CTNF 17/429,762 CTNF 74504 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 AIA A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 28, 2026 has been entered. Response to Amendment Applicant’s amendment filed on April 16, 2026 has been entered. Currently, claims 11-20 are pending. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed on 04/16/21026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.. Examiner’s Response to Applicant’s Arguments Applicant argues that Independent claim 11 has been amended to recite the feature of the detector being configured to determine the refractive index of the contaminant from the extinguished angles of the total reflection, and the detection device is configured to deduce a type of contaminant based on the determined refractive index. In contrast, nowhere do the cited references teach or suggest this feature. For the foregoing reasons, the rejections should be withdrawn. In response to applicant’s argument it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that that the rejection is based on the claimed subject matter being obvious in view of the combined teachings, not on an express literal disclosure of the exact words used in the claim. Sautter teaches coupling light into a glass/light-guiding structure and detecting changes in total reflection caused by material at the interface, see Sautter ¶¶ [0018]-[0022], [0024]-[0028]. Astrom further teaches contaminant detection on a transparent cover using light at selected angles and describes that certain angles produce total internal reflection while others do not, see Astrom ¶¶ [0043]-[0046], [0066]-[0073]. In view of these teachings, it would have been obvious to determine the refractive index of the contaminant from the extinguished angles of total reflection, because critical-angle behavior is inherently a function of refractive index, and to deduce contaminant type based on the determined refractive index as a routine and predictable classification step . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA 8. Claim (s) 11 and 13-15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Astrom (US20190377072) in view of Sautter (US20040232363) . 9. Regarding claim 11, Astrom teaches A sensor device, comprising (Figure 1, "1"): a sensor element (Figure 1, "5"); a cover panel that protects the sensor element from environmental influences (Figure 1, "3"); and a detection device configured to detect contaminants on the cover panel, the detection device including an emitter configured to emit light (Figure 2, "6", [0042-0043]), a coupling-in device configured to couple light into the cover panel, and a detector (Figure 1, "5", [0056]), the emitter and the coupling-in device being configured and arranged in such a way that light is coupled into the cover panel at a plurality of angles (Figure 2, "7", [0043-0044]), and when contaminants are present on the cover panel (Figure 2, "100", [0042]), the total reflection for light that has been coupled in at angles within an extinction range, which is a function of a refractive index of the contaminants, is at least partially extinguished (10077]), the detector being configured to detect the extinguishing of the total reflection for the angles (Figure 2, "5", [0078]), and the detection device being configured to deduce a type of contaminant from the angles for which the total reflection has been extinguished (Figure 2, "5", [0046]). 10 Astrom fails to disclose a coupling-in device configured to couple light into the cover panel, a decoupling device configured to decouple light from the cover panel, and due to total reflection within the cover panel, the light propagates up to the decoupling device and reaches the detector. 11. Sautter teaches a coupling-in device configured to couple light into the cover panel (Figure 2, "24", [0022]), a decoupling device configured to decouple light from the cover panel (Figure 2, "28", [0022]), and due to total reflection within the cover panel, the light propagates up to the decoupling device and reaches the detector (10022]). Astrom and Sautter are directed towards sensors with TIR and thus from the same field of endeavor. 12. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Astrom wherein a coupling-in device configured to couple light into the cover panel, a decoupling device configured to decouple light from the cover panel, and due to total reflection within the cover panel, the light propagates up to the decoupling device and reaches the detector suggested by Sautter to achieve total reflection to deduce the type of contaminant from the angles.12. As to the limitation, “the detector being configured to determine the refractive index of the contaminant from the extinguished angles of the total reflection, the references does not explicitly recite the exact formulations. However, S autter and Astrom both teach angle-dependent optical behavior at a panel interface. See Sautter ¶ [0022]; Astrom ¶¶ [0043]-[0044], [0070]-[0073]. 14. Therefore, it would have been obvious to infer refractive index from the angles at which total internal reflection ceases, because critical-angle behavior is a known function of refractive index. 15. Further, the limitation “and the detection device is configured to deduce a type of contaminant based on the determined refractive index.” , the prior art teaches determining whether dirt/moisture is present. See Astrom ¶¶ [0012]-[0019], [0042]-[0049]; Sautter ¶ [0022]. Once refractive index is determined, identifying the contaminant type based on that optical property would have been an obvious classification step. 16. Accordingly, claim 11 would have been obvious over Astrom in view of Sautter because: Astrom teaches the dirt-detection structure on a transparent cover. Sautter teaches total reflection in glass and optical coupling structures. The combined teachings make multi-angle coupling, angle-dependent extinction, and refractive-index-based classification an obvious extension. 17. Regarding claim 13, Astrom teaches wherein the emitter is a light-emitting diode or as a laser diode (Figure 1, "6" [0043]). 18. Regarding claim 14, Astrom teaches wherein the coupling-in device and/or the decoupling device is a prism or a hologram or an optical lattice or a beveled surface of the cover panel (Figure "6.1" [0043]). 19. Regarding claim 15, Astrom teaches wherein the detection device includes multiple spatially distributed emitters and/or detectors (Figure 2, "6" [0043], lines 1-6) . 