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 30 March 2026.
No claims were amended. No claim was cancelled. No new claim was added. Therefore, claims 1-13 are currently pending in the current application and are addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 30 March 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 7 and 13 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 over Terefe, US 20200174156 A1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 13, the indefinite claim language is “a laser signal transmitter configured to transmit laser signals having a same amplitude and wavelength to one or more pollution detecting regions on the window cover”. It is unclear if the laser transmitter is transmitting multiple laser signals to one pollution detecting region or if the laser transmitter is transmitting one laser signal to each pollution detection region. Furthermore it is unclear if only one pollution detecting region receives laser signals having a same amplitude and wavelength (i.e., each pollution detecting region can receive a laser signal with a different amplitude and wavelength) or if more than one pollution detecting regions receives laser signals having a same amplitude and wavelength.
Claims 2-12 are rejected due to dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, under the Alice framework Step 1 analysis, the claim falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 USC 101: a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Under the Alice framework Step 2A prong 1 analysis, the claim recites a mental process. Specifically, claim 1 recites the following:
sense pollution on the window cover based on the reflected signals.
The italicized limitation constitutes a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the mind via observation. As shown in Paragraphs [0076]-[0079] of the Specification and Figs. 3B-C of the Drawings, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the italicized limitation includes comparing the amplitudes of reflected signal and determining whether there is pollution on the window cover. The human mind is able to determine that there is pollution on the window based on the amplitudes of the reflected signals. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under the Alice framework Step 2A prong 2 analysis, the claim recites the additional limitations “apparatus for detecting pollution in a window cover of a LIDAR sensor”, “a laser signal transmitter configured to transmit laser signals having a same amplitude and wavelength to one or more pollution detecting regions on the window cover”, “a reflected signal receiver configured to receive reflected signals that have been reflected and returned from the one or more pollution detecting regions”, “a memory configured to store one or more instructions”, and “a processor configured to execute the one or more instructions stored in the memory.” The preamble describes a system for detecting pollution on a LIDAR sensor which generally links the use of the mental processes to a field of use of pollution detection in LIDAR systems. In addition, the use of the laser signal transmitter and reflected signal receiver is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the claim does no more than generally link the use of these mental processes to the memory and processor to simply add a general purpose computer to perform the mental processes. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B analysis, the claim considered individually and as an ordered combination does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim does no more than generally link the use of these mental processes to the memory and processor to simply add a general purpose computer to perform the mental processes. In addition, the laser signal transmitter and reflected signal receiver was considered to be an extra-solution activity and is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. Paragraphs [0005]-[0006] of the instant specification describes LIDAR systems that comprise a laser signal transmitter and reflected signal receiver whose operation can be deteriorated due to laser light being reflected from regions of pollution on a LIDAR window cover. Furthermore, the inventive concept cannot be furnished by the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05.I. For these reasons claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6 is rejected for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1.
Under the Alice framework Step 2A prong 1 analysis, claim 2 recites a mental process. Specifically claim 2 recites the following:
compare a reference amplitude that corresponds to no pollution on the window cover of the LiDAR sensor with an amplitude of a target reflected signal, from among the reflected signals, from a target pollution detecting region included in the pollution detecting regions, and
determine that pollution has been generated in the target pollution detecting region when the amplitude of the target reflected signal is larger than the reference amplitude.
The italicized limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the mind via observation, evaluation, and judgement. As evidenced by Figs. 3B and 3C, the claim encompasses a person observing a reference amplitude and an amplitude of a target reflected signal, evaluating which amplitude is larger, and making a judgement on whether pollution is on the window based on that evaluation. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under the Alice framework Step 2A prong 2 analysis, the claim recites the additional limitations “a processor.” The claim does no more than generally link the use of these mental processes to the processor to simply add a general purpose computer to perform the mental processes. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Under the Alice Framework Step 2B analysis, the claim considered individually and as an ordered combination does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim does no more than generally link the use of these mental processes to the memory and processor to simply add a general purpose computer to perform the mental processes. For these reasons claim 6 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Terefe, US 20200174156 A1 (“Terefe”).
