DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
The amendments addressing the 112(b) rejections have overcome the 112(b) grounds of rejection asserted in the previous office action.
The amendments to claim 1 specifying that a signal with multiple frequency components is applied to drive a single scan axis of a scanner overcomes the novelty rejection based solely on the Dussan reference.
However, claim 1 is now rejected under 35 USC 103 using the combination of Dussan and newly cited reference Yao. Examiner will address the following arguments made by Applicant with respect to claim 1 as amended that still appear applicable to the updated grounds of rejection:
(A) Applicant argues Dussan and Wang are not properly combinable because the scan pattern must be customized to traverse the points in the order indicated by the shot list and applying the Lissajous scans taught by Wang would prevent following the specific order from the shot list.
While Dussan certainly describes the system’s ability to generate an ordered list of selected range points, [0038] of Dussan makes clear that the ordering takes into consideration the capabilities and limitations of the scanning LADAR transmission system. Consequently, a MEMs mirror configuration being driven with more complex frequency components (e.g. one generating a Lissajous scan) would be taken into consideration when building the ordered shot list. [0054] of Dussan makes clear that a practitioner is free to choose whether or not to impose an order to the selected range points. Consequently, application of more complex frequency components to the system of Dussan would not make it unfit for its intended purpose as alleged by the Applicant. Applicant should also review FIG. 8D and its accompanying description to see that the teachings of Dussan are not limited to modified raster scans.
(B) Wang fails to teach the amplitude modulation limitations from Claims 9-10, 19 and 24. Even though the Wang reference is not being applied in the updated grounds of rejection, the response is included below as it likely applies to the newly cited reference Yao.
Claim 9 recites “a set of amplitude parameters used to modulate the multiple frequency components”. Claim 9 is limited to the use of amplitude parameters, which based on the language of the claim, does not require the use of time varying amplitude values.
As described in the previous rejection, the amplitude values are set to a size for scaling to cover a desired region of interest. Examiner notes that the instant application also uses the same Ax and Ay nomenclature in its amplitude parameters shown in Eq(1) following [0031] that were criticized as being limited to static variables. Examiner also notes the term “amplitude modulation” does not appear in the body of the specification, nor does an amplitude variable with a time function appear in any of the equations. The closest to this alleged read appears to be the amplitude-related transfer functions Hx & Hy but this does not appear to vary as a function of time but instead be established based upon the frequency. If such a read is desired this would still not appear to result in a modulated amplitude in accordance to the way in which Applicant’s arguments claim to want them interpreted.
Claims 10 and 24 if anything reinforces the original intention of the claims to refer to the amplitudes scaling to the RoI as shown at the end of Claims 10-24, which focus on concentrated spatial sampling within the RoI.
Claim 19 has been amended but it is unclear how the instant application supports this limitation or what the intended scope actually is as the remarks are completely devoid of any specific support citations for the amended claims. The Wang reference describes the use of multiple different Lissajous curves (see page 2 bottom right corner) that could be adapted to periodically cover different regions of interest. By switching between different regions of interest having different sizes the amplitudes would be varied over time in this respect.
Examiner notes that the originally filed provisional, which appears to be an early copy of the later filed white paper, does appear to describe the implementation of time-varying amplitude variation but this teaching is lacking in the PCT and the instant specification as filed and no incorporation by reference statement is present. If the Applicant is willing to certify on the record, by incorporating the missing material, that the failure to include the information from the early copy of the later filed white paper into the highly revised PCT / 371 non-provisional application was inadvertent (e.g., due to a clerical error) and not done by intentional choice, the missing information can be incorporated to overcome the 112(a) rejection below (see 37 CFR 1.57(b)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 19, the newly added limitations included in Claim 19 are rejected as including new matter not included in the specification. In particular, the Examiner cannot find any teaching of an amplitude modulation frequency in the body of the instant application. The response to arguments above go into greater detail with regards to incorporation of amplitude modulation material from the provisional into the non-provisional application if their omission was inadvertent.
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.
Claims 1-11, 13-25, and 27 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Dussan (US 2016/0047896) in view of Yao (US 2017/0047199).
Regarding Claim 1, Dussan teaches a method comprising: providing a signal having multiple frequency components to drive a scan axis of a scanner and, in response, effecting 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 & [0104] & FIG. 8D of the instant specification describes a configuration in which movement in the X axis and the Y axis are driven by two different MEMS mirrors where each operates on or near their resonant frequency, collectively resulting in the use of multiple frequency components to drive a beam scanner but Dussan does not describe a configuration in which a single scan axis is driven by multiple frequency components) wherein the scan-pattern design is determined based at least in part, on processing of different frequency components related to or including the multiple frequency components (Examiner notes that this additional claim limitation does not appear to further limit the scope of the claim as it simply requires processing the multiple frequency components, which would be necessary to determine the shape of the scan-pattern, which would be done in order to confirm a match between the scan and shot list); 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 FIGS. 8B & 8D and [0104] of Dussan describing how using a dynamic scan pattern allows for skipping of a ring or ellipse in the context of FIG. 8D to focus only on specific regions of interest (i.e. field of view)).
However, Yao teaches driving a single beam scanner axis with multiple frequency components ([0048] teaches describes the use of two different frequency components in the X-axis and three different frequency components in the Y-axis). [0024] of Yao also teaches previewing the scan pattern / result prior to completion, which even more clearly teaches the limitation of determining the shape of the scan pattern.
Yao and Dussan both teach the use of non-raster scan patterns for efficiently scanning a beam. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to apply the multi-frequency inputs taught by Yao to the two MEMS scanner configuration taught by Dussan to achieve greater flexibility in tuning pattern size and density ([0024] of Yao) for covering desired shots on the shot list resulting in generation of high-speed Lissajous scan patterns as taught in [0047]-[0048] of Yao. Doing so would also be obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing since the Abstract of Wang et al, “Design Rules for Dense and Rapid Lissajous Scanning” makes clear that as of 2020, Lissajous scanning techniques are very popular in compact laser-scanning applications owing to their high-quality factor and low power consumption and page 4 col 2 of Wang makes clear that MEMS LIDAR configurations (the type described in Dussan) are used to implement Lissajous scan patterns in LIDAR.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Dussan and Yao teaches the method of claim 1. Yao describes using the field of view to determine the scan-pattern design based on an algorithm that processes different parameters involving at least one of amplitude and phase (Yao describes the use of Lissajous scanning patterns with a beam scanner, which as described in [0024] requires adjusting frequency and amplitude parameters to tune a pattern size and density of the scan pattern. Eq (5-8) following [0047] of Yao show the use of a phase offset and applied variations in frequency and phase for applying a desired scan pattern).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Dussan and Yao teaches the method of claim 1, and also teaches further including determining 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(5-8) of Yao and [0024] teaching adjusting frequency and amplitude parameters to tune a pattern size and density of the scan pattern) and processes a number of different frequency components related to or including the multiple frequency components ([0047]-[0048] and Eq(5-8) describes applying multiple frequency components to drive movement in the each of the X and Y axes), wherein the number of different frequency components is greater than three and less than a threshold limit not greater than seven at which processing different frequency components provides negligible improvement ([0047] of Yao describe a configuration in which a single scan is divided into M = 4 different time periods during which the driving frequency is changed three times, amounting to the application of four different frequency components to the drive signal over the course of a scan).
