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 following addresses applicant’s remarks/amendments dated 5 May 2026.
Claims 1 and 4 were amended. No claim was cancelled. New claims 9-10 were added. Therefore, claims 1 and 3-10 are currently pending in the current application and are addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages of the Remarks, filed 5 May 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Pacala et al., US 20180329065 A1 in view of Meiler et al., US 20060086710 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, 3, 5-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacala et al., US 20180329065 A1 ("Pacala") in view of Meiler et al., US 20060086710 A1 ("Meiler").
Regarding claim 1, Pacala discloses an optical measurement apparatus for determining object information of objects in at least one monitoring region (Fig. 15B, active imager system 1501, Paragraph [0149]), the optical measurement apparatus comprising at least one reception device for receiving light signals coming from at least one object (Fig. 15B, light detection system 1504, micro-optical receiver channel array 1505, photosensors 1526, Paragraph [0151]),
wherein the at least one reception device comprises at least one electro-optical receiver for converting light signals into electrical signals (Fig. 15B, light detection system 1504, photosensors 1526, Paragraph [0151]),
[…],
wherein the at least one electro-optical receiver has a plurality of reception regions arranged one behind another viewed in the direction of at least one receiver axis (Fig. 15B, micro-optical receiver channel array 1505, Paragraph [0060]: micro-optic receiver layer can be one or two-dimensional array) and that are evaluated separately with respect to the respectively received light intensity (Fig. 15B, photosensors 1526, Paragraph [0151]),
[…].
Pacala does not teach:
wherein at least one light diffraction element is arranged in a receiver light path of the at least one reception device upstream of the at least one receiver
and wherein at least one boundary periphery of at least one light diffraction element at least regionally does not extend perpendicularly to the at least one receiver axis viewed in the projection onto the at least one receiver,
wherein the at least one boundary periphery of the at least one light diffraction element comprises
a periphery of a window of a housing of the measurement apparatus.
However, Meiler teaches a heating element connected to the window of a housing of a radar transmitting /receiving unit (Fig. 3, heating film 1, radar transmitting/receiving unit 8, covering film 12, coating 13, Paragraph [0037]). The heating element, which typically diffracts incident light (Paragraph [0014]: radar diffraction phenomena), is placed upstream of the receiver (Fig. 3, heating film 1, radar transmitting/receiving unit 8, Paragraph [0037]). The periphery of the diffractive heating element includes conductor strips arranged in a meandering shape such that portions of the conductor strips do not extend perpendicularly to the receiver axis (Fig. 1, heating film 1, conductor strips 5, 5.1 on outer region 3, Paragraph [0033]).
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 apertures in Pacala’s light detection system by adding a heating film with conductor strips placed in a meandering pattern to the window of the sensor system, which is taught by Meiler. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order prevent ice accumulation on the sensor unit, as suggested by Meiler (Paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 3, Pacala, as modified in view of Meiler, discloses the optical measurement apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein more than 7/10 of the extent of at least one boundary periphery of at least one light diffraction element do not extend perpendicularly to the at least one receiver axis viewed in the projection onto the at least one receiver (Meiler, Fig. 1, heating film 1, conductor strips 5, 5.1 on outer region 3, Paragraph [0033]).
Regarding claim 5, Pacala, as modified in view of Meiler, discloses the optical measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the optical measurement apparatus has a housing in which at least one reception device is arranged (Pacala, Fig. 15B, Paragraph [0150]: active imager system housed in an enclosure), and the housing has at least one window through which light signals passes from the monitoring region to the at least one reception device (Pacala, Fig. 15B, Transparent window 1508, Paragraph [0150]).
Regarding claim 6, Pacala, as modified in view of Meiler, discloses the optical measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one receiver has a plurality of individual reception elements and within each case at least one reception region or the at least one receiver has at least one line-type or area-type arrangement of a plurality of reception regions (Pacala, Fig. 15B, photosensors 1526, micro-optical receiver channel array 1505, Paragraph [0151], Paragraph [0060]: micro-optic receiver layer can be one or two-dimensional array).
Regarding claim 8, Pacala, as modified in view of Meiler, discloses the optical measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the optical measurement apparatus is configured for determining at least one direction of at least one captured object relative to the measurement apparatus (Pacala, Fig. 8, Paragraph [0090]-[0094]: emitter and sensor arrays can sample a 3D space corresponding to a 3D image).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacala, as modified in view of Meiler, in further view of Suetsugu et al., US 20190159296 A1 ("Suetsugu").
Regarding claim 4, Pacala, as modified in view of Meiler, discloses the optical measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one boundary periphery of the at least one light diffraction element further comprises one or more of:
at least one periphery of at least one optical lens;
a periphery of a heating wire (Meiler, Fig. 1, heating film 1, conductor strips 5, 5.1 on outer region 3, Paragraph [0033]), or
a periphery of a stop or mask
Pacala, as modified in view of Meiler, does not teach: wherein the at least one boundary periphery of the at least one light diffraction element extends at least regionally in a zigzag shape and/or at least regionally in a wave shape and/or at least regionally in a zigzag shape with flattened and/or rounded tips and/or at least regionally has a free curve profile.
However, Suetsugu teaches a heating electrode for heating a glass where the heating conductors are extended in a wavy shape (Fig. 6, heat-generating conducting body 122, Paragraph [0235]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have heating elements, disclosed by Pacala and Meiler, by using heating conductors with a wavy form, which is disclosed by Suetsugu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce adverse effects caused by light diffraction, as suggested by Suetsugu (Paragraph [0516]).
Claims 7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacala, as modified in view of Meiler, in further view of Bayha et al., US 20140326859 A1 ("Bayha").
Regarding claim 7, Pacala, as modified in view of Meiler, discloses the optical measurement apparatus according to claim 1.
Pacala, as modified in view of Meiler, does not teach: wherein at least one rectangular or square optical lens is arranged in the receiver light path.
However, Bayha teaches a quadrangular reception lens along the receiver path (Fig. 3, reception lens 10, Paragraph [0059]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the bulk receiver optic in Pacala’s light detection system with the quadrangular reception lens disclosed by Bayha. One of ordinary skill in the art would could have substituted one known lens for another and the results would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 9, Pacala, as modified in view of Meiler, discloses The optical measurement apparatus according to claim 1.
Pacala, as modified in view of Meiler, does not teach: wherein the at least one boundary periphery of the at least one light diffraction element further comprises at least one periphery of at least one optical lens arranged in the receiver light path downstream of the window of the housing of the measurement apparatus.
However, Bayha teaches a quadrangular reception lens along the receiver path and downstream of the window of the housing (Fig. 3, reception lens 10, Paragraph [0059]). The light passing through the quadrangular reception lens is diffracted according to the shape of the lens (Paragraph [0008]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the bulk receiver optic in Pacala’s light detection system with the quadrangular reception lens disclosed by Bayha. One of ordinary skill in the art would could have substituted one known lens for another and the results would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 10, Pacala, as modified in view of Meiler and Bayha, discloses The optical measurement apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the reception device further comprises the at least one optical lens (Bayha, Fig. 3, reception lens 10, Paragraph [0059]).
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
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights