signal can be replaced by a sinusoidal signal, that can be obtained simply be frequency doubling, amplifying and phase shifting the sense signal). In addition, (Helsel: [Col. 14, Lines 21-23]:Resonant scanners tend to have a sinusoidal motion, rather than the desired ramp-type motion described above).
7. Regarding Claim 6:
Oldham does not teach, modulating one or more aspects of at least the first drive signal includes producing the plurality of drive signals including the modulated first drive signal.
However, Helsel teaches this, (See Claim 1).
Oldham does not teach, terminals coupled to or integrated with multiple-axis scanner, wherein the terminals correspond to one or more of: axis-drive terminals, signal-output terminals, and one or more power-common terminals.
However, Helsel teaches, ([Col. 15, Lines 5-9]: As shown in FIG. 21, another embodiment of a scanner 150 according to the invention employs a biaxial scanner 152 as the principal scan component, along with a correction scanner 154. The biaxial scanner 152 is a single mirror device that oscillates about two orthogonal axes. Helsel further teaches, ([Col. 15, Lines 18-20]: The bi-axial scanner 152 includes integral sensors 156 that provide electrical feedback of the mirror position to terminals 158, as is described in the Neukermanns '618 patent).
Helsel incorporates Neukermanns, (US 5648618 A), by reference, ([Col. 13, Lines 19-23]: The sense signal can be obtained in a variety of approaches. For example, as described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,648,618 to Neukermanns et al., entitled MICROMACHINED HINGE HAVING AN INTEGRAL TORSIONAL SENSOR, which is incorporated herein by reference).
Nuekermanns (US 5648618 A), incorporated by reference, teaches ([Col. 3, Lines 44-47]: These inner hinges are also equipped with a similar four-terminal piezo torsion sensor or a capacitive sensor 115, which measures the deformation of the hinges, which is proportional to the rate of rotation of the structure).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Oldham with Helsel, since it is the same field of endeavor and results would have been predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify Oldham with Helsel to include terminals coupled to or integrated with multiple-axis scanner, since ([Col. 13, Lines 44-50]: the circuit 122 can use the sense signal as the basic clock signal for the ramp signal, timing of the ramp signal is inherently synchronized to the horizontal position of the scan. However, one skilled in the art will recognize that, for some embodiments, a controlled phase shift of the ramp signal relative to the sense signal may optimize performance).
8. Regarding Claim 9:
Oldham does not teach, the first drive signal includes or corresponds to a set of multi-frequency signals.
However, Helsel teaches ([Col. 14, Lines 36-40]: Another approach to reducing the error is to add one or more higher order harmonics to the scanner drive signal so that the scanning pattern of the resonant correction scanner 130 shifts from a sinusoidal scan closer to a sawtooth wave). Helsel further teaches,
([Col. 13, Line 67 & Col. 14, Lines 1-2]: One alternative embodiment of a scanner 130 that can be used for the correction mirror 100 is shown in FIGS. 17A and 17B).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Oldham with Helsel, since it is the same field of endeavor and results would have been predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify Oldham with Helsel to include a set of multi-frequency signals, since (Helsel: [Col. 13, Lines 50-54]: Where the correction mirror 100 is scanned resonantly, as described below with reference to FIG. 18, the ramp signal can be replaced by a sinusoidal signal, that can be obtained simply be frequency doubling, amplifying and phase shifting the sense signal). In addition, (Helsel: [Col. 14, Lines 21-23]:Resonant scanners tend to have a sinusoidal motion, rather than the desired ramp-type motion described above).
9. Regarding Claim 12:
Oldham does not teach, using a capacitance-type sensing system or a MEMS mirror device capable of moving in two or more directions.
However, Helsel teaches this, (See Claim 6)
10. Regarding Claim 13:
Oldham does not teach, using a capacitance-type sensing system to generate a first axis output signal and a second axis output signal according to a scanning pattern in the Rol, with the Rol being characterized as a function of a first axis and a second axis, wherein the capacitance-type sensing system scans the Rol using a scanning motion, via a first high frequency signal related to the first axis and using a second frequency signal related to the second axis.
