Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claims 1-27 are presented for examination. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 s 2 -8 and 16-27 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding Claim 2, it is rejected as the intended scope of the limitation “using the field of view to find the scan pattern” is unclear as the specification does not help explain the meaning of this limitation. After reading the specification, particularly at [0024], it appears that the scan pattern is g enerated based on identified regions of interest rather than being based on the field of view that contains the regions of interest . Regarding Claims 2-4, 6-8, 16-18 and 20-22 The terminology of finding the scan pattern makes it sound as if the scan pattern is being selected from a pool of available scan patterns. However, [0024] of the instant specification states there is a circuit that generates the scan pattern based on the location of one or more ROIs within the field of view. Examiner suggests changing instances of find to generate and finding to generating as this removes confusion as to the desired scope of the claims. Based on [0024] generate appears to also include instances where a previously generated / stored scan pattern is reused . If the term find is preferred , please point to portions of the specification that clarify the desired scope for the claim limitation. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation find will be temporarily interpreted as if it covers generating or retrieving previously generated scan patterns. Regarding Claims 5, 19 and 23-27 , they are rejected for depending on a rejected base claim. Regarding Claim 3 and 17 , the claimed range is vague and indefinite. It is unclear what the upper boundary is since it requires both assumption and an understanding of the meaning of the term negligible improvement , rendering the metes and bounds of the claim impossible to determine. While a range is meant to define a clear boundary, the pending claim language leaves the upper limit open-ended without a defined maximum, violating the requirement for definiteness. The instant specification at [0008] makes it clear the upper limit can be anywhere between 5 and 9. Claims 3 and 17 also require the system to have a certain number of frequency components. However, the specification provides no clear teaching regarding what constitutes a certain number of frequency components. It appears that a conventional Lissajous scanning configuration would include two frequency components, one for each rotation axis but even that is not entirely clear. Applicant is requested to point to the portions of the specification that clearly identify how a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would understand what systems would include three, four, five or up to nine frequency components so they could be able to tell if they were infringing the claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim s 1 , 6-7, 11, 13-15 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by US PG PUB 20160047896 (hereinafter Dussan ) . Regarding Claim 1, Dussan teaches a method comprising: providing a signal having multiple frequency components and a scan-pattern design with a balanced or optimized set of attributes ( including a sampling density attribute ( [0047] of Dussan describes the use of any number of dynamic scan patterns to adapt the scan pattern to focus on selected range points & [0032] of the instant specification describes a scanner driven by a signal with multiple frequency components as providing an adaptive scanning pattern) ; and using the signal and the scan-pattern design to scan a region of interest ( RoI ) in a field of view by sampling or traversing the RoI more times than other regions in the field of view ( See FIG. 8A and [0094] of Dussan describ ing how using a dynamic scan pattern will not scan through the full scan area (i.e. field of view)) . Regarding Claim 6, Dussan teaches the method of claim 1, further including finding the scan-pattern design based on a task-driven algorithm that varies scan-patterns variables according to different possible scan regions in the field of view (FIGS. 8A – 8F of Dussan showing dynamic scan patterns designed to traverse locations (i.e. scan regions in the field of view) on the shot list) . Regarding Claim 7, Dussan teaches t he method of claim 1, further including using an algorithm that finds the scan-pattern design as being optimal for the Rol (FIG. 9A and its accompanying text includes a process flow for generating a scan pattern design from a range point list (i.e. ROI list)) , and in response to finding the scan-pattern design as being optimal for the Rol, further including providing concentrated spatial sampling or traversing for the Rol (FIGS. 8A – 8F of Dussan show s dynamic scan patterns travers ing range points (i.e. scan regions in the field of view) on the shot list) . Regarding Claim 11, Dussan teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said using the signal and the scan-pattern design to scan includes using a MEMS scanner with resonant frequencies that are associated with scanning frequencies used in the signal ([0064] describes a MEMs scanner made of dual MEMs mirrors where the two mirrors operate on different resonant frequencies with a ratio of between 1:5 and 1:9) . Regarding Claim 13, Dussan teaches the method of claim 1, further including scanning the RoI by sampling and traversing the Rol more times than other regions in the field of view, wherein the field of view includes an unsampled region outside of the Rol, and wherein said signal is a modulated signal (FIGS. 8A – 8F show a scan configuration with a dynamic scan pattern with multiple unsampled regions outside of the RoI ) . Regarding Claim s 14 - 15, they are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Regarding Claim s 20 -21 , they are rejected for the same reasons as claim s 6 -7 . 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 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. Claim s 2 , 8-10, 16 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dussan in view of Wang et al, “Design rules for dense and rapid Lissajous Scanning ” (hereinafter Wang) . Regarding Claim 2, Dussan teaches the method of claim 1, but does not specifically teach further including using the field of view to find the scan-pattern design based on an algorithm that processes different parameters involving at least one of amplitude and phase. However, Wang teaches further including using the field of view to find the scan-pattern design based on an algorithm that processes different parameters involving at least one of amplitude and phase (Wang describes the use of Lissajous scanning patterns with a LIDAR device {see abstract} , which as shown in Eq(1) on page 2 requires selection of the parameters including amplitude and phase , FIG. 1 of Wang also shows Lissajous curves allowing for targeted scanning of a field of view ) . Dussan and Wang both describe details of efficient ways to establish a scan pattern for a LIDAR device. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify Dussan to utilize Lissajous scanning patterns taught by Wang owing to their high proliferation in the field of LIDAR, the high quality factor and low power consumption associated with Lissajous scanning (see Wang Abstract) . Regarding Claim 8 , Dussan teaches t he method of claim 1 and the combination of Dussan and Wang teaches further including using an algorithm that finds the scan-pattern design based on amplitude and phase parameters in x-axis and y- axis motion in the field of view (Wang teaches the selection of specific amplitude and phase parameters to achieve one of the targeted scan patterns shown in FIG. 1) , and wherein the sampling density attribute is associated with the Rol, with an increased number of sample points in the Rol relative to the other regions, to provide focus, within the field of view, on the Rol (FIGS. 8A – 8F of Dussan shows increasing the number of sampling points in the regions of interest) . Regarding Claim 9 , Dussan teaches the method of claim 1 and the combination of Dussan and Wang as applied to claim 2 teaches further including using an algorithm based: on a sampled scanning pattern defined in part by a set of amplitude parameters used to modulate the multiple frequency components (Wang at column 1 page 2 just beneath Eq(1) teaches the use of amplitude parameters to define the scanning amplitude of the x-axis and y-axis directions) ; and on a representation of the field of view with the Rol being associated with values more heavily weighted than values associated with the other regions in the field of view ( Dussan FIGS. 9A -9B shows how regions of the field of view including range points from the shot list are more heavily weighted in the scan pattern than other areas, which can in some cases be entirely skipped when an interline skip is used) . Regarding Claim 10 , the combination of Dussan and Wang teaches t he method of claim 9, further including: using the set of amplitude parameters to modulate the multiple frequency components in two dimensions of the field of view (Wang at column 1 page 2 just beneath Eq(1) teaches the use of amplitude parameters to define the scanning amplitude of the x-axis and y-axis directions) ; and in response to using said algorithm based on a sampled scanning pattern and on a r epresentation of the field of view, conducting spatial sampling or traversing in a third dimension of the field of view and generating therefrom a point cloud wherein the spatial sampling or traversing is more concentrated in the Rol than the other regions (FIGS. 8A – 8F of Dussan show generation of a scan pattern with varied scan density resulting in generation of a three dimensional point cloud with greater density in one or more ROIs of the field of view) . Regarding Claim 16 , it is rejected for the same reasons as respective claim 2. Regarding Claim 23-24 , they are rejected for the same reasons as claims 9-10. Claim s 3 -5 , 17-19 , 22 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dussan in view of Wang et al, “Design rules for dense and rapid Lissajous Scanning” (hereinafter Wang) as applied to Claim 2 and further in view of US PG PUB 20210344302 (hereinafter Brunner) . Regarding Claim 3, Dussan teaches the method of claim 1, the combination of Dussan and Wang as applied to Claim 2 teaches further including finding the scan-pattern design based on an algorithm that processes different parameters involving at least one of amplitude and phase (see amplitude and phase parameters described in Eq(1) on page 2 of Wang) . The combination of Dussan and Wang fails to specifically teach the rest of claim 3. However, Brunner teaches processes a number of different frequency components related to or including the multiple frequency components ([0080] of Brunner describes the use of phase modulation to achieve a variable frequency ratio between the two driving frequencies of the MEMs sensor in order to “define specific ROIs with increased resolution ”, this phase modulation would constitute different frequency components related to the multiple frequency components ) , wherein the number of different frequency components is greater than three and less than a threshold limit ([0072] and FIG. 4B of Brunner describe how the frequencies of the