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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the communication filed 2/11/2026.
Cancellation of claims 8, filed 2/11/2026, is acknowledged and accepted.
Amendments to claim 1, 9, and 39, filed 2/11/2026, are acknowledged and accepted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Much like in Applicant’s earlier arguments, filed 8/5/2025 and addressed in the Final Rejection filed 10/30/2025, Applicant continues to fixate on trivial distinctions between the cited references – simple minutiae or details that Applicant treats as hard constraints in order to arbitrarily restrict the inventive options available to a common practitioner. Without proper evidence to justify such restrictions, however, much of Applicant’s arguments remain merely conclusory in that they simply declare that such basic distinctions would somehow prevent the obviousness combination applied towards the rejection of claim 1. Such assertions thus remain largely improper, with specific issues detailed as follows:
On pgs. 8-9 of the Remarks, Applicant provides a selection of search results to assert that a “person of ordinary skill in the art… would have understood perfectly that Draheim's antireflection film is intended to mitigate glare on the display screen of a depth finder” (pg. 9) – emphasizing Draheim’s statement:
¶ 20: “The antireflection film of the present invention can be employed in a variety of portable and non-portable information display devices…”
to suit this argument. However, Applicant plainly neglects the fact that this is not a particularly limiting statement (“can”). Applicant is also urged to familiarize themself with the entirety of Draheim’s disclosure – rather than lean too heavily on only limited excerpts as done above, which leads only to gross mischaracterization/misinterpretation and narrowing of scope where there frankly is none. See in Draheim, for example:
¶ 3: “It is advantageous to provide various articles, for example, lenses, cathode ray tubes, optical displays, window films and windshields, with antireflection films”
¶ 18: “As will be understood by those skilled in the art, the removable antireflection film of the present invention can be used in a variety of orientations and locations.”
Thus, while Draheim does expand on particular (display) embodiments for more concrete discussion – a standard writing technique that simply facilitates narrative prose – they also clearly acknowledge areas of application which are much broader than the unjustifiably narrow scope that Applicant wishes to enforce here.
Notwithstanding the above, Applicant’s statement that a “person would not even have considered the possibility that the film might be placed over the actual depth finding sensor” (pg. 9) remains wholly unsubstantiated and unpersuasive. Applicant fails to identify any evidence that would specifically prevent a practitioner from making such basic considerations or implementing the relied upon teachings in a suitable manner. As described earlier, Applicant arguments merely amount to individual attacks on each reference by highlighting distinctive details that are of little relevance to the rejections – before making purely conclusory and generalized remarks that such differences indicate nonobviousness or that they somehow prevent combination for some unspecified reason.
Indeed, in the above argument involving Draheim, Applicant entirely neglects the fact that Pedersen provides antireflective elements on LiDAR windows, showing that this simple concept is known/obvious. This was clearly established in the 5/16/2025 Non-Final Rejection (¶ 13) and 10/30/2025 Final Rejection (¶ 9), where Pedersen was relied on for the associated claim limitation. This aspect of Pedersen was also acknowledged by Applicant on pg. 7 of the 11/2/2026 Remarks and pg. 10 of the 8/5/2025 Remarks – though Applicant perplexingly forwent such relevant details when arguing the above.
In view of Applicant’s apparent oversight, it must be pointed out that providing due consideration to Pedersen directly dispels much of Applicant’s pg. 8-9 Remarks and renders them frankly irrelevant. Apparently also, it must be reiterated that the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art – a point which Applicant was reminded of in the Final Rejection (5A, 5C), and which Examiner hopes to be properly appreciated here.
Examiner lastly acknowledges Applicant’s contention that Examiner’s positions are based on improper hindsight reasoning – a sentiment invoked throughout the Remarks. However, these are largely improper, as Applicant consistently fails to identify any fact or finding used in the rejection that was not available in the prior art or otherwise accessible to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing. For instance:
Remarks pg. 9: “The person…reading Draheim without the prejudice of hindsight… would have understood perfectly that Draheim's antireflection film is intended to mitigate glare” – following arguments whose flaws were specifically addressed in items A and B above – fails to establish what relevant facts or details the Examiner specifically relied upon which would not have been available to a practitioner at the time of filing
Remarks pg. 9: “Without the benefit of hindsight… the person of ordinary skill would not have conceived of the possibility of [modifying] Draheim” – which follows only Applicant’s identification of trivial “differences between Draheim and Pedersen”, and again fails to establish what specific facts or detail are used in the rejection that would not have been available at the time of filing. Applicant’s quote above is merely a conclusory statement that a practitioner would not have been able to make some proposed modification. It makes no particular reference to any of the relevant evidence that is on the record.
Remarks pg. 10: “In the absence of hindsight… person of ordinary skill in the art would have had no motivation to combine…” – is, again, stated without any regard for what facts were not available at the time of filing, nor how these impact or interfere with the motivation(s) that Examiner provided in any of the rejections
In contrast, Examiner has taken each opportunity to clarify what relevant teachings/structures/concepts are applied towards the rejections, how these details are related and may be considered/implemented by a practitioner of ordinary skill, and how they pertain to the specific concerns that Applicant has raised in each of their Remarks. Applicant’s continued focus on immaterial distinctions between references does not undermine this fact, nor do they even address them in any sufficiently particular manner.
Applicant is thus reminded that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971)
To summarize, Examiner again finds the arguments to be unpersuasive for their mischaracterization/misinterpretation of Draheim’s disclosure, and for their continued reliance on improper arguments and rhetorical strategies– i.e. those essentially recycled from the prior Remarks and attacking individual references by overemphasizing immaterial details or differences between them. Such arguments serve little purpose other than to artificially reduce the level of ordinary skill in the art to some arbitrarily diminished standard for the sake of argumentative convenience. As in the Final Rejection, Applicant is again cautioned against such improper argumentative methods, as they fail to meaningfully engage with the actual substance of the rejections and with the arguments that Examiner has provided thus far.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-24, 28-30, 32-33, 35, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen et al (US 20150055115 A1, hereinafter “Pedersen”) in view of Draheim et al (US 20030012936 Al, hereinafter “Draheim”) and Abrisa Technologies (NPL entitled 0-60 Degree Polarization Optimized Anti-reflection…, hereinafter “Abrisa”).
Regarding claim 1, Pedersen discloses (see FIG. 5) an antireflective coating for a window (4) of a LIDAR system. (See also ¶ 43: “The window may be a ‘normal’ optical transparent window… in the LIDAR system… One or both surfaces of the window may be provided with antireflective coating”.)
Pedersen does not disclose a replaceable antireflective sticker, the antireflective sticker comprising:
a substrate having a thickness less than 5 mm;
a first antireflective coating on a first side of the substrate; and
a coupling surface for detachably coupling the antireflective sticker to a window of a LIDAR system,
wherein the first antireflective coating is optimized for transmission of a narrow band of near-to-mid infrared light emitted by a light source of the LIDAR system to reduce reflections of the light from the window back to a detector of the LIDAR system.
Pedersen and Draheim commonly relate to ranging devices with optically transmissive elements having antireflective coatings.
Draheim discloses (see FIG. 3, annotated below, and FIGs. 5-6; ¶s 24-31) a replaceable antireflective sticker (antireflection film 30), the antireflective sticker (antireflection film 30) comprising:
a substrate (32) having a thickness less than 5 mm (see ¶ 32: “For most applications, substrate thicknesses of less than about 0.5mm are preferred”);
a first antireflective coating (inorganic layer 36 with polymer layer 38) on a first side of the substrate (32); and
a coupling surface (i.e. of the substrate 32) for detachably coupling (via adhesive layer 34) the antireflective sticker (antireflection film 30) to the window (display screen 62) (See ¶s 29-30, regarding removal/replacement of the antireflection film 30 (or stacks 50 of these films 30. See also ¶s 20-21; Draheim discloses that their invention can be employed in various non-display applications – e.g. depth finders, which Examiner notes may employ LIDAR in certain situations.)
PNG
media_image1.png
472
1342
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (FIG. 3 of Draheim is annotated to highlight various features.)]
Pedersen and Abrisa commonly relate to laser scan systems with antireflective coatings.
Abrisa discloses wherein the first antireflective coating is optimized for transmission of a narrow band of near-to-mid infrared light emitted by a light source of the LIDAR system to reduce reflections of the light from the window back to a detector of the LIDAR system. (“coatings support… Laser scanning applications…”, “These wide angle AR coatings can be tailored to […] 904nm, 1064nm and 1550nm”)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Pedersen by using an antireflection film/sticker, as taught by Draheim, in order to have an antireflection element that provides mechanical protection, that can be replaced when needed, and that also reduces production costs (see Draheim ¶s 3-7).
It would have also been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Pedersen with elements of Abrisa, in order to provide high throughput efficiency for broad angle laser applications.
Regarding claim 2, modified Pedersen discloses the antireflective sticker of claim 1.
Draheim further discloses wherein the first antireflective coating (inorganic layer 36 with polymer layer 38 and optional hardcoat layer 42) comprises an index-matched coating. (See ¶ 27: “upper surface of substrate 32 is optionally coated with a hardcoat layer 42”. See also ¶ 39: “ingredients in the hardcoat are chosen so that the cured hardcoat has a refractive index close to that of the substrate”.)
Regarding claim 3, modified Pedersen discloses the antireflective sticker of claim 1.
Draheim further discloses wherein the first antireflective coating (inorganic layer 36 with polymer layer 38) comprises a multilayer antireflection coating (see also ¶ 25: “Inorganic layer 36 may include one or more layers”).
Regarding claim 4, modified Pedersen discloses the antireflective sticker of claim 1.
Draheim further discloses wherein the first antireflective coating (inorganic layer 36 with polymer layer 38 and optional hardcoat layer 42) comprises an absorbing antireflective coating. (See ¶ 27: “upper surface of substrate 32 is optionally coated with a hardcoat layer 42”. See also ¶ 42: “Those skilled in the art will also appreciate that the hardcoat can contain… UV absorbers…”.)
Regarding claim 6, modified Pedersen discloses the antireflective sticker of claim 1.
Pedersen further discloses (see FIG. 5, ¶s 55-61) light emitted (output beam) from a light source (1) of the LIDAR system or a reflection of the light emitted (received radiation) from the light source (1) from an environment (measurement volume) of the LIDAR system (see ¶ 28) passing the first antireflective coating (i.e. passing window 4 with the antireflective coating; see ¶ 43).
Abrisa further discloses wherein a transmission value for the light is greater than 99.5% at an angle of incidence less than 45 degrees. (“These wide angle AR coatings can be tailored to […] 904nm, 1064nm and 1550nm to help minimize reflection losses to values on the order of 0.10 to 0.75% over large 0-60 degree angle range”)
Regarding claim 7, modified Pedersen discloses the antireflective sticker of claim 1.
Pedersen further discloses (see FIG. 5, ¶s 55-61) light emitted (output beam) from a light source (1) of the LIDAR system or a reflection of the light emitted (received radiation) from the light source (1) from an environment (measurement volume) of the LIDAR system (see ¶ 28) passing the first antireflective coating (i.e. passing window 4 with the antireflective coating; see ¶ 43).
Abrisa further discloses wherein a transmission value for the light is greater than 99% at an angle of incidence greater than 45 degrees and less than 60 degrees. (“These wide angle AR coatings can be tailored to […] 904nm, 1064nm and 1550nm to help minimize reflection losses to values on the order of 0.10 to 0.75% over large 0-60 degree angle range”)
Regarding claim 9, modified Pedersen discloses the antireflective sticker of claim 1.
Pedersen further discloses a central wavelength of the light emitted from the light source of the LIDAR system (see ¶ 14; the laser/light source of Pedersen’s LIDAR system operates at a central frequency of ~200THz).
Abrisa further discloses wherein a wavelength of the light emitted is in a range of 895 to 910 nm or 1540 to 1560 nm. (“These wide angle AR coatings can be tailored to […] 904nm, 1064nm and 1550nm”)
Regarding claim 10, modified Pedersen discloses the antireflective sticker of claim 1.
PNG
media_image3.png
714
1430
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (FIG. 5 of Draheim is annotated to highlight various features.)]Draheim further discloses wherein the antireflective sticker (antireflection film 30) further comprises a second antireflective coating (inorganic layer 36 with polymer layer 38b, for example, and optional hardcoat layer 42) on a second side of the substrate (32). (See annotated FIG. 5 below, showing Draheim’s stack 50 of antireflection films 30. In its repeating stack sequence/structure, each substrate 32, besides the topmost substrate, lies between a “first” and a “second” antireflective coating on respective first and second sides of the substrate 32.)
Regarding claim 11, modified Pedersen discloses the antireflective sticker of claim 10.
Draheim further discloses wherein the first antireflective coating (inorganic layer 36 with polymer layer 38c, for example, and optional hardcoat layer 42) and the second antireflective coating (inorganic layer 36 with polymer layer 38b, for example, and optional hardcoat layer 42) comprise the same material (See annotated FIG. 5 above, showing Draheim’s stack 50 of antireflection films 30 which are copied and stacked on top of one another. See also ¶s 29-31; antireflection films 30 are intended to replace one another after a given film becomes worn/damaged. The labeled “first” and “second” antireflective coatings should therefore comprise the same material).
Regarding claim 13, modified Pedersen discloses the antireflective sticker of claim 10.
Draheim further discloses wherein the coupling surface is adjacent to the second antireflective coating. (See annotated FIG. 5 above, showing Draheim’s stack 50 of antireflection films 30. In its repeating stack sequence/structure, each substrate 32, besides the topmost substrate, lies between “first” and “second” antireflective coatings that are each adjacent/adhered to coupling surfaces.)
Regarding claim 14, modified Pedersen discloses the antireflective sticker of claim 1.
Draheim further discloses wherein the coupling surface is adjacent to the first antireflective coating. (See annotated FIG. 5 above, showing Draheim’s stack 50 of antireflection films 30. In its repeating stack sequence/structure, each substrate 32, besides the topmost substrate, lies between “first” and “second” antireflective coatings that are each adjacent/adhered to coupling surfaces.)
Regarding claim 15, modified Pedersen discloses the antireflective sticker of claim 1.
Draheim further discloses wherein the coupling surface is on a second side of the substrate (32) (see either of annotated FIGs. 3 or 5 above).
Regarding claim 16, modified Pedersen discloses the antireflective sticker of claim 1.
Draheim further discloses wherein the antireflective sticker (antireflection film 30) further comprises an adhesive liner (adhesive layer 34) on the coupling surface (see annotated FIG. 3 above).
Regarding claim 17, modified Pedersen discloses the antireflective sticker of claim 1.
Draheim further discloses wherein the antireflective sticker (antireflection film 30) passes visible light from an environment of the LIDAR system into the window (display screen 62) of the LIDAR system (see FIG. 6 – by virtue of being applied onto a viewing side of display screen 62, Draheim’s antireflection film 30 must pass visible light between the environment and the display as part of its core function).
Regarding claim 18, modified Pedersen discloses the antireflective sticker of claim 1.
Draheim further discloses wherein the antireflective coating (inorganic layer 36 with polymer layer 38 and optional hardcoat layer 42) is scratch resistant (see ¶ 27: “upper surface of substrate 32 is optionally coated with a hardcoat layer 42. Hardcoat layer 42 provides scratch and abrasion resistance”).
Regarding claim 19, modified Pedersen discloses the antireflective sticker of claim 1.
Draheim further discloses wherein the antireflective coating (inorganic layer 36 with polymer layer 38) is water resistant (see ¶ 51: “It is desirable to keep… acceptable properties for this layer… The polymer should also be resistant to cleaning solvents… for example ethyl alcohol, aqueous ammonia, … and food and cosmetic items”. Aqueous ammonia usually consists of mostly water by mass and by molar fraction. Water is also a food.).
Regarding claim 20, modified Pedersen discloses the antireflective sticker of claim 1.
Draheim further discloses wherein the substrate (32) is rigid (see ¶ 32: “Suitable substrate materials include… polystyrene…”; pure/solid polystyrene is rigid).
Regarding claim 21, modified Pedersen discloses the antireflective sticker of claim 1.
Draheim further discloses wherein the substrate (32) is flexible (see ¶ 32: “the substrate will be chosen based in part on… mechanical properties… Such mechanical properties typically will include flexibility…”).
Regarding claim 22, modified Pedersen discloses the antireflective sticker of claim 1.
Pedersen further discloses (see FIG. 5, ¶s 55-61) light (output beam) emitted by a light source (1) of the LIDAR system.
Draheim further discloses wherein the substrate (32) is transparent or semi-transparent to the light (see ¶ 32: “the substrate should have sufficient transparency or translucency at the intended wavelength and under the intended viewing conditions”).
Regarding claim 23, modified Pedersen discloses the antireflective sticker of claim 1.
Draheim further discloses wherein the thickness of the substrate (32) is less than 3 mm (¶ 32: “For most applications, substrate thicknesses of less than about 0.5mm are preferred”).
Regarding claim 24, modified Pedersen discloses the antireflective sticker of claim 1.
Draheim further discloses wherein the substrate (32) comprises a material made of at least one of plastic, polymer, sapphire, glass, or ceramic (see ¶ 32: “Suitable substrate materials include thermosetting or thermoplastic polymers …”).
Regarding claim 28, modified Pedersen discloses the antireflective sticker of claim 1.
Draheim further discloses wherein the substrate (32) comprises a material made of poly-carbonate (see ¶ 32: “Suitable substrate materials include… polycarbonate…”).
Regarding claim 29, modified Pedersen discloses the antireflective sticker of claim 1.
Draheim further discloses wherein the substrate (32) allows transmission of ultraviolet light (see ¶ 32: “substrate thickness typically also will depend on the intended use… Films made from polyesters such as PET… are particularly preferred”; polyethylene terephthalate (PET) is generally known to transmit wavelengths of ≳ 310 nm, including UV-A light).
Regarding claim 30, modified Pedersen discloses the antireflective sticker of claim 1.
Draheim further discloses wherein the coupling surface has a thickness in a range of 10 to 100 μm (see ¶ 32: “For most applications, substrate thicknesses of less than about 0.5mm [= 500 μm] are preferred”; therefore, substrate 32 is sufficiently thick for its surface, corresponding to Applicant’s coupling surface in annotated FIG. 3 above, to be defined with a thickness between 10 and 100 μm).
Regarding claim 32, modified Pedersen discloses the antireflective sticker of claim 1.
PNG
media_image5.png
657
1336
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (FIG. 5 of Draheim is reannotated so that coupling surfaces further comprise adhesive layers 34(a-d))]Draheim further discloses wherein the coupling surface comprises an adhesive (adhesive layer 34) configured to couple to the window (display screen 62) of the LIDAR system (see again ¶s 29-30).
Regarding claim 33, modified Pedersen discloses the antireflective sticker of claim 1.
Draheim further discloses wherein the coupling surface is adjacent to a second side of the substrate (see the reannotated FIG. 5 above).
Regarding claim 35, modified Pedersen discloses the antireflective sticker of claim 1.
Pedersen further discloses wherein the window comprises glass (see ¶ 44, Pedersen mentions glass “of a high optical quality” in regards to the window).
Draheim further discloses wherein the antireflective sticker (antireflection film 30) comprises glass (See ¶s 33-44; substrate 32 may be provided with optional hardcoat layers which include “small particle filler such as silica sand or glass beads”).
Regarding claim 39, Pedersen discloses a method for a LIDAR system for detecting an object in an environment of the LIDAR system (see FIG. 5, ¶s 55-61), the method comprising:
projecting light (output beam) emitted by a light source (1) of the LIDAR system through a window (4) of the LIDAR system,
receiving reflection of the light (received radiation) from the environment (measurement volume) of the LIDAR system (see ¶ 28) through the window (4); and
detecting an object (particles, or any target/object that interacts with light, see ¶ 26) based on the received reflection (received radiation) (see also ¶s 37-42 regarding light/signal processing techniques for detection).
Pedersen does not disclose a replaceable antireflective sticker applied to the window, wherein the antireflective sticker comprises:
a substrate having a thickness less than 5 mm;
an antireflective coating on one side of the substrate,
wherein the antireflective coating is optimized for transmission of a narrow band of near-to-mid infrared light emitted by the light source of the LIDAR system to reduce reflections of the light from the window back to a detector of the LIDAR system; and
a coupling surface for detachably coupling the antireflective sticker to the window of the LIDAR system;
Pedersen and Draheim commonly relate to ranging devices with optically transmissive elements having antireflective coatings.
Draheim discloses (see FIG. 3, annotated previously, and FIGs. 5-6; ¶s 24-31) a replaceable antireflective sticker (antireflection film 30) applied to the window (display screen 62), wherein the antireflective sticker (antireflection film 30) comprises:
a substrate (32) having a thickness less than 5 mm (see ¶ 32: “For most applications, substrate thicknesses of less than about 0.5mm are preferred”);
an antireflective coating (inorganic layer 36 with polymer layer 38) on one side of the substrate (32); and
a coupling surface (i.e. of the substrate 32) for detachably coupling (via adhesive layer 34) the antireflective sticker (antireflection film 30) to the window (display screen 62). (See ¶s 29-30, regarding removal/replacement of the antireflection film 30 (or stacks 50 of these films 30. See also ¶s 20-21; Draheim discloses that their invention can be employed in various non-display applications – e.g. depth finders, which Examiner notes may employ LIDAR in certain situations.)
Pedersen and Abrisa commonly relate to laser scan systems with antireflective coatings.
Abrisa discloses (see “AR Coatings” section of the attached “LiDAR Coatings” page) wherein the antireflective coating is optimized for transmission of a narrow band of near-to-mid infrared light emitted by the light source of the LIDAR system to reduce reflections of the light from the window back to a detector of the LIDAR system. (“Our high efficiency AR coatings provide excellent transmission at the desired wavelengths of operation, from visible to NIR. We offer narrow V-coats to help exclude ambient light [i.e. while transmitting LiDAR light]”, “center wavelength 905 nm”)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Pedersen by using an antireflection film/sticker, as taught by Draheim, in order to have an antireflection element that provides mechanical protection, that can be replaced when needed, and that also reduces production costs (see Draheim ¶s 3-7).
It would have also been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Pedersen with elements of Abrisa, in order to provide high throughput efficiency for broad angle laser applications.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen in view of Draheim and Abrisa, as applied respectively to claim 1 and 10 above, and in further view of Zieba and Bilger (US 20190235135, hereinafter “Zieba”).
Regarding claim 5, modified Pedersen discloses the antireflective sticker of claim 1.
Modified Pedersen does not disclose wherein the first antireflective coating comprises a circular polarizer.
Pedersen and Zieba commonly relate to LIDAR systems with optically transmissive elements having antireflective coatings.
Zieba discloses (see FIGs. 2-5, ¶ 38-39) wherein the first antireflective coating (glare reducing coating 30c) comprises a circular polarizer (“An example of a glare reducing coating 30c can be a multi-layer structure of a circular polarizer…”).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Pedersen by incorporating a circular polarizer into the antireflective element, as taught by Zieba, in order to control/analyze polarization states of transmitted signal beams in the LIDAR (Zieba ¶ 39).
Regarding claim 12, modified Pedersen discloses the antireflective sticker of claim 10.
Modified Pedersen does not disclose wherein the first antireflective coating and the second antireflective coating comprise different materials.
Pedersen and Zieba commonly relate to LIDAR systems with optically transmissive elements having antireflective coatings.
Zieba discloses (see FIGs. 2-5, ¶ 38-39) wherein the first antireflective coating (glare reducing coating 30c) and the second antireflective coating (band pass filter 30d which “can also combine antireflective properties”) comprise different materials (see ¶ 28 regarding materials for the glare reducing coating 30c, as well as ¶ 41 regarding materials for the band pass filter 30d).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Pedersen by using different materials for different antireflective layers, as taught by Zieba, so that these different antireflective layers may have additional yet distinct functionalities (e.g. all-purpose antireflection, antiglare to focus on external reflections, or bandpass filtration, as in Zieba).
Claims 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen in view of Draheim and Abrisa, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Cammenga et al (US 20160147126 A1, hereinafter “Cammenga”).
Regarding claim 25, modified Pedersen discloses the antireflective sticker of claim 1.
Modified Pedersen does not disclose wherein the substrate comprises a first layer and a second layer.
Pedersen and Cammenga commonly relate to optically transmissive elements having antireflective coatings.
Cammenga discloses (see FIG. 2-4, ¶s 22-30) an electro-optic assembly (5) wherein the substrate comprises a first layer (first substrate 12) and a second layer (second substrate 14).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Pedersen by adopting a (bi)layered substrate configuration, as taught by Cammenga, in order to provide space and structural scaffolding for other functional materials (e.g. Cammenga’s electro-optic medium 26, which enables tunability/switchability of transmitted light via electric potential; see ¶ 28).
Regarding claim 26, modified Pedersen discloses the antireflective sticker of claim 25.
Cammenga further discloses wherein the first layer (first substrate 12) and the second layer (second substrate 14) comprise the same material. (See ¶ 25: “first and second substrates 12, 14 may include… glass substrates”.)
Regarding claim 27, modified Pedersen discloses the antireflective sticker of claim 25.
Cammenga further discloses wherein the first layer (first substrate 12) comprises at least one material different from a material of the second layer (second substrate 14). (See ¶ 26: “first and second substrates 12, 14 are not limited to glass elements… With regard to the second substrate 14, it may be a plastic substrate of the same, or a different polymeric material than the first substrate”.)
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen in view of Draheim and Abrisa, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Yu and Jiang (US 20160231784 A1, hereinafter “Yu”).
Regarding claim 31, modified Pedersen discloses the antireflective sticker of claim 1, wherein the coupling surface is configured to couple to the window of the LIDAR system (as previously established in regards to claim 1 above).
Modified Pedersen does not disclose coupling through thermal bonding.
Pedersen and Yu commonly relate to optically transmissive elements having antireflective coatings.
Yu discloses coupling through thermal bonding (Yu discloses widely applicable manufacturing methods for electronic/optical devices which are flexible, substructured, and compact. See FIGs. 13-15 and ¶s 75-78, particularly regarding (thermal) bonding between various substrates which are “formed of, for example, quartz, glass, plastic, or other type of organic or inorganic material” – i.e. the relevant materials for the bonding of windows/stickers together).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Pedersen by using thermal bonding, as taught by Yu, since this is a cleaner alternative to Draheim’s adhesive bonding (adhesive layer 34; see the annotated FIG. 3 above) which may leave behind a sticky residue.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen in view of Draheim and Abrisa, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seybert et al (US 20080180803 A1, hereinafter “Seybert”).
Regarding claim 34, modified Pedersen discloses the antireflective sticker of claim 1.
Draheim also discloses the antireflective sticker further comprising a protection liner (protective liner 40) (see the annotated FIG. 3 above).
Modified Pedersen does not disclose the protection liner on the first antireflective coating.
Pedersen and Seybert commonly relate to optically transmissive elements having antireflective coatings.
PNG
media_image7.png
510
1207
media_image7.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (FIG. 1 of Seybert is annotated to highlight various features)]Seybert discloses (see FIG. 1, annotated below; ¶s 166, 197) the protection liner (protective coating 50) on the first antireflective coating.
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Pedersen by including a protective layer/liner over the first antireflective coating, as taught by Seybert, in order to provide additional protective layers on an outward facing side of the antireflective coating.
Claims 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen in view of Draheim and Abrisa, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of McWhirter and Campbell (US 20190154829 A1, hereinafter “McWhirter”).
Regarding claim 36, modified Pedersen discloses the antireflective sticker of claim 1.
Draheim further discloses wherein the antireflective sticker comprises plastic.
Modified Pedersen does not disclose wherein the window comprises plastic.
Pedersen and McWhirter commonly relate to LIDAR systems with optically transmissive elements having antireflective coatings.
McWhirter discloses a LIDAR system (see FIG. 26A) wherein the window (167) comprises plastic (see ¶ 130: “window 167 may be made from any suitable substrate material, such as for example, glass or plastic (e.g. polycarbonate…)”).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Pedersen’s window (made of glass, see Pedersen ¶ 44) by using polycarbonate, in order to reduce manufacturing costs.
Regarding claim 37, modified Pedersen discloses the antireflective sticker of claim 36.
McWhirter further discloses wherein the window comprises poly-carbonate (see ¶ 130: “window 167 may be made from any suitable substrate material, such as for example, glass or plastic (e.g. polycarbonate…)).
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen in view of Draheim and Abrisa, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ibuki and Adegawa (US 20160091635 A1, hereinafter “Ibuki”).
Regarding claim 38, modified Pedersen discloses the antireflective sticker of claim 1.
Modified Pedersen does not disclose wherein a contact angle of an outer surface of the antireflective sticker is in a range of 100-120 degrees.
Pedersen and Ibuki commonly relate to optically transmissive elements having antireflective coatings.
Ibuki discloses wherein a contact angle of an outer surface of the antireflective sticker is in a range of 100-120 degrees. (See ¶s 12-17; Ibuki discloses an antireflection film 5 with uneven surface structure (unevenness structure) and fluorine/silicone atoms forming an antifouling layer that enhances hydrophobia, such that contact angle of water to the unevenness structure exceeds 100 degrees. See also water contact angles reported in Tables 2 and 4, with several values falling within 100 and 120 degrees.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Pedersen by incorporating an unevenness structure and antifouling layer, as taught by Ibuki, in order to improve hydrophobia in the antireflective sticker/coating.
Claims 40-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen in view of Draheim and Abrisa, as applied to claim 39 above, and further in view of Minari (WO 2017115695 A1).
Regarding claim 40, modified Pedersen discloses the method of claim 39.
Modified Pedersen does not disclose the method further comprising detecting a defect in the antireflective sticker based on the received reflection.
Pedersen and Minari commonly relate to optically transmissive elements having antireflective coatings.
Minari discloses the method further comprising detecting a defect in the antireflective sticker (antireflection layer 104) based on the received reflection (incident/irradiating light a1(1,2), a2(1,2), b1(1,2), b2(1,2), …). (See FIG. 10(a-c) and pg. 1 line 36 to pg. 4 line 4. Minari discloses various methods of inspecting for defects and improving their detectability in antireflection layers. They involve increasing differences in appearance and contrast between normal and defective portions of the antireflection layer.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Pedersen by employing the teachings of Minari in order to identify defects more effectively and be better informed on when to replace the antireflective elements.
Regarding claim 41, modified Pedersen discloses the method of claim 40.
Minari discloses the method further comprising notifying a user (inspector 12) of the detected defect. (See FIG. 8 and pg. 14, lines 593-624. Minari discloses that defect inspection may be automated with inspection device 11 or performed by an inspector 12, who identifies and is thus visually notified of the defect.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAI-GA D. HO whose telephone number is (571)270-1624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10AM - 6PM E.T..
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/W.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872