However, Helsel teaches ([Col. 10, Lines 3-7]: FIG. 10 includes a single mirror 1090 that scans biaxially instead of the dual mirror structure of FIG. 9. Such a biaxial structure is described in greater detail below with reference to FIGS. 11, 17A-B and 21). Helsel further teaches, ([Col. 5, Lines 34-36]: FIG. 17B is a side cross-sectional view of the MEMs correction scanner of FIG. 17A showing capacitive plates and their alignment to the scanning mirror). Helsel goes on to teach, ([Col. 14, Lines 54-57]: As can be seen in FIG. 20, the vertical scan frequency is double the horizontal scan frequency, thereby producing the Lissajous or "bow-tie" overall scan pattern of FIG. 20).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Oldham with Helsel, since it is the same field of endeavor and results would have been predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify Oldham with Helsel to include a capacitance-type sensing system to generate a first axis output signal and a second axis output signal according to a scanning pattern in the Rol with a first high frequency signal related to the first axis and using a second frequency signal related to the second axis, since the use of a high frequency (typically resonant) scanner for one axis while using a lower frequency for the second scanning axis reduces motion distortion, optimizes energy distribution, and can achieve a high fill factor.
11. Regarding Claim 14:
Oldham does not teach, using a capacitance-type sensing system.
However, Helsel teaches this, (See Claims 6 & 13).
Oldham does not teach, a first axis output signal and a second axis output signal according to a scanning pattern in the Rol, by providing a change to the one or more aspects of at least the first drive signal in terms of at least one of: amplitude and phase.
However, Helsel teaches this, (See Claim 2).
Helsel goes on to teach a change in amplitude, ([Col. 11, Lines 63-65]: The overall vertical scan is then a combination of a large amplitude ramp function at about 60 Hz and a small amplitude correction function).
Obvious/Motivation: (See Claim 2)
12. Regarding Claim 16:
Oldham does not teach, the scanning output includes one of: piezo-electrical signal, a light beam, and a magnetic signal.
However, Helsel teaches a piezo-electrical signal, ([Col. 12, Lines 60-63]: FIG. 16 shows a piezoelectric scanner 110 suitable for the correction mirror 100 in some embodiments. The scanner 110 is formed from a platform 112 that carries a pair of spaced-apart piezoelectric actuators 114, 116. Helsel teaches a light beam, ([Col. 1, Lines 6-8]: The present invention relates to scanned light devices and, more particularly, to scanned light beam displays and imaging devices for viewing or collecting images). Helsel teaches a magnetic signal, ([Col. 8, Lines 37-39]: A ferromagnetic material mounted with the mirror 202 is driven by a pair of electromagnetic coils 206, 208 to provide motive force to mirror 202).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Oldham with Helsel, since it is the same field of endeavor and results would have been predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify Oldham with Helsel to include one of: a piezo-electrical signal, a light beam, and a magnetic signal, since Piezoelectric and electromagnetic sensing/actuation are 2 of the main enabling technologies for MEMs scanners, or indeed optical scanners in general, as evidenced by Algamili. (Algamili: [P. 10]: Different types of MEMS actuators require different drive electronics. As per mentioned in this article, there are different principles and approaches to actuate MEMS devices. The most important of which include: electrostatic actuation, electrothermal actuation, electromagnetic actuation, and piezoelectric actuation). In addition, the majority of these MEMs scanners are designed to dynamically orient electromagnetic radiation (light) via reflection. (Algamili: [P. 20, Table 1]: Radiative domain: Electromagnetic waves, Infrared radiation transmission, UV radiation).
13. Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oldham et al (WO 2020087015 A1), hereinafter Oldham, in view of Helsel et al (US 6285489 B1), hereinafter Helsel, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Gilboa et al (US 20170038581 A1), hereinafter Gilboa.
14. Regarding Claim 3:
Oldham as modified by Helsel does not teach, generating a set of Rol-estimation data as a function of depth and intensity information uniformly detected across the FoV, wherein the selected Rol is processed as a function of the set of Rol-estimation data.