Regarding claim 1, Terefe discloses an apparatus for detecting pollution in a window cover of a LiDAR sensor, the apparatus comprising:
a laser signal transmitter configured to transmit laser signals a laser signal transmitter configured to transmit laser signals having a same amplitude and wavelength to one or more pollution detecting regions on the window cover (Fig. 3, laser 11, window 18, foreign material 20, Paragraph [0019]-[0020]; Note: HFL sensor 10” is a flash lidar sensor. Thus, laser signal sent to the window region has the same amplitude and wavelength as it is a flash pulse.);
a reflected signal receiver configured to receive reflected signals that have been reflected and returned from the one or more pollution detecting regions (Fig. 3, photodiode 28, Paragraph [0022]);
a memory configured to store one or more instructions (Fig. 3, memory circuit 40, Paragraph [0026]); and
a processor configured to execute the one or more instructions stored in the memory (Fig. 3, processor circuit 38, Paragraph [0026]),
wherein the processor is configured to execute the one or more instructions to sense pollution on the window cover based on the reflected signals (Fig. 3, photodiode 28, IC 32, processing circuit 38, Paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 2, Terefe discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the LiDAR sensor is a bistatic LiDAR sensor in which a transmission path and a reception path of the LiDAR laser beam are separated and non-coaxial (Fig. 3, laser 11, photodiode 28, Paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claim 3, Terefe discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the laser signal transmitter is configured to transmit the laser signals simultaneously to the one or more pollution detecting regions using a flash laser type (Fig. 3, laser 11, window 18, foreign material 20, Paragraph [0019]-[0020]; Note: HFL sensor 10” is a flash lidar sensor).
Regarding claim 4, Terefe discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the reflected signal receiver includes one or more reflected signal receivers that correspond to the pollution detecting regions on the window cover, and the reflected signals are received by the reflected signal receivers (Fig. 3, photodiode 28, window 18, foreign material 20, light pulse SL, Paragraph [0024];).
Regarding claim 6, Terefe discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
compare a reference amplitude that corresponds to no pollution on the window cover of the LiDAR sensor with an amplitude of a target reflected signal, from among the reflected signals, from a target pollution detecting region included in the pollution detecting regions (Fig. 3, processor circuit 38, Paragraph [0024]-[0025]: criteria is a near distance high amplitude detection), and
determine that pollution has been generated in the target pollution detecting region when the amplitude of the target reflected signal is larger than the reference amplitude (Fig. 3, processor circuit 38, Paragraph [0024]-[0025]).
Claims 7-10 and 12 are method claims corresponding to apparatus claims 1-4 and 6 and are rejected for the same reasons.
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 5, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terefe in view of Hibino, US 20200064475 A1 (“Hibino”).
Regarding claim 5, Terefe discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Terefe does not teach: wherein the laser signal transmitter and the reflected signal receiver are configured to be operated during a time period from when the LiDAR sensor finishes scanning for one frame to when starting scanning for a next frame.
However, Hibino teaches dividing the field of view into target detection regions and dirt detection regions. As the target detecting devices scan the field of view, the laser signal transmitter and the reflected signal receiver are configured to operate under a dirt detection mode during a time period between LIDAR detection frames (Fig. 10, target detection regions Fa – Fd, overlapping regions F1 – F4, Paragraph [0098]-[0100], Fig. 11).
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 Terefe’s sensor and light emitter by operating the sensor to detect window obstructions between target detecting scans, which is disclosed by Hibino. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to detect dirt on the optical window of the target detecting device without adding a component dedicated to dirt detection, thus saving in cost, as suggested by Hibino (Paragraph [0014],[0024]).
Claim 11 is a method claims corresponding to apparatus claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons
Regarding claim 13, Terefe discloses an apparatus for detecting pollution in a window cover of a LiDAR sensor, the apparatus comprising:
a laser signal transmitter configured to transmit laser signals a laser signal transmitter configured to transmit laser signals having a same amplitude and wavelength to one or more pollution detecting regions on the window cover (Fig. 3, laser 11, window 18, foreign material 20, Paragraph [0019]-[0020]; Note: HFL sensor 10” is a flash lidar sensor. Thus, laser signal sent to the window region has the same amplitude and wavelength as it is a flash pulse.);
a reflected signal receiver configured to receive reflected signals that have been reflected and returned from the one or more pollution detecting regions (Fig. 3, photodiode 28, Paragraph [0022]);
a memory configured to store one or more instructions (Fig. 3, memory circuit 40, Paragraph [0026]); and
a processor configured to execute the one or more instructions stored in the memory (Fig. 3, processor circuit 38, Paragraph [0026]),
wherein the processor is configured to execute the one or more instructions to sense pollution on the window cover based on the reflected signals (Fig. 3, photodiode 28, IC 32, processing circuit 38, Paragraph [0023]);
[…].
Terefe does not teach: wherein the laser signal transmitter and the reflected signal receiver are operated during a time period from when the LiDAR sensor finishes scanning for one frame to when scanning for a next frame starts.
However, Hibino teaches dividing the field of view into target detection regions and dirt detection regions. As the target detecting devices scan the field of view, the laser signal transmitter and the reflected signal receiver are configured to operate under a dirt detection mode during a time period between LIDAR detection frames (Fig. 10, target detection regions Fa – Fd, overlapping regions F1 – F4, Paragraph [0098]-[0100], Fig. 11).
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 Terefe’s sensor and light emitter by operating the sensor to detect window obstructions between target detecting scans, which is disclosed by Hibino. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to detect dirt on the optical window of the target detecting device without adding a component dedicated to dirt detection, thus saving in cost, as suggested by Hibino (Paragraph [0014],[0024]).
Conclusion
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