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
The Amendment filed 12/11/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 14, and 22 have been amended. Claims 1-29 are still pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 12/11/2025, with respect to the rejection of amended claims 1, 14, and 22 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made of previously cited reference Hibino (US Pub 2020/0064475 A1 ) in view of Wegener (DE 102020100837 A1), the details of which can be found below.
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 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 1-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hibino (US Pub 2020/0064475 A1 ) in view of Wegener (DE 102020100837 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hibino teaches a LiDAR system (a target detecting system 100, uses target detecting device 10A to 10D, optical scanner 4, LD module and PD module, and object detection and distance detection, [0017]) comprising:
a casing having a window (discloses a case 11 with a window 12 used for light transmission and reception, [0106] and [0129] );
a light emitter in the casing (the LD module is inside the case and acts as the light emitter, [0109] and [0128]);
a light sensor including an array of photodetectors (PD module 7 is a photodetector array, [0128]);
a scanning mirror (optical scanner 4(mirrors 4a and 4b), [0050]) between the window and the light sensor(discloses the optical scanner 4 (mirrors 4a and 4b), is located between the window and the PD module 7, figure 4, [0103] and [0127] ); and
a controller (controller 1, [0123]) programmed to:
move the scanning mirror to a plurality of different positions when the light emitter is inactive (discloses dirt detection is distinct from object detection, and uses different operation patterns, suggests suspend LD when detecting dirt, [0106]), the scanning mirror being aimed at a different subset of the photodetectors in the different positions (discloses motor 4c rotates optical scanner (mirrors) across angles (F1-F4), [0103] and [0127]);
operate at least some of the photodetectors when the scanning mirror is in different positions and the light emitter is inactive (discloses the PD module receiving light during scanning of dirt, it suggests passive (LD inactive) detection to reduce interference, [0106] and [0109], dirt detection uses diffuse ambient light); and
identify a blockage on the window (window 12) based on comparison of detected light at different positions of the scanning mirror(discloses detection of dirt DA on window 12 via comparison over scan positions, [0106] and [0123-0124]).
However, Hibino fails to disclose operating in an inactive mode and not transmitting light.
Wegener teaches operating in an inactive mode and not transmitting light (discloses the main spark detection sensor operates passively,[0060-0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to incorporate passive sensor concept of Wegener to Hibino to improve reliable detection of contamination or blockage ([0049-0051]).
Regarding claim 2, Hibino teaches wherein the scanning mirror (optical scanner 4 (mirrors 4a and 4b), [0050]) is between the window (window 12) and the light emitter (the optical scanner between the LD module and the window 12, figure 4).
Regarding claim 3, Hibino teaches wherein the controller (controller 1 )is programmed to activate the light emitter to emit light from the light emitter to the scanning mirror (“the controller 1 causes each LD to emit light so as to project light to a target such as a person or an object,” [0049] ).
Regarding claim 4, Hibino teaches wherein the controller is programmed to operate at least some of the photodetectors (PDs,[0053-0054]) when the light emitter is activated (discloses the PDs operate in target mode when the LD is on, [0053-0054]).
Regarding claim 5, Hibino teaches wherein the scanning mirror (optical scanner 4 (mirrors 4a and 4b)) illuminates the photodetectors (PD, discloses use of scanning mirrors directing light to PD, [0114]) with light emitted by the light emitter through the window (window 12, discloses light is emitted through the optical window from the LDs, [0128]) and reflected by an object in a field of illumination of the light emitter(discloses the LD module and PD module in the target detecting device. The optical window 12 allows light to pass through, and the scanning mirrors direct the emitted light toward an object . The light then reflected off the object and detected by the system, [0114], [0123], and [0128]).
Regarding claim 6, Hibino teaches wherein the controller is programmed to compare adjacent ones of the subsets to identify the blockage (discloses shifting the dirt detection region and monitoring the resulting signal changes over time, and uses those differences to detect dirt (via angular offset over time and compare temporal and spatial signal differences), [0117-0123] ).
Regarding claim 7, Hibino teaches wherein the controller (controller 1) is programmed to operate at least one photodetector in the subset of the photodetectors at which the scanning mirror is aimed when the light emitter is inactive (discloses dirt detection by detector 1b is performed without active object scanning, without emitting light toward external targets. The system uses passive detection from PD when the LD is not used, [0114], [0119], and [0122]).
Regarding claim 8, Hibino teaches wherein the controller is programmed to operate at least one photodetector outside of the subset of the photodetectors at which the scanning mirror is aimed when the light emitter is inactive (discloses that during dirt detection (with the LD off), PD (Ra(4)), which is not aligned with the LD, receives diffusely reflected light caused by dirt (Da) on the windshield W, [0089-0091]).