However, Gilboa teaches a scanning system, ([0023]: In some embodiments of the present invention, the controller calculates one or more operating parameters of the scanner using the output of the receiver. For example, when the scanner scans the beam in mutually-opposing scan directions in alternation along the scan axis, as described above, and there is a scan offset between the two directions, the controller can estimate and compensate for this offset based on the difference in the output of the receiver between the directions. Additionally or alternatively, the controller can process the receiver output in order to extract the frequency, phase, and/or amplitude of a periodic scan pattern. It can be useful, particularly for this latter sort of calculation, to extend two (or more) parallel scattering lines at different, respective locations across the path of the scanned beam. In this case, the receiver will provide multiple outputs, in the form of two (or more) scattering peaks that are indicative of the intensity of the light scattered from the different scattering lines, and the controller uses the relation between these outputs in calculating the operating parameters of the scanner). Gilboa further teaches, ([0032] Receiver 44 typically comprises a high-speed optoelectronic detector, which generates an output indicative of the time of flight of the pulses to and from points in the scene). Gilboa goes on to teach, ([0039]: “To address these problems, controller 52 processes curves 64 in order to calculate accurate scan parameters continually during operation of scanner 22. For this purpose, for example, controller 52 may fit the measured occurrence times of curves 64 to a parametric model of the scan angle α(t)”, “and is able to calculate α(t) accurately at any time t during the scan”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Oldham in view of Helsel with Gilboa, since it is the same field of endeavor and results would have been predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify Oldham in view of Helsel with Gilboa to include generating a set of Rol-estimation data as a function of depth and intensity information since, (Gilboa: [0039]: In this manner, controller 52 is able to associate a precise scan angle value with each depth value derived from the receiver output and can correct the 3D map output, for example by buffering and interpolating the depth values to compensate for angular distortion and errors).
15. Regarding Claim 4:
Oldham as modified by Helsel does not teach, modulating one or more aspects of at least the first drive signal includes altering one or more signal characteristics of the first drive signal in terms of one or more of: frequency, amplitude and phase.
However, Gilboa teaches, ([0012]: Additionally or alternatively, the scanner is configured to scan the beam in a periodic scan pattern, and the one or more operating parameters calculated by the controller include at least one of a frequency, a phase, and an amplitude of the periodic scan pattern).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Oldham in view of Helsel with Gilboa, since it is the same field of endeavor and results would have been predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify Oldham in view of Helsel with Gilboa to include modulating one or more aspects of at least the first drive signal includes altering one or more signal characteristics of the first drive signal in terms of one or more of: frequency, amplitude and phase since, (Gilboa: [0019] Accurate TOF-based depth mapping requires that the position of the scanning spot be precisely known at each point at which a depth measurement is made along the scan path).
16. Regarding Claim 5:
Oldham as modified by Helsel does not teach, modulating one or more aspects of at least the first drive signal includes modulating one or more characteristics of each of the first drive signal and the second drive signal, wherein said one or more characteristics includes one or more of: frequency, amplitude and phase.
However, Gilboa teaches ([0040]: The fitting process can be improved if the location and angular orientation of filament 50 are known, typically by means of pre-calibration, and can be refined still further if a pair of scattering lines is extended across the beam path. Even without such calibration, however, a single scattering line still enables controller 52 to extract useful scan coordinates from curves 64. Referring back to FIG. 3, for example, controller 52 is able, on this basis, to correct α(t) for the difference between T1 and T2 and thus to apply a corresponding correction to the coordinate values of the TOF measurements made by device 20 for purposes of 3D mapping. Alternatively or additionally, the controller may modify the drive signals that are applied to scanner 22 in order to reduce or eliminate the offset between the alternating scan lines, as well as reducing other scan inaccuracies). Gilboa further teaches, ([0042]: Controller 52 can then compute the relation between the two peaks, including their respective times of occurrence and the difference between these times, as an indication of the frequency, phase, and/or amplitude of the scan, and use the results of this computation in calculating and correcting scan parameters).
Obvious/Motivation: (See Claim 4).
17. Claims 8 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oldham et al (WO 2020087015 A1), hereinafter Oldham, in view of Helsel et al (US 6285489 B1), hereinafter Helsel, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Uyeno et al (US 11835709 B2), hereinafter Uyeno.
18. Regarding Claim 8:
Oldham as modified by Helsel does not teach, using multiple laser-scanners, wherein the multiple-axis scanner is one of among multiple laser-scanners which are cooperatively configured and used to adaptively scan the Rol according to an
optimized scanning trajectory which is divided into multiple sections, and wherein each
scanner is actuated individually and follows one trajectory section.
However, Uyeno teaches a scanning system ([Col. 2, Lines 49-61]: The first steering MEMS MMA comprises at least one mirror responsive to command signals to tip and tilt to scan the optical transmit beam at a scan angle in first and second angular direction (e.g., Elevation and Azimuth) about the first reflection angle over a primary FOR. The fold mirror is positioned to intercept the re-directed optical transmit beam within a range of scan angles within the primary transmit FOR (e.g., a maximum scan angle at the edge of the primary transmit FOR or a scan angle at the center of primary FOR) and re-direct the optical transmit beam along a second optical path. The second steering MEMS MMA is positioned to receive and re-direct the optical transmit beam from the fold mirror along a third optical path at a second reflection angle and offset from the first optical path. The second steering MEMS MMA comprises at least one mirror responsive to command signals to tip and tilt to scan the optical transmit beam at a scan angle in the first and second angular directions about the second reflection angle over a secondary transmit FOR. Depending on the geometry of the MEMS MMAs, this may have the effect of extending the primary FOR in either the first or second angular directions in a contiguous, separating or overlapping FOR.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Oldham in view of Helsel with Uyeno, since it is the same field of endeavor and results would have been predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify Oldham in view of Helsel with Uyeno to include multiple laser-scanners which are cooperatively configured and used to adaptively scan the Rol according to an optimized scanning trajectory which is divided into multiple sections, and wherein each scanner is actuated individually and follows one trajectory section, since (Uyeno: [Abstract]: The MEMS MMAs scan both primary and secondary FOR providing considerable flexibility to scan a scene to provide not only active imaging (to supplement passive imaging) but also simultaneously allowing for other optical functions such as establishing a communications link, providing an optical transmit beam for another detection platform or determining a range to target).
19. Regarding Claim 15:
Oldham as modified by Helsel does not teach, generating the scanning output via a multi-dimensional scanner, combining the first drive signal and the second drive signal and, in response, providing a first combined signal that is coupled to a first terminal of the multi-dimensional scanner, and coupling a third drive signal to a second terminal of the multi-dimensional scanner and, in response, using the first combined signal and the third drive signal to provide an optimal scanning pattern within a region of interest.
However, Uyeno teaches ([Col. 2, Lines 62-67]: The pair of MEMS MMAs (and fold mirror) may have many different configurations to implement the beam steering architecture to scan the primary and secondary FOR. In one configuration, each single mirror in the first steering MEMS MMA is mapped to a corresponding single mirror in the second steering MEMS MMA, e.g., a 1-to-1 (1 mirror to 1 mirror) mapping. The single mirrors may be elements of first and second steering MEMS MMA that each comprise only a single mirror, a row or column of mirrors that are mapped 1-to-1 or full arrays of mirrors that are all mapped 1-to-1). Uyeno further teaches, ([Col. 3, Lines 5-26]: In another configuration, each single mirror in the first steering MEMS MMA (only a single mirror, row or column, or an array) may be mapped to M mirrors in the second steering MEMS MMA to expand the secondary FOR in Azimuth and/or Elevation e.g. a 1-to-M (1 mirror to M mirror mapping. In yet another configuration, a plurality of N mirrors in the first steering MEMS MMA (row/column or array) may be mapped to a single mirror in the second steering MEMS MMA e.g. a N-to-1 (N mirror to 1 mirror) mapping. A “piston” capability of the MEMS MMA is selectively applied to all N mirrors to shape the optical transmit beam that is mapped to the single mirror in the second steering MEMS MMA. These can be combined into an N-to-M (N mirror to 1 mirror) mapping. In yet another configurations, the first and second steering MEMS MMAs are arrays (K mirrors × L mirrors) and (P mirrors × Q mirrors), respectively, which may be configured to implement any of the above mappings or a combination thereof. The arrays of mirrors also allows for partitioning the MMAs to generate and scan multiple optical transmit beams over the primary or secondary FOR and for spectral diversity within or among the beams).
