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 .
Contingent Limitations
Claims 9 and 10 comprise contingent limitations recited in phrases “in a case”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. The conditions followed the phrase “in a case” may not be met, hence the corresponding steps may not be required to be conducted. Therefore, these limitations have no patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.04 (II) for details.
For continuing examination purpose, the phrase “in a case” in claim 9 has been construed as “in response to”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites a limitation “an object that emits the laser light” which introduces ambiguity. Since the laser light is emitted by “light emission device 11”, the object can only reflect laser light. For continuing examination purpose, the limitation has been construed as “an object that [[emits]] reflects the laser light”.
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VAN LIEROP (US 20200400788 A1, hereinafter as “LIEROP”) in view of MONZAKI (US 20160304068 A1, hereinafter as “MONZAKI”).
Regarding claim 1, LIEROP teaches:
A laser sensor (LIDAR system 300 in FIG.s 3 and 10) comprising:
a mirror (mirror 350 in FIG.s 3 and 10) configured to scan a reflection angle of laser light ([0046]: “The individual beams of the lasers 340 are focused by a lens system 345 and deflected by a 1D MEMS mirror 350”);
a driving waveform generation circuit configured to generate a waveform of a driving signal that controls an amplitude of the mirror, according to an amplitude command value based on a target amplitude that defines a scanning range of the mirror (FIG.s 3 and 10 and [0046]: “The transmitter is controlled by a controller (not shown) which effectuates the 1D MEMS mirror 350 to oscillate and assume different angular positions with regard to the axis 355 such that the scenery 330 is scanned (e.g., horizontally). The oscillations of the mirror 350 may be effectuated by an electrostatic drive (not shown) connected to the mirror 350 and controlled by the controller”. This teaches a driving waveform generation circuit to generate a waveform to control the mirror to scan a predetermined range with a target amplitude); and
a feedforward circuit configured to reflect the amplitude command value through feedforward control ([0071]: “the field of view 1030 is changed dynamically, for example, depending on a scanning angle of the mirror 350 in the horizontal direction”; And [0080]: “in order to facilitate the change of the amplitude of the mirror 350, control parameters, e.g., the pre-load and fix as described above, or structure change, e.g., full feed-forward control, may be used”. These teach to use a feedforward control circuit to reflect dynamically changed amplitude value).
LIEROP teaches all the limitations except that the feedforward circuit is configured to reflect a transient model in a case where the amplitude of the mirror transiently changes with time according to the driving signal in a case where the target amplitude is changed and a target model of a temporal change of the amplitude of the mirror on the amplitude command value through feedforward control.
However, MONZAKI teaches in an analogous art:
a feedforward circuit (feedforward filter F1 in FIG. 2) configured to reflect a transient model in a case where a control variable transiently changes with time according to the driving signal in a case where the target control variable is changed and a target model of a temporal change of the control variable on command value through feedforward control (FIG. 2, and [0055]: “The braking force control device 1 according to this embodiment improves a brake feeling by performing a feedforward (FF) control on a transient posture of the vehicle 2 at a time of braking by using the braking device 7. The ECU 8 has a response compensation filter F1 as illustrated in FIG. 2. The response compensation filter F1 is a secondary/secondary filter that is designed based on a model representing motion characteristics of the vehicle 2. The response compensation filter F1 performs a filter processing on a required braking force and outputs the result to the actuator 10 of the braking device 7 for a damping ratio ζ of a pitch motion of the vehicle 2 to be a target damping ratio ζ*. In addition, the ECU 8 changes the target damping ratio ζ*, which is a transient property adjustment parameter of the response compensation filterF1, in response to a driver's brake operation”; And [0061]: “The ECU 8 performs the filter processing on the required braking force and outputs the result to the actuator 10. This filter-processed required braking force will be referred to as a “post-filter required braking force”. … Filters relating to the filter processing by the ECU 8 according to this embodiment are secondary/secondary filters that include the damping ratio ζ and the target damping ratio ζ*. The filter that includes the target damping ratio ζ* advances or delays a phase of the post-filter required braking force with respect to a phase of the required braking force”. As shown in FIG. 2, the feedforward filter F1 comprises a ratio between a transient model comprising a damping ratio ζ and target model comprising a target damping ratio ζ*. When a target control variable, i.e., “required braking force”, is changed, the control variable/(barking force) is transiently changes with time).
The feedforward control method to control a variable using a filter comprising a transient model and a target model taught by MONZAKI can be integrated into the feedforward control of LIEROP. 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 LIEROP based on the teaching of MONZAKI, to make the laser sensor wherein the feedforward circuit is configured to reflect a transient model in a case where the amplitude of the mirror transiently changes with time according to the driving signal in a case where the target amplitude is changed and a target model of a temporal change of the amplitude of the mirror on the amplitude command value through feedforward control. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help “promptly” and “appropriately” control the system, as MONZAKI suggests in [0006] and [0055].
Regarding claim 2, LIEROP-MONZAKI teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
MONZAKI further teaches:
the feedforward circuit reflects a ratio of the target model with respect to the transient model on a waveform of the driving signal (as shown in FIG. 2, the feedforward circuit F1 reflects a ratio of the damping ratio ζ with respect to target damping ratio ζ*. Since damping ratio is located within the denominator of the model, therefore the feedforward circuit F1 reflects a ratio the target model comprising the target damping ratio ζ* with respect to the transient model comprising the damping ratio ζ ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified LIEROP based on the teaching of MONZAKI, to make the laser sensor wherein the feedforward circuit reflects a ratio of the target model with respect to the transient model on a waveform of the driving signal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help “promptly” and “appropriately” control the system, as MONZAKI suggests in [0006] and [0055].
Regarding claim 3, LIEROP-MONZAKI teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
MONZAKI further teaches:
the transient model is a model that represents a measured value of the temporal change of the control variable in a case where the target control variable is changed (FIG. 2 and [0055]: “The response compensation filter F1 is a secondary/secondary filter that is designed based on a model representing motion characteristics of the vehicle 2”. The transient model of F1 shown in FIG. 2 comprises Wn represents a nature frequency of the pitch motion of the vehicle 2, which is based on a measured value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified LIEROP based on the teaching of MONZAKI, to make the laser sensor wherein the transient model is a model that represents a measured value of the temporal change of the amplitude of the mirror in a case where the target amplitude is changed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help “promptly” and “appropriately” control the system, as MONZAKI suggests in [0006] and [0055].
Regarding claim 6, LIEROP-MONZAKI teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
LIEROP further teaches:
the driving signal is a sine wave (FIG. 5 and [0078]: “the exemplary implementation described in conjunction with FIGS. 4, 5 and 6 above, the amplitude of the sinusoidal waveform may be determined by using equation (1)”).
Claim 9 recites a control method comprising operation steps conducted by the laser sensor of claim 1 with patentably the same limitations. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected for the same reason recited in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 10 recites a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a control program conducted by the laser sensor of claim 1 with patentably the same limitations. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected for the same reason recited in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIEROP in view of MONZAKI, and in further view of POLONSKY (US 20180267149 A1, hereinafter as “POLONSKY”).
Regarding claim 4, LIEROP-MONZAKI teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on, but do not teach a command circuit configured to command the target amplitude according to a distance between the laser sensor and an object that reflects the laser light.
However, POLONSKY teaches in an analogous art:
to command the target amplitude according to a distance between the laser sensor and an object that reflects the laser light ([0089]: “in case of long-distance scanning, the electronic device may reduce a field-of-view and increase the angle resolution. Alternatively, in case of short-distance scanning, the electronic device may expand the filed-of-view and decrease the angle resolution”).
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 LIEROP-MONZAKI based on the teaching of POLONSKY, to make the laser sensor to further comprise a command circuit configured to command the target amplitude according to a distance between the laser sensor and an object that reflects the laser light. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help optimize the detecting “resolution”, as POLONSKY suggests in [0089].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIEROP in view of MONZAKI, and in further view of Ueno (US 20070252969 A1, hereinafter as “Ueno”).
Regarding claim 5, LIEROP-MONZAKI teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on, but do not teach a feedback control circuit configured to feedback control the amplitude command value so as to reduce an error between an amplitude value commanded by the amplitude command value and a measured amplitude value of the mirror, wherein the feedback control circuit uses an amplitude value of the target model as an amplitude value commanded by the amplitude command value, in a case where the target amplitude has been changed.
However, Ueno teaches in an analogous art:
a feedback control circuit (feedback compensator 350 in FIG. 9) configured to feedback control a control variable command value so as to reduce an error between an control variable value commanded by the control variable command value and a measured control variable value ([0064] and [0072]: the feedback compensator 350 reduces an error between an control variable 360 and a measured control variable 322), wherein
the feedback control circuit uses an control variable value of target model (target position filter 348 in FIG. 9) as an control variable value commanded by the control variable command value, in a case where the target control variable has been changed ([0072]: the control variable 360 out of the target position filter 348 is used as an control variable value commended by the control variable 320).
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 LIEROP-MONZAKI based on the teaching of Ueno, to make the laser sensor to further comprise a feedback control circuit configured to feedback control the amplitude command value so as to reduce an error between an amplitude value commanded by the amplitude command value and a measured amplitude value of the mirror, wherein the feedback control circuit uses an amplitude value of the target model as an amplitude value commanded by the amplitude command value, in a case where the target amplitude has been changed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help reach “target’ situation, as Ueno suggests in [0009].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIEROP in view of MONZAKI, and in further view of TAKAO (US 20240241367 A1, hereinafter as “TAKAO”).
Regarding claim 7, LIEROP-MONZAKI teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
LIEROP further teaches:
the mirror is a micro electro mechanical system (MEMS) mirror that scans a reflection direction of the laser light ([0046]: “The individual beams of the lasers 340 are focused by a lens system 345 and deflected by a 1D MEMS mirror 350”).
LIEROP-MONZAKI teaches all the limitations except the MEMS mirror scans a reflection direction of the laser light with a first axis in a resonance direction and a second axis in a non-resonance direction, and the amplitude of the mirror is an amplitude of the first axis.
However, TAKAO teaches in an analogous art:
MEMS mirror scans a reflection direction of the laser light with a first axis in a resonance direction and a second axis in a non-resonance direction ([0069]: “The rotating mirror 21 of the MEMS optical deflector 20 rotates around two mutually intersecting axes with non-resonance and resonance, respectively”), and rotation angle range about resonance direction is smaller than the rotation angle range about non-resonance direction ([0069]: “the (non-resonance side) reciprocating rotation angle of the rotating mirror 21 about the X-axis is smaller than the (resonance side) reciprocating rotation angle of the rotating mirror 21 about the Y-axis”).
Since TAKAO teaches the amplitude of the mirror about resonance direction is bigger, 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 LIEROP-MONZAKI based on the teaching of TAKAO, to make the laser sensor wherein the MEMS mirror scans a reflection direction of the laser light with a first axis in a resonance direction and a second axis in a non-resonance direction, and the amplitude of the mirror is an amplitude of the first axis. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help the scanning, as TAKAO suggests in [0069].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIEROP in view of MONZAKI, and in further view of Gunnam (US 20200025896 A1, hereinafter as “Gunnam”).
Regarding claim 8, LIEROP-MONZAKI teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on, but do not teach a measurement circuit configured to measure a distance between the laser sensor and an object, by using a time when the laser light is emitted and a light received time of reflected light of the laser light from the object.
However, Gunnam teaches in an analogous art:
to measure a distance between the laser sensor and an object, by using a time when the laser light is emitted and a light received time of reflected light of the laser light from the object ([0003]: “LIDAR systems employ pulses of light to measure distance to an object based on the time of flight (TOF) of each pulse of light. A pulse of light emitted from a light source of a LIDAR system interacts with a distal object. A portion of the light reflects from the object and returns to a detector of the LIDAR system. Based on the time elapsed between emission of the pulse of light and detection of the returned pulse of light, a distance is estimated”).
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 LIEROP-MONZAKI based on the teaching of Gunnam, to make the laser sensor to further comprise a measurement circuit configured to measure a distance between the laser sensor and an object, by using a time when the laser light is emitted and a light received time of reflected light of the laser light from the object. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help measure the distance, as Gunnam teaches in [0003].
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
BRUNNER (US 20210223536 A1): teaches, in FIG. 1A, a LIDAR system to control its scanning amplitude of laser light
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES CAI whose telephone number is (571)272-7192. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Thomas Lee can be reached on 571-272-3667. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/CHARLES CAI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115