Regarding claim 9, Hibino teaches wherein the photodetectors are not illuminated by the light emitter when the photodetectors are operated and the light emitter is inactive (discloses dirt detectors operate independently of light emission, PD are used when emitter is off, not illuminated by the emitter, [0113] and [0126]).
Regarding claim 10, Hibino teaches wherein the scanning mirror illuminates the subset of the photodetectors at which the scanning mirror is aimed when the light emitter is inactive (discloses when light emitter is inactive, the mirror still scans and aligns the detection field to specific PD regions. This suggests the mirror is used to direct light to PD even when the emitter is off, [0120]).
Regarding claim 11, Hibino teaches wherein the controller is programmed to operate at least one photodetector outside of the subset of the photodetectors at which the scanning mirror is aimed to detect light diffused by a blockage on the window when the light emitter is inactive (discloses that during dirt detection (with the LD off), PD (Ra(4)), which is not aligned with the LD, receives diffusely reflected light caused by dirt (Da) on the windshield W, [0089-0091]).
Regarding claim 12, Hibino teaches wherein the controller (controller 1) is programmed to operate at least one photodetector in the subset of the photodetectors at which the scanning mirror is aimed when the light emitter is inactive (discloses dirt detection by detector 1b is performed without active object scanning, without emitting light toward external targets. The system uses passive detection from PD when the LD is not used, [0114], [0119], and [0122]).
Regarding claim 13, Hibino teaches wherein the controller is programmed to identify the blockage by at least one of detecting blur, intensity gradient, or an edge of the blockage(discloses shifting the dirt detection region and monitoring the resulting signal changes over time, and uses those differences to detect dirt (via angular offset over time and compare temporal and spatial signal differences), [0117-0123]. Inherently, this approach depends on identifying intensity gradients or edges in the received light pattern, which are direct indicators of dirt presence).
Regarding claim 14, Hibino teaches a controller (controller 1, [0123]) for a LiDAR system comprising programming ([0076-0077]) executable to:
move a scanning mirror to a plurality of different positions when a light emitter is inactive (discloses dirt detection is distinct from object detection, and uses different operation patterns, suggests suspend LD when detecting dirt, [0106]), the scanning mirror being aimed at a different subset of photodetectors in the different positions(discloses motor 4c rotates optical scanner (mirrors) across angles (F1-F4), [0103] and [0127]),
operate at least some of the photodetectors when the scanning mirror is in different positions and the light emitter is inactive(discloses the PD module receiving light during scanning of dirt, it suggests passive (LD inactive) detection to reduce interference, [0106] and [0109], dirt detection uses diffuse ambient light); and
identify a blockage on the window(window 12) based on comparison of detected light at different positions of the scanning mirror(discloses detection of dirt DA on window 12 via comparison over scan positions, [0106] and [0123-0124]).
However, Hibino fails to disclose operating in an inactive mode and not transmitting light.
Wegener teaches operating in an inactive mode and not transmitting light (discloses the main spark detection sensor operates passively,[0060-0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to incorporate passive sensor concept of Wegener to Hibino to improve reliable detection of contamination or blockage ([0049-0051]).
Regarding claim 15, Hibino teaches further comprising programming executable to activate the light emitter to emit light from the light emitter to the scanning mirror (“the controller 1 causes each LD to emit light so as to project light to a target such as a person or an object,” [0049] ).
Regarding claim 16, Hibino teaches further comprising programming executable to operate at least some of the photodetectors (PDs,[0053-0054]) when the light emitter is activated (discloses the PDs operate in target mode when the LD is on, [0053-0054]).
Regarding claim 17, Hibino teaches further comprising programming executable to compare adjacent ones of the subsets to identify the blockage (discloses shifting the dirt detection region and monitoring the resulting signal changes over time, and uses those differences to detect dirt (via angular offset over time and compare temporal and spatial signal differences), [0117-0123] ).
Regarding claim 18, Hibino teaches further comprising programming executable to operate at least one photodetector in the subset of the photodetectors at which the scanning mirror is aimed when the light emitter is inactive (discloses dirt detection by detector 1b is performed without active object scanning, without emitting light toward external targets. The system uses passive detection from PD when the LD is not used, [0114], [0119], and [0122]).
Regarding claim 19, Hibino teaches further comprising programming executable to operate at least one photodetector outside of the subset of the photodetectors at which the scanning mirror is aimed to detect light diffused by a blockage on the window when the light emitter is inactive (discloses that during dirt detection (with the LD off), PD (Ra(4)), which is not aligned with the LD, receives diffusely reflected light caused by dirt (Da) on the windshield W, [0089-0091]).
Regarding claim 20, Hibino teaches further comprising programming executable to operate at least one photodetector in the subset of the photodetectors at which the scanning mirror is aimed when the light emitter is inactive (discloses dirt detection by detector 1b is performed without active object scanning, without emitting light toward external targets. The system uses passive detection from PD when the LD is not used, [0114], [0119], and [0122]).
Regarding claim 21, Hibino teaches further comprising programming executable to identify the blockage by at least one of detecting blur, intensity gradient, or an edge of the blockage (discloses shifting the dirt detection region and monitoring the resulting signal changes over time, and uses those differences to detect dirt (via angular offset over time and compare temporal and spatial signal differences), [0117-0123]. Inherently, this approach depends on identifying intensity gradients or edges in the received light pattern, which are direct indicators of dirt presence).
Regarding claim 22, Hibino teaches a method comprising:
moving a scanning mirror to a plurality of different positions when a light emitter is
inactive, (discloses dirt detection is distinct from object detection, and uses different operation patterns, suggests suspend LD when detecting dirt, [0106]), the scanning mirror being aimed at a different subset of photodetectors in the different positions(discloses motor 4c rotates optical scanner (mirrors) across angles (F1-F4), [0103] and [0127]);
operating at least some of the photodetectors when the scanning mirror is in different positions and the light emitter is inactive(discloses the PD module receiving light during scanning of dirt, it suggests passive (LD inactive) detection to reduce interference, [0106] and [0109], dirt detection uses diffuse ambient light); and
identifying a blockage on the window (window 12) based on comparison of detected light at different positions of the scanning mirror (discloses detection of dirt DA on window 12 via comparison over scan positions, [0106] and [0123-0124]).
However, Hibino fails to disclose operating in an inactive mode and not transmitting light.
Wegener teaches operating in an inactive mode and not transmitting light (discloses the main spark detection sensor operates passively,[0060-0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to incorporate passive sensor concept of Wegener to Hibino to improve reliable detection of contamination or blockage ([0049-0051]).
Regarding claim 23, Hibino teaches further comprising activating the light emitter to emit light from the light emitter to the scanning mirror(“the controller 1 causes each LD to emit light so as to project light to a target such as a person or an object,” [0049] ).
Regarding claim 24, Hibino teaches further comprising operating at least some of the photodetectors (PDs,[0053-0054]) when the light emitter is activated (discloses the PDs operate in target mode when the LD is on, [0053-0054]).
Regarding claim 25, Hibino teaches further comprising comparing adjacent ones of the subsets to identify the blockage (discloses shifting the dirt detection region and monitoring the resulting signal changes over time, and uses those differences to detect dirt (via angular offset over time and compare temporal and spatial signal differences), [0117-0123] ).
Regarding claim 26, Hibino teaches further comprising operating at least one photodetector in the subset of the photodetectors at which the scanning mirror is aimed when the light emitter is inactive (discloses dirt detection by detector 1b is performed without active object scanning, without emitting light toward external targets. The system uses passive detection from PD when the LD is not used, [0114], [0119], and [0122]).
Regarding claim 27, Hibino teaches further comprising operating at least one photodetector outside of the subset of the photodetectors at which the scanning mirror is aimed to detect light diffused by a blockage on the window when the light emitter is inactive (discloses that during dirt detection (with the LD off), PD (Ra(4)), which is not aligned with the LD, receives diffusely reflected light caused by dirt (Da) on the windshield W, [0089-0091]).
Regarding claim 28, Hibino teaches further comprising operating at least one photodetector in the subset of the photodetectors at which the scanning mirror is aimed when the light emitter is inactive (discloses dirt detection by detector 1b is performed without active object scanning, without emitting light toward external targets. The system uses passive detection from PD when the LD is not used, [0114], [0119], and [0122]).
Regarding claim 29, Hibino teaches further comprising identifying the blockage by at least one of detecting blur, intensity gradient, or an edge of the blockage (discloses shifting the dirt detection region and monitoring the resulting signal changes over time, and uses those differences to detect dirt (via angular offset over time and compare temporal and spatial signal differences), [0117-0123]. Inherently, this approach depends on identifying intensity gradients or edges in the received light pattern, which are direct indicators of dirt presence).
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 CHRISTINA XING whose telephone number is (571)270-7743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9AM - 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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/CHRISTINA I XING/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877