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 10 November 2025.
The amendment is sufficient to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 2 and 8 were amended. No claim was cancelled. New claim 13 was added. Therefore, claims 1-13 are currently pending in the current application and are addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 10 November 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 12244788 B1 in view of Hibino, US 20200064475 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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terefe, US 12244788 B1 ("Terefe")in view of Hibino, US 20200064475 A1 (“Hibino”).
Regarding claim 1, Terefe discloses an apparatus for detecting pollution in a window cover of a LiDAR sensor, the apparatus comprising: […]; 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, image sensor 206, light 316, window 304, substance 318, Col. 7 line 55 – Col. 8 line 10); a memory configured to store one or more instructions (Fig. 9, memory 918, obstruction component 926, Col. 12 lines 25-42, Col. 13 line 58 – Col. 14 line 6); and a processor configured to execute the one or more instructions stored in the memory, 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. 9, processors 916, obstruction component 926, Col. 12 lines 25-42, Col. 13 line 58 – Col. 14 line 6).
Terefe does not teach: 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.
However, Hibino teaches a LD module that includes a plurality of laser diodes that emits a high-output light pulse at dirt adhered to an optical window (Fig. 3, LD module 2, Paragraph [0048]-[0049]; Fig. 9A, LD module 2, window 12, dirt Da, Paragraph [0089]). Because the LD module includes laser diodes, the laser diodes would emit light beams having the same wavelength.
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 light source with Hibino’s LD module. 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]).
Regarding claim 2, Terefe, as modified in view of Hibino, 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 (Terefe, Fig. 3, light source 208(1), image sensor 206, light 314, light 316, Col. 7 line 55 – Col. 8 line 10).
Regarding claim 3, Terefe, as modified in view of Hibino, 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 (Terefe, Fig. 3, light source 208(1), light 314, window 304, substance 318, Col. 7 line 55 – Col. 8 line 10).
Regarding claim 4, Terefe, as modified in view of Hibino, 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 (Terefe, Fig. 3, image sensor 206, light 316, window 304, substance 318, Col. 7 line 55 – Col. 8 line 10).
Regarding claim 5, Terefe, as modified in view of Hibino, 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 target detecting devices alternate operating in a target detection pattern and a dirt detection pattern (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 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]).
Regarding claim 6, Terefe, as modified in view of Hibino, 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 (Terefe, Fig. 3, light 316, image sensor 206, Col. 8 lines 32 - 63; Fig. 10, operation 1008, Col. 19 line 57 – Col. 20 line 3), from among the reflected signals, from a target pollution detecting region included in the pollution detecting regions (Terefe, Fig. 3, light 316, image sensor 206, window 304 substance 318, Col. 7 line 55 – Col. 8 line 10), 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 (Terefe, Fig. 3, light 316, image sensor 206, Col. 8 lines 32 – 63; Fig. 10, operation 1010, Col. 20 line 17 - 30).
Claims 7-12 are method claims corresponding to apparatus claims 1-6 and are 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 reflected signal receiver that is distinct from a LiDAR receiver used for environment ranging and configured to receive reflected signals that have been reflected and returned from the one or more pollution-detecting regions (Fig. 7, light sensor 712, Col. 11 lines 10-39); a memory configured to store one or more instructions (Fig. 9, memory 918, obstruction component 926, Col. 12 lines 25-42, Col. 13 line 58 – Col. 14 line 6); and a processor configured to execute the one or more instructions stored in the memory (Fig. 9, processors 916, obstruction component 926, Col. 12 lines 25-42, Col. 13 line 58 – Col. 14 line 6), […].
Terefe does not teach: 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; and
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 a LD module that includes a plurality of laser diodes that emits a high-output light pulse at dirt adhered to an optical window (Fig. 3, LD module 2, Paragraph [0048]-[0049]; Fig. 9A, LD module 2, window 12, dirt Da, Paragraph [0089]). Hibino also 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 target detecting devices alternate operating in a target detection pattern and a dirt detection pattern (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 light source with Hibino’s LD module and to have modified Terefe’s sensor by operating the sensor to detect window obstructions between target detecting scans, which is also 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