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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the reply filed on 08/08/2025 in which claims 1 and 11 have been amended. Currently claims 1-16 are pending for examination in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues office has failed to cite which elements of Kudla disclose an optical element which fixes an illuminated region and further has failed to disclose the fixed illumination region.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kulda, in [0072] (cited in the previous rejection of claim 1 and thus not a new ground of rejection) recites "The LIDAR sensor module 400 further includes a TX-side light detector 45 (e.g., a photodetector or a pin diode) that is used in one of the techniques for detecting dirt on the TX portion 31a of the window 31." One skilled in the art would recognize that this to mean the illumination region is fixed to the TX portion of the window. Thus, applicant's argument is not persuasive.
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.
Claims 1 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudla (US 20210223374 A1) in view of McWhirter (US 20180284268 A1).
Claim 1: Kudla teaches A receiver arrangement for a sensor device for recognizing the environment, comprising:
an optical element which fixes an illuminated region ([0072]), an apparatus for detecting light (Fig 5, receiver chip 22 and photodetector array 15 and [0092]),
which is arranged in the illuminated region and captures the light of a light source for recognizing the environment (Fig 5, receiver chip 22 and photodetector array 15 in region illuminated by scanned light from target object 40),
at least one photodiode for recognizing sensor blockages, which is arranged outside of the fixed illuminated region (Fig 5, detector 52 outside region of scanned light from object 40),
and a sensor blockage is recognized in that the photodiode captures light which has been scattered outside of the fixed illuminated region by the sensor blockage ([0097], describing dirt detection technique 1),
wherein an evaluation circuit is situated downstream of the photodiode ([0097] - " the light detector 52 generates an electrical signal, which is received by the system controller 23"),
but not which evaluation circuit comprises a transimpedance amplifier.
McWhirter teaches a LiDAR system which includes a receiver having a transimpedance amplifier that converts a photocurrent into a voltage signal ([0071]).
It would have been obvious to use the transimpedance amplifier as taught by McWhirter with the detector system as taught by Kudla because this is a product with is well known in the art and would yield predictable results (outputting voltage signal).
Claim 10: Kudla, as modified in view of McWhirter, teaches the receiver arrangement according to Claim 1, wherein elements triggering the sensor blockage is located on the optical element and/or on a lidome and/or on a windshield of a vehicle on which the receiver arrangement is mounted (Kudla Fig 5, dirt 34 on window 31).
Claim 11: As Claim 11 is a method claim corresponding to Claim 1, see rejection above.
Claim 14: Kudla, as modified in view of McWhirter, teaches a sensor device for recognizing an environment, the sensor device comprising:
a transmitting arrangement for transmitting electromagnetic beams which are reflected by objects located in the environment of the sensor device (Kudla Fig 5, laser 10 emitting light reflected off object 40),
and a receiver arrangement which receives the reflected beams, wherein the environment is recognized on the basis of the received beams (Kudla Fig 5, receiver chip 22 and photodetector array 15 and [0047] – describing use of photodetector array 15)
and a blockage recognition of the receiver arrangement is provided in order to guarantee a function of the sensor device (Kudla [0100] – system controller determining dirt is present)
wherein the sensor device comprises a receiver arrangement according to claim 1 (See rejection of Claim 1, above).
Claim 12: As Claim 12 is a method claim corresponding to Claim 14, see rejection above.
Claim 15: Kudla, as modified in view of McWhirter, teaches the sensor device according to claim 14, wherein the sensor device comprises a lidar sensor device and the electromagnetic beams comprise light beams ([0021] – describing LiDAR system with light pulses and [0026] – describing Fig 1 as LiDAR system).
Claim 13: As Claim 13 is a method claim corresponding to Claim 15, see rejection above.
Claim 16: Kudla, as modified in view of McWhirter, teaches a sensor device according to Claim 12 for recognizing the environment, but not a vehicle which performs environment recognition, the vehicle comprising a sensor device according to Claim 12.
However, McWhirter teaches a LiDAR system mounted on a vehicle (Fig 9, showing LiDAR system on vehicle 354).
It would have been obvious to put the LiDAR system, as taught by Kudla, as modified in view of McWhirter, on a vehicle as this is a technique which is well-known in the art.
Claims 2 and 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudla (US 20210223374 A1) in view of McWhirter (US 20180284268 A1) further in view of Ricard (US 20120132789 A1).
Claim 2: Kudla, as modified in view of McWhirter, teaches the receiver arrangement according to Claim 1, but not wherein the transimpedance amplifier has a first stage and a second stage.
Ricard teaches wherein the transimpedance amplifier has a first stage and a second stage (Fig 3, showing 2-stage amplifier (Fig 4, showing two amplifier units 3 and 5)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention taught by Kudla, as modified in view of McWhirter, with the amplifier arrangement as taught by Ricard because it reduces blooming (Findlay [0019]).
Claim 3: Kudla, as modified in view of McWhirter,, as modified in view of Ricard, teaches the receiver arrangement according to Claim 2, wherein the first stage has a lower transimpedance than a product of the two stages.
Transimpedance, or impedance, can be defined as Voltage/Current. Further, if the second stage has an impedance of over one, the product of the two stages will always be greater than the first stage. Ricard shows in Fig 8 the output voltages of each stage – as exact numbers are not given, it would be understood by one skilled in the art that it would be possible to make the impedance of the first stage lower than the product of the two stages.
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudla (US 20210223374 A1) in view of McWhirter (US 20180284268 A1) further in view of Welch (US 20120007681 A1)
Claim 5: Kudla, as modified in view of McWhirter, teaches the receiver arrangement according to claim 1, but McWhirter does not teach wherein a transistor is provided at an input of the transimpedance amplifier, via which the input of the transimpedance amplifier is connected to ground in order to limit input current when a fixable signal level is exceeded at an output of the transimpedance amplifier.
Welch teaches a transistor (Fig 3, transistor M2) connected to ground to minimize low frequency cutoff (Welch [0049]).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the transistor as taught by Welch in the transimpedance amplifier as taught by Kudla, as modified in view of McWhirter, because, as described by Welch in [0049], it allows for low frequency cutoff and allows for constant bias points.
Claims 6 -8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Kudla (US 20210223374 A1) in view of McWhirter (US 20180284268 A1) further in view of Ricard (US 20120132789 A1) further in view of Kubota (US 10739456 B2).
Claim 6: Kudla, as modified in view of McWhirter,, as modified in view of Ricard, teaches receiver arrangement according to claim 2, but McWhirter, as modified in view of Ricard, does not teach wherein the first stage comprises a first and a second signal feedback path which are arranged in parallel, and the second signal feedback path is configured in such a way that the second signal feedback path is activated if a diode threshold of the photodiode is exceeded.
Kubota teaches an amplifier (Fig 8, amplification circuitry 332) connected to gain change circuitry (Fig 8, gain change circuitry B). The gain change circuitry comprises a first path with a receiver (Fig 8, receiver R6) and a second path with a second receiver (Fig 8, R7) and a switching element (Fig 8, switching element 340), which can be a transistor (Kubota Col 10, lines 21-22 – a switching element can be a transistor), where the gain change circuitry reduces the gain of the amplifier (Kubota Col 10, lines 64-67).
It would be obvious to substitute the first stage of transimpedance amplifier with the gain change circuitry as taught by Kubota because this allows for the gain of the amplifier to be changed based on the pulse width emitted (See Kumbota Col. 11 lines 21-25).
Claim 7: Kudla, as modified in view of McWhirter, as modified in view of Ricard, further modified in view of Kubota, teaches the receiver arrangement according to Claim 6, but not wherein a resistance of the second signal feedback path is lower than a resistance of the first signal feedback path.
However, Kubota further teaches that having the resistance of the second signal feedback path be greater than that of the first signal feedback path increases the attenuation, and therefore decreases amplification (Kubota Col. 11 lines 16-21). From this, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that having the resistance of the second signal feedback path be lower than that of the first signal feedback path would decrease the attenuation and therefore increase the amplification.
Claim 8: Kudla, as modified in view of McWhirter,, as modified in view of Ricard, further modified in view of Kubota, teaches the receiver arrangement according to Claim 6, wherein the second signal feedback path comprises a diode or a transistor (Kubota Fig 8, switching element (i.e.: transistor) 340 in gain change circuitry B).
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudla (US 20210223374 A1) in view of McWhirter (US 20180284268 A1) further in view of Fröhlich (US 9948250 B2)
Claim 4: Kudla, as modified in view of McWhirter, teaches the receiver arrangement according to claim 1, but not wherein the transimpedance amplifier has a differential input, wherein a capacitor or a masked photodiode is arranged parallel to the photodiode, and wherein capacitance characteristics of the capacitor or of the masked photodiode correspond at least substantially to capacitance characteristics of the respective photodiode.
Fröhlich teaches wherein the transimpedance amplifier has a differential input, wherein a capacitor or a masked photodiode is arranged parallel to the photodiode, and wherein capacitance characteristics of the capacitor or of the masked photodiode correspond at least substantially to capacitance characteristics of the respective photodiode (Fig. 6A, photodiode 14 connected in parallel to capacitor 68, both connected to input 12 of amplifier 11).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention taught by Kudla, as modified in view of McWhirter, with the photodiode and capacitor as taught by Fröhlich because this arrangement allows for a reduction in noise and increase in accuracy (See Fröhlich Col 12, lines 19-25).
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Kudla (US 20210223374 A1) in view of McWhirter (US 20180284268 A1) further in view of Justice (US 20110285981 A1).
Claim 9: Kudla, as modified in view of McWhirter, teaches the receiver arrangement according to Claim 1, and a detector array (Kudla, Fig 5, receiver chip 22 and photodetector array 15), but not wherein a focal plane array is provided as the apparatus for detecting light.
Justice teaches a Focal Plane Array as a detector of a LiDAR system (Fig 9, showing two FPA arrays).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention taught by Kudla, as modified in view of McWhirter, with the focal plane array as taught by Justice because a focal plane array is a known type of detector array.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment 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 CLARA CHILTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6-2 PST.
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 on (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.
/CLARA G CHILTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/VICTORIA MURPHY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 4100