07-21-aia AIA 20. Claim (s) 12, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Astrom (US20190377072) in view of Sautter (US20040232363), and further in view of Shand (US20200103500) . 21. Regarding claim 12, Astrom fails to disclose wherein the emitter is configured to emit light in the form of a divergent light beam. 22. Shand teaches wherein the emitter is configured to emit light in the form of a divergent light beam (Figure 4, "452", [0069]). 23. Astrom and Shand directed towards light emitting towards sensors to perform optical measurement and thus from the same field of endeavor. 24. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Astrom wherein the emitter is configured to emit light in the form of a divergent light beam suggested by Shand to couple light in a continuous range of angles and propagate the total reflection. 25. Regarding claim 16, Astrom fails to disclose wherein the detector is a CCD or an array of photodiodes. 26. Shand teaches wherein the detector a CCD or an array of photodiodes (Figure 4, "432", [0078]). 27. Astrom and Shand directed towards light emitting towards sensors to perform optical measurement and thus from the same field of endeavor. 28. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Astrom wherein the detector a CCD or an array of photodiodes suggest by Shand to determine the test light level. Regarding claim 20, Astrom fails to disclose wherein the sensor element is a LIDAR sensor or a video camera. 29. Shand teaches wherein the sensor element is a LIDAR sensor or a video camera (Figure 4, "410", [0058]). 30. Astrom and Shand directed towards light emitting towards sensors to perform optical measurement and thus from the same field of endeavor. 31. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Astrom wherein the sensor element is a LIDAR sensor or a video camera suggest by Shand to detect contaminants on the cover panel . 07-21-aia AIA 32. Claim (s) 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Astrom (US20190377072) in view of Sautter (US20040232363), and further in view of Gokan (US20150203077) . 33. Regarding claim 17, Astrom fails to disclose further comprising: a cleaning device configured to clean the cover panel, the cleaning device being operable as a function of the type of contaminant. 34. Gokan teaches a cleaning device configured to clean the cover panel (Figure 1 "100" [0033]), the cleaning device being operable as a function of the type of contaminant (Figure 7, "51" [0038]). 35. Astrom and Gokan are directed towards sensors with cleaning devices and thus from the same field of endeavor. 36. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Astrom wherein a cleaning device configured to clean the cover panel, the cleaning device being operable as a function of the type of contaminant suggested by Gokan to determine the operating state of the contaminant being detected. 37. Regarding claim 18, Astrom fails to disclose wherein the cleaning device includes a spray device configured to apply a liquid to the cover panel, the cleaning device being configured to activate the spray device as a function of the type of contaminant. Gokan teaches wherein the cleaning device includes a spray device configured to apply a liquid to the cover panel (Figure 1, "7" [0020]), the cleaning device being configured to activate the spray device as a function of the type of contaminant (Figure 8, "S3 & S4" [0052-0056]). 38. Astrom and Gokan are directed towards sensors with cleaning devices and thus from the same field of endeavor. 39. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Astrom wherein the cleaning device includes a spray device configured to apply a liquid to the cover panel, the cleaning device being configured to activate the spray device as a function of the type of contaminant suggested by Kim to clean the type of contaminants that are present on the cover panel . 07-21-aia AIA 40. Claim (s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Astrom (US20190377072) in view of Sautter (US20040232363), and in view of Garcia Crespo (US20180370500) . 41. Regarding claim 19, Astrom fails teaches wherein the cover panel is in the form of a circular cylinder having a cylinder axis, the emitter and the detector being configured to rotate about the cylinder axis. 42. Garcia Crespo teaches wherein the cover panel is in the form of a circular cylinder having a cylinder axis (Figure 2, "A" [0032]), the emitter and the detector being configured to rotate about the cylinder axis (Figure 2, "28" [0034]). 43. Astrom and Garcia Crespo are directed towards a method for sensing and cleaning a cover and thus from the same field of endeavor. 44. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Astrom wherein the cover panel is in the form of a circular cylinder having a cylinder axis, the emitter and the detector being configured to rotate about the cylinder axis suggested by Garcia Crespo to monitor at least a portion of the circumferential surface and light path of the circular cylinder. Conclusion 45. The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitation of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response to consider carefully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. 46. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARIFUR RASHID CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-2287. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am-5 pm. 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, Allana L. Bidder can be reached at (571)272-5560 . 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. /TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877 Application/Control Number: 17/429,762 Page 2 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 17/429,762 Page 3 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 17/429,762 Page 4 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 17/429,762 Page 5 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 17/429,762 Page 6 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 17/429,762 Page 7 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 17/429,762 Page 8 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 17/429,762 Page 9 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 17/429,762 Page 10 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 17/429,762 Page 11 Art Unit: 2877
Prosecution Insights