DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-6 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The term “regulator” as used in both claims lacks context with regards to operation and function in the invention, as it is unclear what aspect(s) of the scanner and deflection unit are being regulated or how the regulator accomplishes this function.
The term “faster” in claim 6 is a relative term which also renders the claim indefinite. The term “faster” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. A “faster” regulator in this instance could be interpreted as moving more rapidly within the scanner as another, or being uniquely optimized to overcome a processing lag when taking a measurement.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9-10, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Call (US 2022/0404505 A1) in view of Steinkogler (US 2019/0154807 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Call teaches a scanner comprising
a light transmitter (Fig. 2 #102) for transmitting a light beam into a monitored zone ([0006], Fig. 1 #88),
having an evaluation unit for evaluating a received signal of the light receiver ([0101]),
a scanning mirror which rotates about a first axis of rotation ([0037], Fig. 2 #112, 111)
a beam deflection unit for setting an angle of incidence of the light beam on a scanning mirror, which is arranged between the light transmitter and the scanning mirror ([0037], Fig. 2 #114),
wherein a control unit is configured to receive a desired trajectory for the light beam in the monitored zone and to control a rotating mirror scanning unit and the beam deflecting such that the light beam scans the monitored zone along the desired trajectory ([0008]).
Call does not explicitly teach the control unit applied in a multiplane scanner device, but Steinkogler does teach a similar scanner with multiplane scanning capabilities, comprising
a polygonal mirror wheel ([0001], Fig. 1 #20) that is rotatable about a first axis of rotation for a periodic deflection of a light beam and that has a plurality of mirror facets arranged in ring form ([0001]) and tilted at least partly with respect to one another with respect to the first axis of rotation to thus scan an angular section of the monitored zone multiple times at different heights as the monitored zone per revolution of the polygonal mirror wheel, ([0009])
that is a plurality of scan planes disposed above one another ([0009]).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the multiplane scanning polygonal mirror wheel structure of Steinkogler in place of the rotating mirror in the scanning device of Call, mutatis mutandis, in order to achieve increased scanning rates while scanning with a large detection angle, and to compensate for distortions, (Steinkogler, [0009]).
Regarding Claim 12, Call, as modified, teaches
a method of detecting objects using a LiDAR scanner ([0031-0032]) in which a light beam is transmitted into a monitored zone ([0009]) and is received again and evaluated after reflection at an object in the monitored zone ([0101]),
with a beam deflection unit arranged between the light transmitter and the polygonal mirror wheel setting an angle of incidence of the light beam on the mirror facets ([0037], Fig. 2 #114),
wherein a control unit receives a desired trajectory for the light beam in the monitored zone and controls a rotating mirror scanning unit and the beam deflection unit such that the light beam scans the monitored zone along the desired trajectory ([0008]).
Call does not explicitly teach the control unit applied in a multiplane scanner device, but Steinkogler does teach a similar scanner with multiplane scanning capabilities, where
the monitored zone is cyclically scanned in that the light beam is deflected at a polygonal mirror wheel rotatable about a first axis of rotation and having a plurality of mirror facets arranged in ring form and tilted at least partly with respect to one another to thus scan an angular section multiple times at different heights in the monitored zone per revolution of the mirror unit wheel,
that is a plurality of planes disposed above one another ([0001, 0009], Fig. 1 #20).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the multiplane scanning polygonal mirror wheel structure of Steinkogler in place of the rotating mirror in the scanning device of Call, mutatis mutandis, in order to achieve increased scanning rates while scanning with a large detection angle, and to compensate for distortions, (Steinkogler, [0009]).
Regarding Claims 2 and 13, Call, as modified, teaches the control unit configured to determine control parameters for the polygonal mirror wheel and the beam deflection unit based on the received desired trajectory ([0007]).
Regarding Claim 3, Call, as modified, teaches an input unit for inputting the desired trajectory, and the control unit configured to receive the desired trajectory from the input unit ([0109-0112] describes user choosing collection requirements such as angular diversity, point density, [0133]).
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, Call, as modified, teaches the control unit additionally configured to determine the control parameters for the polygonal mirror wheel and the beam deflection unit on a model basis ([0007]) in dependence on a rotational position of the polygonal mirror wheel ([0008-0011]).
Regarding Claims 7 and 16, Call, as modified, teaches the control unit determining the control parameters for the polygonal mirror wheel and the beam deflection unit using a distance of the multiplane scanner from the target zone in the monitored zone ([0119-0121, 0084, 0089-0091]).
Regarding Claim 9, Call, as modified, teaches the beam deflection unit is a rotating mirror rotatable about a second axis of rotation ([0036], Fig. 2 #116),
with the second axis of rotation not being aligned in parallel with the first axis of rotation ([0007]).
Regarding Claim 10, Call, as modified, teaches the multiplane scanner wherein the rotating mirror is a galvanometer mirror ([0037]).
Regarding Claim 15, Call, as modified, teaches
the beam deflection unit having a rotating mirror that sets the angle of incidence of the light beam on the mirror facets and the control unit calculates a rotational position of the rotating mirror in dependence on a rotational position of the polygonal mirror wheel ([0008]).
Claim(s) 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
being unpatentable over Call (US 2022/0404505 A1) and Steinkogler (US 2019/0154807 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Shapira (US 12,313,785 B2).
Regarding Claim 5, Call does not explicitly teach— but Shapira does teach wherein, a LIDAR scanner comprising two rotating scanning mirrors,
a first regulator for regulating the first mirror and a second regulator for regulating the second mirror ([Col. 20, ln. 1-10], #418, #420).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the regulators of Shapira to regulate the polygonal mirror wheel and beam deflection units in the multiplane scanner described in Call in order to control and coordinate the oscillation of both instruments (Shapira, [Col. 20, ln. 10-20]).
Regarding Claim 6, Call does not explicitly teach— but Shapira does teach wherein,
the second regulator is designed as faster than the first regulator. ([Col. 19, ln. 60-65, Col. 18, ln. 30-40])
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to impose a delay on a first regulator, thus allowing the second regulator to operate faster, in order to compensate for a phase difference between two rotating scanning instruments and ensure synchronized emission and detection of light beams (Shapira, [Col. 18, ln. 20-40]).
Claim(s) 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
being unpatentable over Call (US 2022/0404505 A1) and Steinkogler (US 2019/0154807 A10, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Maier (DE 102021212095 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Call does not explicitly teach— but Maier does teach wherein,
the multiplane scanner has an acceleration sensor and the control unit (Fig. 1 #235) is configured to receive data of the acceleration sensor and to control two rotating scanning sensors (Fig. 1 #210, 220) using the data of the acceleration sensor ([14]).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the acceleration sensor of Maier to determine a position of a vehicle holding the multiplane scanner of Call, and to provide data to control the polygon mirror wheel and beam deflecting unit of Call to orient the scanning area in the direction of travel with respect to the background (Maier, [17, 19]).
Claim(s) 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
being unpatentable over Call (US 2022/0404505 A1) and Steinkogler (US 2019/0154807 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Ledbetter (US 2020/0150247 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Call and Steinkogler do not explicitly teach— but Ledbetter does teach a multiplane scanner ([0043]) with a multifaceted polygon mirror scanner ([0007]), wherein
at least one mirror facet has a tilt element to tilt the mirror facet settably with respect to the first axis of rotation and the control unit is configured to control the tilt element ([0075], Claims 15-16)
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the tilt element of Ledbetter with the multiplane scanner of Call in order to allow the angle of the mirror facets to change independently of the mirror’s overall rotation (Ledbetter, [0079]) and allow for adjustments to be made in real-time during data collection (Ledbetter, [0081]).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bai US 20130076852 A1 teaches a multiplane scanning polygon mirror with a control module [0034] containing processors which execute software applications to run the scanner, including moving and synchronizing the polygon mirror and an approaching movable mirror.
Nübling DE 10 2014 111 138 A1 teaches a multilevel scanning polygon mirror wheel with facets tilted against one another, an evaluation unit, and a tilting element to change the inclination of the tilt elements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIAN EYRE BALDWIN-BOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-0450. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 a.m.-6:00 p.m..
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.
/DORIAN EYRE BALDWIN-BOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/JAMES R HULKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights