DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 following addresses applicant’s remarks/amendments dated 13 October 2025.
Claims 1, 11, and 14were amended. No claim was cancelled. No new claims were added. Therefore, claims 1-20 are currently pending in the current application and are addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8 if the Remarks, filed 10/13/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 11, and 14 under 35 U.S.C 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hibino, US 20200064475 A1 in view of Terefe, US 20200174156 A1.
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.
Claims 1-7, 11, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hibino, US 20200064475 A1 ("Hibino") in view of Terefe, US 20200174156 A1 (“Terefe”).
Regarding claim 1, Hibino discloses a system, comprising: a light source configured to emit light (Fig. 4, LD module 2, Paragraph [0063]-[0064]); a scanner configured to scan the emitted light across a field of view through a window (Fig. 4, optical scanner 4, Paragraph [0066]); a first detector positioned on a detector plane to detect a first scatter pattern corresponding to at least a portion of the emitted light scattered by a target located downrange from the system (Fig. 4, PD module 7, Paragraph [0064]-[0066], Fig. 7A-B, LD(1), Ra(1), Paragraph [0083]); a second detector to detect at least a portion of the emitted light scattered by a blocking contaminant on the window (Fig. 9A-B, dirt Da, optical window 12, Ra(4), Paragraph [0089]-[0092]), […]; and a processor configured to analyze detected information from the second detector to io provide an indication associated with detecting the blocking contaminant on the window (Fig. 3, controller 1, dirt detector 1b, Paragraph [0047], Paragraph [0092]).
Hibino does not teach: the second detector being physically separate from the first detector and wherein the second detector is positioned outside of an area bounded by an outline of the first scatter pattern, and the first detector is positioned outside of an area bounded by an outline of the second scatter pattern.
However, Terefe teaches a detector array with a plurality of pixels that detects reflected light and a photodiode that is physically separate from the detector array that detects scattered light from a blocking contaminant (Fig. 3, plurality of pixels 15, photodiode 28, Paragraph [0020] – [0023]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hibino’s photodiode module by using two separated photodiodes to receive reflected light from downrange and scattered light from window blockage, respectively, which is disclosed by Terefe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to perform blockage detection without a dedicated measurement cycle, as suggested by Terefe (Paragraph [0035]).
Regarding claim 2, Hibino, as modified in view of Terefe, discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the first detector (Terefe, plurality of pixels 15, Paragraph [0020]), the second detector (Terefe, photodiode 28, Paragraph [0020] – [0023]), a transmit lens (Hibino, Fig. 4, transmitter lens 14, Paragraph [0065]), a receive lens (Hibino, Fig. 4, receiver lens 16, Paragraph [0068]), and a readout integrated circuit (ROIC) are included in a receiver component of the system (Hibino, Fig. 3, PD module 7 with TIA, VGA and ADC 8, Paragraph [0052]), and wherein the first detector and the second detector are coupled to the readout integrated circuit (ROIC) (Hibino, Fig. 3, PD module 7 with TIA, VGA and ADC 8, Paragraph [0052]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hibino’s photodiode module by using two separated photodiodes to receive reflected light from downrange and scattered light from window blockage, respectively, which is disclosed by Terefe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to perform blockage detection without a dedicated measurement cycle, as suggested by Terefe (Paragraph [0035]).
Regarding claim 3, Hibino, as modified in view of Terefe, discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the transmit lens and the receive lens are not coaxial (Hibino, Fig. 5A, transmitter lens 14, receiver lens 16, Paragraph [0064]).
Regarding claim 4, Hibino, as modified in view of Terefe, discloses the system of claim 2 wherein a shortest optical path length between the transmit lens and the window is between 20 and 300 millimeters (Hibino, Fig. 4, target detecting devices 10A to 10D, Paragraph [0085]).
Regarding claim 5, Hibino, as modified in view of Terefe, discloses the system of claim 2, wherein an output beam is included in the emitted light (Hibino, Fig. 9A, projected light from LD(1), Paragraph [0089]), an input beam is included in the at least the portion of the emitted light scattered by the blocking contaminant on the window (Hibino, Fig. 9A, dirt Da, optical window 12, diffusely reflected light of light from LD(1), Paragraph [0089]), the output beam passes through the transmit lens (Hibino, Fig. 9A, transmitter lens 14, Paragraph [0089]), and the input beam passes through the receive lens (Hibino, Fig. 9A, receiver lens 16, Paragraph [0089]).
Regarding claim 6, Hibino, as modified in view of Terefe, discloses the system of claim 5, wherein the output beam and the input beam both pass through at least a same portion of the window (Hibino, Fig. 9A, optical window 12, Paragraph [0089]).
Regarding claim 7, Hibino, as modified in view of Terefe, discloses the system of claim 5, wherein a transmit axis is associated with the output beam, a receive axis is associated with the input beam, and a parallax distance between the transmit axis and the receive axis exceeds 4 millimeters (Hibino, Fig. 4, transmitter lens 14, receiver lens 16, Paragraph [0085]).
Claim 11 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 14, Hibino discloses a system, comprising: a light source configured to emit light (Fig. 4, LD module 2, Paragraph [0063]-[0064]); a scanner configured to scan the emitted light across multiple fields of view through a window using a first output beam and a second output beam (Fig. 4, optical scanner 4, Paragraph [0066]); a first primary detector configured to detect at least a portion of the emitted light associated with the first output beam scattered by a first target located downrange from the system (Fig. 4, PD module 7, Paragraph [0064]-[0066], Fig. 7A-B, LD(1), Ra(1), Paragraph [0083]); a second primary detector configured to detect at least a portion of the emitted light associated with the second output beam scattered by a second target located downrange from the system (Fig. 4, PD module 7, Paragraph [0064]-[0066], Fig. 7A-B, LD(2), Ra(2), Paragraph [0083]); a first blocking contaminant detector configured to detect at least a portion of the emitted light associated with the first output beam scattered by a first blocking contaminant on the window (Fig. 9A-B, dirt Da, optical window 12, Ra(4), Paragraph [0089]-[0092]); and a processor configured to analyze detected information from the first blocking contaminant detector to provide an indication associated with detecting the first blocking contaminant on the window (Fig. 3, controller 1, dirt detector 1b, Paragraph [0047], Paragraph [0092]).
Hibino does not teach: a first blocking contaminant detector that is a physically separate structure from the first primary detector and the second primary detector, the first blocking contaminant detector.
However, Terefe teaches a detector array with a plurality of pixels that detects reflected light and one or more photodiodes that is physically separate from the detector array that detects scattered light from a blocking contaminant (Fig. 3, plurality of pixels 15, photodiode 28, Paragraph [0020] – [0023]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hibino’s photodiode module by using two separated photodiode arrays to receive reflected light from downrange and scattered light from window blockage, respectively, which is disclosed by Terefe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to perform blockage detection without a dedicated measurement cycle, as suggested by Terefe (Paragraph [0035]).
Regarding claim 15, Hibino, as modified in view of Terefe, discloses the system of claim 14, wherein the first blocking contaminant detector is further configured to detect at least a portion of the emitted light associated with the second output beam scattered by a second blocking contaminant on the window (Hibino, Fig. 9A, not shown: light from LD(2) into Ra(4), dirt Da, Paragraph [0091]-[0092]), and wherein the processor is further configured to analyze detected information from the first blocking contaminant detector to provide an indication associated with detecting the second blocking contaminant on the window (Hibino, Fig. 3, controller 1, dirt detector 1b, Paragraph [0047], Paragraph [0092]).
Regarding claim 16, Hibino, as modified in view of Terefe, discloses the system of claim 15, wherein the first blocking contaminant detector is positioned at a detector site location (Hibino, Fig. 9A, PD module 7, Ra(4), Paragraph [0089]), and wherein the detector site location is positioned inside both a first area bounded by a first outline of a first scatter pattern on a detector plane and a second area bounded by a second outline of a second scatter pattern on the detector plane (Hibino, Fig. 9A, Ra(4) can receive light projected from both LD(1) and LD(2) and reflected off dirt Da depending on properties of dirt, Paragraph [0089]-[0092]), wherein the first area is associated with the emitted light associated with the first output beam scattered by the first blocking contaminant on the window and the second area is associated with the emitted light associated with the second output beam scattered by the second blocking contaminant on the window (Hibino, Fig. 9A, light projected from LD(1) and LD(2) reflected off different sections dirt Da, Paragraph [0089]-[0091]).
Regarding claim 17, Hibino, as modified in view of Terefe, discloses the system of claim 16, wherein the first primary detector (Terefe, Fig. 3, plurality of pixels 15, Paragraph [0020] – [0023] ), the second primary detector (Terefe, Fig. 3, plurality of pixels 15, Paragraph [0020] – [0023]), the first blocking contaminant detector (Terefe, Fig. 3, photodiode 28, Paragraph [0020] – [0023]), a transmit lens (Hibino, Fig. 4, transmitter lens 14, Paragraph [0065]), a receive lens (Fig. 4, receiver lens 16, Paragraph [0068]), and a readout integrated circuit (ROIC) are included in a receiver component of the system (Hibino, Fig. 3, PD module 7 with TIA, VGA and ADC 8, Paragraph [0052]), wherein the first primary detector, the second primary detector, and the first blocking contaminant detector are coupled to the readout integrated circuit (ROIC) (Hibino, Fig. 3, PD module 7 with TIA, VGA and ADC 8, Paragraph [0052]), and wherein a first input beam is included in the at least the portion of the emitted light associated with the first output beam scattered by the first blocking contaminant on the window (Hibino, Fig. 9A, dirt Da, optical window 12, diffusely reflected light of light from LD(1), Paragraph [0089]), a second input beam is associated with the at least the portion of the emitted light associated with the second output beam scattered by the second blocking contaminant on the window (Hibino, Fig. 9A, dirt Da, optical window 12, diffusely reflected light of light from LD(2) not shown, Paragraph [0091]), the first and second output beams passing through the transmit lens (Hibino, Fig. 9A, transmitter lens 14, Paragraph [0089]-[0091]), and the first and second input beams passing through the receive lens (Hibino, Fig. 9A, receiver lens 16, Paragraph [0089]-[0091]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hibino’s photodiode module by using two separated photodiode arrays to receive reflected light from downrange and scattered light from window blockage, respectively, which is disclosed by Terefe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to perform blockage detection without a dedicated measurement cycle, as suggested by Terefe (Paragraph [0035]).
Regarding claim 18, Hibino, as modified in view of Terefe, discloses the system of claim 14, further comprising: a second blocking contaminant detector configured to detect at least a portion of the emitted light associated with the second output beam scattered by a second blocking contaminant on the window (Hibino, Fig. 9A, not shown: light from LD(2) into Ra(3), dirt Da, Paragraph [0091]-[0092]); and wherein the processor is further configured to: analyze detected information from the second blocking contaminant detector to provide an indication associated with detecting the second blocking contaminant on the window (Fig. 3, controller 1, dirt detector 1b, Paragraph [0047], Paragraph [0092]).
Regarding claim 19, Hibino, as modified in view of Terefe, discloses the system of claim 18, wherein the first blocking contaminant detector is positioned at a first detector site location (Hibino, Fig. 9A, PD module 7, Ra(4), Paragraph [0089]), and wherein the first detector site location is positioned inside a first area bounded by a first outline of a first scatter pattern on a detector plane and positioned outside a second area bounded by a second outline of a second scatter pattern on the detector plane (Hibino, Fig. 9A, Ra(4) can receive light from LD(1) but not LD(2) reflected off dirt Da depending on properties of Da, Paragraph [0089]-[0092]), wherein the first area is associated with the emitted light associated with the first output beam scattered by the first blocking contaminant on the window and the second area is associated with the emitted light associated with the second output beam scattered by the second blocking contaminant on the window (Hibino, Fig. 9A, light projected from LD(1) and LD(2) reflected off dirt Da, Paragraph [0089]-[0091]).
Regarding claim 20, Hibino, as modified in view of Terefe, discloses the system of claim 19, wherein the second blocking contaminant detector is positioned is at a second detector site location (Hibino, Fig. 9A, PD module 7, Ra(3), Paragraph [0089]), and wherein the second detector site location is positioned outside the first area bounded by the first outline of the first scatter pattern and inside the second area bounded by the second outline of the second scatter pattern (Hibino, Fig. 9A, Ra(3) can receive light from LD(2) but not LD(1) reflected off dirt Da depending on properties of Da, Paragraph [0089]-[0092]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hibino, as modified in view of Terefe, in further view of Holler et al., US 20210190951 A1 ("Holler").
Regarding claim 8, Hibino as modified in view of Terefe, discloses the system of claim 5.
Hibino as modified in view of Terefe, does not teach: wherein a beam size of the output beam is larger than the blocking contaminant on the window.
However, Holler teaches a LIDAR system where the beam is comparatively large in relation to the soiling that occurs on the shield (Fig. 3, LIDAR system 300, shield 320, particles 330, Paragraph [0040]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the thing Hibino and Terefe’s LD module’s beam size by making the beam larger than the dirt particles on the window, which is disclosed by Holler. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “enable early identification and optionally elimination of soiling functional disturbances with lower equipment outlay”, as suggested by Holler (Paragraph [0007]).
Claims 9-10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hibino as modified in view of Terefe, in further view of Kudla et al., US 20210223374 A1 ("Kudla").
Regarding claim 9, Hibino as modified in view of Terefe, discloses the system of claim 1.
Hibino as modified in view of Terefe, does not teach: wherein the processor is further configured to initiate a cleaning process to at least in part remove the blocking contaminant on the window.
However, Kudla teaches a LIDAR sensor module that has a plurality of nozzles that dispense cleaning fluid to a sub-area of a window when dirt is detected (Fig. 3, nozzles 32, dirt 33, Paragraph [0068]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the thing disclosed by Hibino and Terefe’s target detecting device by adding the cleaning nozzles, which is disclosed by Kudla. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have a cleaning mechanism that mitigates cost, as suggested by Kudla (Paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 10, Hibino as modified in view of Terefe, discloses the system of claim 1.
Hibino, as modified in view of Terefe, does not teach: wherein the provided indication associated with detecting the blocking contaminant on the window includes a location of the detected blocking contaminant on the window.
However, Kudla teaches that if dirt is detected the controller may determine the sub-area of the window on which the dirt is present based on the rotation of the MEMS mirror (Fig. 4, MEMS mirror 12, detector 45, dirt 34, technique 1, Paragraph [0078]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the thing disclosed by Hibino and Terefe’s target detecting device by cleaning only a portion of the window where the dirt has been detected, which is disclosed by Kudla. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have a cleaning mechanism that mitigates cost, as suggested by Kudla (Paragraph [0004]).
Claims 12-13 are a method claims corresponding to apparatus claim 9-10 and are rejected for the same reasons.
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 RACHEL N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5:30 pm ET.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at (571) 270-3603. 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.
/RACHEL NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645