Obvious/Motivation: (See Claim 8).
20. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helsel et al (US 6285489 B1), hereinafter Helsel, in view of Uyeno et al (US 11835709 B2), hereinafter Uyeno.
21. Regarding Claim 18:
Helsel teaches, An apparatus to provide an optimal scanning pattern within a region of interest, ([Col. 13, Lines 44-50]: Because the circuit 122 can use the sense signal as the basic clock signal for the ramp signal, timing of the ramp signal is inherently synchronized to the horizontal position of the scan. However, one skilled in the art will recognize that, for some embodiments, a controlled phase shift of the ramp signal relative to the sense signal may optimize performance).
Helsel goes on to teach, the apparatus comprising: a multi-dimensional scanner including a first terminal associated with scanning along a first axis and a second terminal associated with scanning along a second axis. (See Claim 6).
Helsel does not teach, signal processing circuitry, integrated or coupled to the multi-dimensional scanner.
However, Uyeno teaches ([Col. 2, Lines 39-44]: The first steering MEMS MMA comprises at least one mirror responsive to command signals to tip and tilt to scan the optical transmit beam at a scan angle in first and second angular direction (e.g., Elevation and Azimuth) about the first reflection angle over a primary FOR). Uyeno further teaches, ([Col. 2, Lines 53-57]: The second steering MEMS MMA comprises at least one mirror responsive to command signals to tip and tilt to scan the optical transmit beam at a scan angle in the first and second angular directions about the second reflection angle over a secondary transmit FOR). Uyeno continues to teach, ([Col. 6, Lines 45-48]: A controller 70 is configured to issue command signals to said first and second steering MEMS MMAs to scan the optical transmit beam 56 over the primary and secondary transmit FOR 60 and 66, respectively).
Helsel does not teach, combine a first drive signal and a second drive signal and, in response, to provide a first combined signal that is coupled to the first terminal of the multi- dimensional scanner; and couple a third drive signal to the second terminal of the multi-dimensional scanner, wherein the first combined signal provides for an optimal scanning pattern within a region of interest.
However, Uyeno teaches this: (See Claim 15).
22. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helsel et al (US 6285489 B1), hereinafter Helsel, in view of Uyeno et al (US 11835709 B2), hereinafter Uyeno, as applied to Claim 18, and further in view of Gilboa et al (US 20170038581 A1), hereinafter Gilboa.
23. Regarding Claim 19:
Helsel as modified by Uyeno does not teach, the first drive signal includes a first modulated signal and the second drive signal includes a second modulated signal, and wherein each of the first modulated signal includes one or more of: amplitude modulation, phase modulation, and frequency modulation.
However, Giboa teaches this, (see Claim 4).
Helsel as modified by Uyeno does not teach, the second modulated signal includes one or more of: amplitude modulation, phase modulation, and frequency modulation.
However, Giboa teaches a scanning LiDAR system, ([0011]: Typically, the controller is configured to calculate one or more operating parameters of the scanner responsively to the output of the receiver. In some embodiments, the scanner is configured to scan the beam in mutually-opposing first and second scan directions in alternation along the scan axis, and the controller is configured to calculate a scan offset between the first and second scan directions based on the output of the receiver). Gilboa further teaches, ([0012]: Additionally or alternatively, the scanner is configured to scan the beam in a periodic scan pattern, and the one or more operating parameters calculated by the controller include at least one of a frequency, a phase, and an amplitude of the periodic scan pattern).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Helsel in view of Uyeno with Gilboa, since it is the same field of endeavor and results would have been predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify Helsel in view of Uyeno with Gilboa to include a first modulated signal and second modulated signal, and wherein each of the first and second modulated signals include one or more of: amplitude modulation, phase modulation, and frequency modulation since, (Gilboa: [0019] Accurate TOF-based depth mapping requires that the position of the scanning spot be precisely known at each point at which a depth measurement is made along the scan path).
24. Claims 10 & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oldham et al (WO 2020087015 A1), hereinafter Oldham, in view of Helsel et al (US 6285489 B1), hereinafter Helsel, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Plesko et al (EP 0725955 B1), hereinafter Plesko.
25. Regarding Claim 10:
Oldham as modified by Helsel does not teach, the first drive signal includes a first set of multi- frequency signals corresponding to a first tone, and the second drive signal includes a second set of multi-frequency signals corresponding to a different second tone.
However, Plesko teaches a scanning system ([0087]: The axial scan element shown in Figure 13 in which two independent dimensions of scanning may be achieved need not depend on operation at resonant frequencies of suspensions 48 and 95, and can produce a greater palette of two dimensional scan patterns than the single magnetic core axial scan elements). Plesko further teaches, ([0088]: Multiple frequencies and waveforms can be fed to each coil while techniques such as phase shifting, amplitude modulating as well as phase shift keying may be used to produce a vast palette of useful omnidirectional scan patterns from this scan element).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Oldham in view of Helsel with Plesko, since it is the same field of endeavor and results would have been predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify Oldham in view of Helsel with Plesko to include a first and second set of multi- frequency signals corresponding to a first and second tone since, (Plesko: [0087]: For example, a wider range of raster speeds may be produced and Lissajous figures may be simultaneously developed by each of the two independent suspensions 48 and 95, moving a single spot of light in remarkably high speed, dense, omni-directional scan patterns).
26. Regarding Claim 11:
Oldham as modified by Helsel does not teach, modulating includes or involves at least one of the following: phase shifting at least one frequency of the first drive signal; and phase shifting at least one frequency of the second drive signal.
However, Plesko teaches this. (See Claim 10)
27. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oldham et al (WO 2020087015 A1), hereinafter Oldham, in view of Helsel et al (US 6285489 B1), hereinafter Helsel as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Royo et al (EP 3428677 A1), hereinafter Royo.
28. Regarding Claim 7:
Oldham as modified by Helsel does not teach, generating data corresponding to the selected Rol as one of multiple regions in the FoV, wherein the generated data corresponding to the selected Rol corresponds to prioritized or more heavily weighted one of the multiple regions in the FoV.
However, Royo teaches a scanning LiDAR system ([0010]: More advantageously, the data processing unit is adapted to choose a region of interest wherein the resolution of the time-of-flight measurements is considered to be crucial for the operation of the driver assistance device, such that the measurement resolution can be adapted according to the detected and/or classified object. The region of interest can be a connected area or a set of disconnected areas depending on the number and position of detected and/or classified objects. The resolution refers to the sampling rate and/or to the spatial resolution).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Oldham in view of Helsel with Royo, since it is the same field of endeavor and results would have been predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify Oldham in view of Helsel with Royo to include generated data corresponding to the selected Rol corresponds to prioritized or more heavily weighted one of the multiple regions in the FoV since, (Royo: [0011]: Said areas of interest could be sampled with a larger rate and the remaining area in the field of view could be sampled with a lower rate, leaving the overall sampling rate constant. Also the spatial resolution in the region of interest can be sampled with a spatial resolution greater than the spatial resolution in the remaining field of view, e.g., by leaving a defined set of deflection elements unused when sampling the remaining field of view but using more and/or all deflection elements corresponding to the region of interest. For example, if a static object far away is detected, like a sign or a tree, the resolution of the area comprising the static object can be less than the resolution of an area that comprises a moving object nearby, like another vehicle or a pedestrian). Thus, allowing the system to analyze objects classified with a high level of importance at a higher resolution (spatial or temporal), providing more information to determine future actions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 20220018941 A1: Discloses a beam scanning LiDAR system employing Lissajous patterns.
US 20220282965 A1: Discloses a beam scanning LiDAR system with adaptive scanning.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES W NAPIER whose telephone number is (571)272-7451. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 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, Robert Hodge can be reached at (571) 272-2097. 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.W.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645