Regarding Claim 4, Dussan teaches the method of claim 1 and the combination of Dussan and Yao as applied to claim 3 teaches further including determining 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 ([0104] of Dussan describes the use of a configuration utilizing two resonant scanning axes operating on or near their resonant frequencies & [0024] of Yao describes adjusting the frequency and amplitude parameters of the waveform to tune the scan-pattern design, as shown in Eq 5-8 of Yao).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Dussan and Yao teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the resonant frequencies are within a predetermined or resonance bandwidth of the scanning frequencies in the signal (0104] of Dussan describes the use of two MEMS mirrors to drive a position of the laser beam where each mirror is driven on or near its resonant frequency).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Dussan and Yao teaches the method of claim 1, further including determining 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, the combination of Dussan and Yao teaches the method of claim 1, further including using an algorithm that determines the scan-pattern design as being optimal for the Rol (FIG. 9A of Dussan and its accompanying text includes a process flow for generating a scan pattern design from a range point list (i.e. ROI list) & [0024] of Yao teaches adjusting frequency and amplitude parameters to tune pattern size and density and then previewing the pattern to show parameters are met), and in response to determining 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 shows dynamic scan patterns traversing range points (i.e. scan regions in the field of view) on the shot list).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Dussan and Yao teaches the method of claim 1 and also teaches further including using an algorithm that determines the scan-pattern design based on amplitude and phase parameters in x-axis and y- axis motion in the field of view ([0024] and Eq(5-8) of Yao teaches the selection of specific amplitude and phase parameters to achieve a desired pattern size and density), 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 to one or more objects within the Rol (FIGS. 8A – 8F of Dussan teaches increasing the number of sampling points in the regions of interest & [0046] describes how the sampling/range points would surround points corresponding to objects such as pedestrians in the case of a vehicle application).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Dussan and Yao teaches the method of claim 1 and also 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 ([0024] of Yao describes the adjustment of frequency and amplitude parameters to tune the patterns size and density); 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 shows flow charts on FIGS. 9A-9B that describe 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 or elliptical pattern as pertains to FIG. 8D is used).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Dussan and Yao teaches the 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 (Yao at [0024] describes how amplitude is adjusted in conjunction with frequency parameters to achieve a desired scan pattern in the field of view); and
in response to using said algorithm based on a sampled scanning pattern and on a representation 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 11, the combination of Dussan and Yao 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 ([0104] of Dussan describes the use of two MEMS mirrors to drive a position of the laser beam where each mirror is driven on or near its resonant frequency).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Dussan and Yao 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 22, the combination of Dussan and Yao 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 (Yao teaches the selection of specific amplitude and phase parameters to achieve one of the targeted scan patterns as described in EQs 5-8).
Regarding Claim 25, the combination of Dussan and Yao teaches the apparatus of claim 18, further including a MEMS scanner, including the scan circuitry, to perform the scan ([0104] of Dussan describes a MEMs scanner including dual MEMs mirrors).
Regarding Claim 27, the combination of Dussan and Yao teaches 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 (FIG. 1 of Dussan teaches the use of LIDAR circuits integrated with signal-generation and scan circuitry).
Regarding Claims 14-15, they are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 16, it is rejected for the same reasons as respective claim 2.
Regarding Claims 17-19, they are rejected for the same reasons as Claims 3-5.
Regarding Claims 20-21, they are rejected for the same reasons as claims 6-7.
Regarding Claim 23-24, they are rejected for the same reasons as claims 9-10.
Claims 12 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Dussan (US 2016/0047896) in view of Yao (US 2017/0047199), as applied to Claims 1 and 18 above, and further in view of Brunner (US 2021/0344302).
Regarding Claim 12, Dussan teaches the 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 the combination of Dussan and Yao 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).
Regarding Claim 26, the combination of Dussan and Yao teaches the apparatus of claim 25, and the combination of Dussan and Yao as applied to Claim 12 teaches 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes non-patent literature reference, Csencsics et al, “Design of Dual-Tone Controller for Lissajous-based Scanning of Fast Steering Mirrors”. In particular, page 3 column 1 describes the use of two different frequencies to drive a scan axis, 215 Hz and 152 Hz.
Applicant's amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN WIGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-4208. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (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
/JAMES R HULKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights