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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 22, 24, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (20190353762).
Referring to claim 1, 22, 24, 16, and 17, Kim shows a vehicle comprising: a system controller configured to control one or more vehicular systems of the vehicle based on Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) information; and a LiDAR device configured to generate the LiDAR information, the LiDAR device comprising:
a housing comprising a window (see figure 1 Ref 300 also see paragraph 11 and paragraph 37 note main housing);
a LiDAR sensor within the housing (see figure 1 Ref 20, the LiDAR sensor comprising a light transmitter to transmit light of a first configuration via the window (see figure 1 Ref 100), and a light detector to detect received light of the first configuration via the window (see figure 1 Ref 400), wherein the LiDAR sensor is configured to generate LiDAR sensor information based on the received light of the first configuration (see paragraph 34):
a light projector within the housing (see figure 1 Ref 500), the light projector configured to project light of a second configuration onto the window (see figure 1 Ref C), wherein the light of the second configuration is configured such that the window is to be heated by absorption of the light of the second configuration (see paragraph 41); and a controller configured to control activation of the light projector according to a first
heating scheme based on a first state (see figure 4 note the step S30 to S40) of a vehicle comprising the sensor (see paragraph 50-52 note the first state being that the vehicle is operating in the presence of falling rain or snow), and to control activation of the light projector according to a second heating scheme based on a second state of the vehicle (see figure 4 Ref S30 to S70 note the second state being the vehicle operating in the absence of falling rain or snow), the second heating scheme different from the first heating scheme (see figure S70 and S40 also note paragraph 47 “That is, the control unit 600 may adjust only the angle of the angle adjusting unit 200, adjust only the intensity of the far-infrared light source of the moisture removing unit 500, or adjust both of the angle of the angle adjusting unit 200 and the intensity of the far-infrared light source of the moisture removing unit 500”), the first heating scheme comprising a first temperature increase during a first time period (see figure 4 Ref S40 note the use of “High far-infrared light source”, the second heating scheme comprising a second temperature increase during a second time period (see figure 4 Ref S70 note the “Low far-infrared light source” also see paragraph 51-52).
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.
Claim(s) 2-5, 23, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (20190353762) in view of Nelson (10365671).
Referring to claims 2, 23, and 25, Kim shows a controller configured to control activation of the light projector (see figure 1 Ref 600 also see 50-52) based on at least one of an environment the environment of the housing (see the sensor Ref 700 that detects the state of the window). While Kim shows a sensor that detects the state of the window, Kim is silent as to what type of sensor is used to determine the state of the window and fails to specifically show a controller configured to control activation of the light projector based on at least one of an environment temperature in an environment of the housing, or an environment humidity in the environment of the housing.
Nelson shows a similar device that activates heating elements and includes a controller configured to control activation of the light projector based on at least one of an environment temperature in an environment of the housing, or an environment humidity in the environment of the housing (see column 5 line 6-33). It would have been obvious to include the type of sensors as shown by Nelson to detect an environment temperature or an environment humidity because this allows for a basis of power needed to clear the window as shown by Nelson.
Referring to claim 3, Kim in view of Nelson shows the controller is configured to control an intensity of the light of the second configuration based on at least one of the environment temperature, or the environment humidity (see column 5 line 6-33). It would have been obvious to include the intensity of the light being controlled by the environment temperature or humidity as shown by Nelson because this allows for power conservation to allow for only the power needed to clear the window as taught by Nelson.
Referring to claim 4, Kim in view of Nelson shows the controller is configured to cause the light projector to project the light of the second configuration at a first intensity based on a determination that the environment temperature is below a first temperature point, and to cause the light projector to project the light of the second configuration at a second intensity based on a determination that the environment temperature is below a second temperature point, wherein the second intensity is higher than the first intensity and the second temperature point is lower than the first temperature point (note Kim shows adjustment of the optical signal as shown in paragraph 47 that shows adjusting the intensity and angle of the far-infrared signal in combination with the adjustment of the electrical signal relative to temperature as shown by Nelson in column 5 line 6-33). It would have been obvious to include the relative intensity to temperature as taught by the combination of Kim and Nelson because this allows for power conservation in the system relative to the degree of fouling in the window as taught by Nelson.
Referring to claim 5, Kim in view of Nelson shows the controller is configured to activate the light projector based on a determination that the environment temperature is below at least one of a dew point or a freezing point (see column 3 line 60-66). It would have been obvious to include the temperature below a dew point or freezing point because these are common temperatures associated with fogging or icing of the window, this adds no new or unexpected results.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (20190353762) in view of Yeo (10351103).
Referring to claim 6, Kim fails to show but Yeo shows the window comprises a window layer and a reflective layer on the window layer, wherein the window layer is disposed between the light projector and the reflective layer, wherein the reflective layer is configured to reflect the light of the second configuration back onto the window layer (see figure 2 Ref 46 and 48 also see column 2 lines 53-65). It would have been obvious to include the reflective layer as shown by Yeo because this allows the infrared radiation to be trapped in the window and increases the heating effect as shown by Yeo (see column 3 lines 26-35).
Claim(s) 7-15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (20190353762) in view of Rondeau (EP2950117).
Referring to claims 7 and 8 Kim fails to show but Rondeau shows the window comprises a window layer and an Anti-Reflective Coating (ARC) layer on the window layer, wherein the light of the second configuration is configured to heat the window by absorption of at least 30% of the light of the second configuration by at least one of the window layer or the ARC layer (see paragraph 26-27 for ARC coating and paragraph 19 for the layer). It would have been obvious to include the ARC and window layer as shown by Rondeau because these are extremely well known coatings for generating heat as well as optical clarity of a detector system, this is extremely well known and adds no new or unexpected results.
Referring to claim 9, Kim in view of Rondeau shows the light of the second configuration comprises light of a wavelength which is at least 30% absorbed by the window (see paragraph 19). It would have been obvious to include the wavelength that is absorbed by the window because this allows for a more homogenous absorption and thereby better quality of the transmitted wavefront as shown by Rondeau.
Referring to claim 10, Kim in view of Rondeau obviously shows the light of the second configuration comprises light of a polarity which is at least 30% absorbed by the window (see paragraph 19). Note that due to the fact that the light is absorbed by the window it is obvious that the polarity of the light is as required to allow for that absorption.
Referring to claims 11-15 and 18, the combination of Kim and Rondeau shows the specific wavelengths as claimed (see paragraph 19-21). It would have been obvious to include the various claimed wavelength ranges because this is extremely well known in LIDAR applications and all perform the same task of allowing the window to heat appropriately. This would have been extremely well known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (20190353762).
Referring to claim 19, While Kim is silent to the transmissibility of the window of the light of the first configuration it is extremely well known in LIDAR systems to have transmissibility of 80% or more because this is extremely well known and adds no new or unexpected results.
Referring to claim 20, While Kim is silent to the absorption of the second configuration it would have been obvious to include at least 30% because this allows for efficient heating of the window and would have been extremely well known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Referring to claim 21, While Kim is silent to the rate of heating a rate of 1 degree C per minute would have been well known because this is extremely well known and adds no new or unexpected results.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (20190353762) in view of Campbell (4730097).
Referring to claim 17, Kim shows multiple modes of the heating element the change depending on the state of the vehicle however fails to include that the first state of the vehicle comprises a driving state, the second state of the vehicle comprises a parking state, wherein the second temperature increase is at least twice the first temperature increase.
Campbell shows a similar device that includes the first state of the vehicle comprises a driving state, the second state of the vehicle comprises a parking state, wherein the second temperature increase is at least twice the first temperature increase (see column 1 lines 64-column 2 line 25). It would have been obvious to include the vehicle states include a parking state or a driving state as shown by Campbell because this allows the heating elements to conserve power when in a parked state.
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 LUKE D RATCLIFFE whose telephone number is (571)272-3110. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571-272-6970. 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.
/LUKE D RATCLIFFE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645