signals driving movement of the MEMs mirrors in the X and Y axes to achieve a Lissajous scanning pattern are modulated over time and initially offset from each other, thereby constituting at least 4 frequency components based on Examiner’s best understanding of the claim term frequency components as described in the specification ) at which it is assumed that processing different frequency components provides negligible improvement. Brunner and the combination of Dussan and Wang both describe LIDAR systems using MEMs mirrors with scan patterns targeted to a particular region of interest (see Brunner [0031] describing MEMs configuration and FIG. 6A showing targeted region of interest) . A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the combination of Dussan and Wang with the varying frequencies and phase modulation to achieve a more flexible scan pattern design (see Brunner [0080]). Examiner also notes that the Lissajous scan patterns suggested for use in LIDAR applications and shown in FIG. 1 of Wang appear to be the same as the single frequency scans shown in FIG. 2 of Applicant’s provisional application and that application of the multi-frequency modulation teachings of Brunner would result in the person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing generating the multi-frequency Lissajous scan patterns shown in FIG. 2 of the provisional application. Regarding Claim 4, Dussan teaches the method of claim 1 and the combination of Dussan , Wang and Brunner as applied to claim 3 teaches further including finding the scan-pattern design based on an algorithm that processes different parameters involving at least one of amplitude and phase and that processes different frequency components that correspond to a range associated with resonant frequencies of scanning frequencies used in the signal having multiple frequency components ([0040] of Brunner describes the use of a configuration utilizing two resonant scanning axes and FIG. 4B shows modulation of the X and Y axis driving frequencies using other frequency components to achieve a frequency modulation of each driving frequency by about 10 Hz). Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Dussan , Wang and Brunner teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the resonant frequencies are within a predetermined or resonance bandwidth of the scanning frequencies in the signal (FIG. 4B shows an exemplary frequency modulation in the resonant driving frequencies of less than 0.5%) . Regarding Claims 17-19, they are rejected for the same reasons as Claims 3-5. Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Dussan , Wan g and Brunner teaches the apparatus of claim 18, further including processing circuitry to execute an algorithm for finding the scan-pattern design based on amplitude and phase parameters in x-axis and y-axis motion in the field of view (Wang teaches the selection of specific amplitude and phase parameters to achieve one of the targeted scan patterns shown in FIG. 1 of Wang). Regarding Claim 25, the combination of Dussan , Wan g and Brunner teaches the apparatus of claim 18, further including a MEMS scanner, including the scan circuitry, to perform the scan ([0064] describes a MEMs scanner including dual MEMs mirrors) . Regarding Claim 26 , the combination of Dussan , Wan g and Brunner teaches the apparatus of claim 25, further including processing circuitry to perform a wide-band detection algorithm to control phase accuracy while using the MEMS scanner ([0049] of Brunner describes a mechanism for feedback control by measuring phase error that would include an algorithm for updating the controller 29 and slave controller 40 to maintain phase accuracy). Regarding Claim 27 , The apparatus of claim 18, further including a LiDAR (light detection and ranging) circuit which is integrated with the signal-generation circuitry and the scan circuitry ( Dussan and Brunner both teach the use of LIDAR circuits integrated with signal-generation and scan circuitry) . Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dussan in view of US PG PUB 20210344302 (hereinafter Brunner) . Regarding Claim 12 , Dussan teaches t he method of claim 1, wherein said using the signal and the scan-pattern design to scan includes using: a MEMS scanner ([0064] describes the use of dual MEMs mirrors to scan the scan-pattern design) ; but Dussan fails to teach a wide-band detection algorithm to control phase accuracy while using the MEMS scanner. However, Brunner teaches a wide-band detection algorithm to control phase accuracy while using the MEMS scanner ([0049] of Brunner describes a mechanism for feedback control by measuring phase error that would include an algorithm for updating the controller 29 and slave controller 40 to maintain phase accuracy). Brunner and Dussan both describe MEMs mirror scanning configuration configured to target regions of interest within a LIDAR field of view using customized scan patterns. A person having skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the teachings of Dussan to include a phase error measurement device / algorithm to more tightly control the phase of the MEMs mirrors to avoid phase errors (see [0049] of Brunner) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BENJAMIN WIGGER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4208 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 9:30am to 7:00pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Helal Algahaim can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5227 . 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. /BENJAMIN DAVID WIGGER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645 /HELAL A ALGAHAIM/ SPE , Art Unit 3645