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
Applicant’s amendment filed on 09/25/2025 has been entered. Currently, claims 11-20 are pending.
The amendment overcame the claim objection and thus the claim objection of claim 16 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive..
Examiner’s Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant contends: (a) Astrom does not disclose a decoupling device nor propagation of light by total internal reflection within the cover panel up to a decoupling point; and (b) Sautter, while disclosing total internal reflection with coupling and decoupling, does not disclose using the angles of extinguished total reflection to deduce contaminant type based on refractive index. Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejection.
7. In response to applicant’s arguments, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that: “decoupling device” and propagation via total internal reflection
Sautter (as relied upon in the Office action) explicitly discloses a transparent cover element (laminate/plate) into which light is coupled and which guides light by internal reflection to a location where light is extracted (decoupled) and measured. The combined teachings of Astrom and Sautter show a coupling-in structure, guiding via internal reflection, and a decoupling structure that directs guided light to a detector. Thus Sautter teaches the claimed “decoupling device” and the propagation of light via total internal reflection within the cover panel up to the decoupling point.
8. Applicant’s assertion that Astrom lacks a decoupling device does not address Sautter’s explicit teaching of decoupling. The Examiner relied on Sautter for the coupling/decoupling and guided-propagation features and on Astrom for sensing changes in reflected/evanescent behavior due to contaminants. Combining these teachings is within one of ordinary skill in the art for the reasons explained below.
9. Astrom discloses sensing contamination or dirt by detecting changes in light reflected from or interacting with a protective layer/cover. Astrom shows that the presence of contaminants modifies the optical interaction at the cover/environment interface and that those changes are detectable. ([0043]-[0047]; Figs. 2-3)
10. Sautter discloses optical coupling into and extraction from a transparent cover or laminate, where light propagates by total internal reflection and can be coupled out at particular locations/angles. ([0019]-[0023]; Figs, 2-5)
11. It is a routine design choice to combine Sautter’s guided-light, coupling/decoupling architecture with Astrom’s teaching that contaminants modify the optical boundary conditions, producing detectible changes in guided or decoupled light. The combination would yield a device in which light is introduced at multiple angles, guided by total internal reflection, and extracted to a detector; contaminants that change the critical-angle/evanescent coupling condition would cause extinction (or reduction) of internally guided modes at particular incident angles, which would be detected.
12. The Examiner reasonably concluded that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to correlate angle-dependent extinction of guided light with the refractive index of a contaminant, because refractive index is the physical parameter that determines the critical angle and the range of angles that undergo total internal reflection. Using extinguished angles (or angle-dependent loss) to infer approximate refractive index (and thereby discriminate contaminant types) is a direct and predictable result of combining Sautter’s guidance and coupling/decoupling geometry with Astrom’s teaching that contaminants alter the optical conditions at the cover/environment interface.
13. Further, applicant argues that “Astrom does not disclose or suggest a decoupling device or propagation of light via total reflection within the cover panel up to the decoupling point.” In response it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that the Examiner did not rely on Astrom alone for the decoupling and guided-propagation features. Those features are disclosed by Sautter (Figure 2; [0022]). Thus the absence of such disclosure in Astrom does not negate the combined teachings.
14. Applicant further argues that, “Sautter does not disclose using the angles of extinguished total reflection to deduce the type of contaminant based on refractive index.” . In response, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that while Sautter may not explicitly state the step of deducing contaminant type from extinguished angles, Sautter teaches angle-dependent coupling/decoupling and guided propagation whose modal support depends on the boundary refractive index. Astrom teaches detection of changes caused by contaminants and recognizes that changes in optical response are related to contaminant properties. A person of ordinary skill would have understood that the critical-angle dependence on indices (n1, n2) is the underlying physics; therefore, using the angles at which guided modes are extinguished to infer refractive index is a predictable application of known optical principles and the teachings of the two references in combination. The combination does not produce unexpected results and thus would have been obvious.
15. Applicant has not presented objective evidence of non-obviousness (e.g., commercial success tied to the claimed feature, long-felt but unsolved need solved by the claimed invention, or evidence of unexpected properties) nor argued that the prior art teaches away from combining coupling/decoupling guidance with angle-based refractive-index inference.
16. Applicant’s arguments are primarily that each reference alone lacks specific claim elements. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the relevant inquiry is whether the combination of references would have rendered the claimed invention obvious to one of ordinary skill, and the Examiner finds that it would.
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:
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.
18. 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).
19. 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]).
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. Regarding claim 13, Astrom teaches wherein the emitter is a light-emitting diode or as a laser diode (Figure 1, "6" [0043]).
24. 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]).
25. Regarding claim 15, Astrom teaches wherein the detection device includes multiple spatially distributed emitters and/or detectors (Figure 2, "6" [0043], lines 1-6).
26. 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).
27. Regarding claim 12, Astrom fails to disclose wherein the emitter is configured to emit light in the form of a divergent light beam.
28. Shand teaches wherein the emitter is configured to emit light in the form of a divergent light beam (Figure 4, "452", [0069]).
29. Astrom and Shand directed towards light emitting towards sensors to perform optical measurement and thus from the same field of endeavor.
30. 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.
31. Regarding claim 16, Astrom fails to disclose wherein the detector is a CCD or an array of photodiodes.
32. Shand teaches wherein the detector a CCD or an array of photodiodes (Figure 4, "432", [0078]).
33. Astrom and Shand directed towards light emitting towards sensors to perform optical measurement and thus from the same field of endcavor.
34. 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.
35. Shand teaches wherein the sensor element is a LIDAR sensor or a video camera (Figure 4, "410", [0058]).
36. Astrom and Shand directed towards light emitting towards sensors to perform optical measurement and thus from the same field of endeavor.
37. 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.
38. 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).
39. 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.
40. 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]).
41. Astrom and Gokan are directed towards sensors with cleaning devices and thus from the same field of endeavor.
42. 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.
43. 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]).
44. Astrom and Gokan are directed towards sensors with cleaning devices and thus from the same field of endeavor.
45. 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 pancl, 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.
46. 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).
47. 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.
48. 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]).
49. Astrom and Garcia Crespo are directed towards a method for sensing and cleaning a cover and thus from the same field of endeavor.
50. 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
51. 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.
52. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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)2725560. 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