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. Specification The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Claim Objections The following claims objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 recites “further comprising another diffuser between the diffuser and the light emitter”. Recommended to change limitation to remove “another” in order to avoid possible indefiniteness. Appropriate correction is required. 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 1 -6, 9-1 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rayford II, et al (US 11581481) in view of Meylan (US 20210199769). In regards to claim 1 , Rayford discloses a LiDAR sensor comprising: an optical element (Fig. 2 ref. 26, 25) ; while Rayford discloses a LIDAR device, C2:24 “the optical sensor surface is part of one of a radar sensor, a LIDAR sensor”, Rayford does not expressly disclose: a light emitter aimed at the optical element, the optical element directing light from the light emitter into a field of illumination; a light detector having a field of view overlapping the field of illumination; and Meylan teaches a LIDAR device emitting light toward a optical element, then to a target in a field of view, the reflected light detected by a detector having an overlapping field of view of the emitter. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Rayford with Meylan by providing a light emitter aimed at the optical element, the optical element directing light from the light emitter into a field of illumination, a light detector having a field of view overlapping the field of illumination in order to provide a full coverage of a field of view for the LIDAR device as is well known in the art. Rayford further discloses: an ultrasonic transmitter ( Rayford Fig. 2 refs. 28, 30 , seen also in Fig. 3, C5:36 “The transducers 28A, 28B, 30A and 30B may be piezoelectric ultrasound transducers or capacitive micro-machined ultrasound transducers” ) on the optical element ( Rayford as seen in Fig. 2 for ref. 26) and an ultrasonic receiver on the optical element ( Rayford Fig. 2 refs. 28, 30 , abstract “at least two transducers arranged to input energy into the optical surface to produce an energy wave through the optical sensor surface and sense an attribute of an energy wave within the optical sensor surface” thus comprising an ultrasonic receiver ) . In regards to claim 2 , Rayford as combined discloses t he LiDAR sensor as set forth in claim 1, wherein the ultrasonic transmitter is spaced from the ultrasonic receiver (Rayford C6:23 discloses operation of refs 28 and 30 as emitter and receiver, “in one disclosed operational embodiment, the first wave 64 is input by first transducers 28A and 28B. Second transducers 30A and 30B detect an attribute of the first energy wave 64. The detected attribute is analyzed to determine a position of the debris 40”, as seen in Fig. 3 refs. 28, 30 are spaced apart) . In regards to claim 3, Rayford as combined discloses the LiDAR sensor as set forth in claim 1, while Rayford discloses the ultrasonic transmitter may be encapsulated in the optical surface (C5:15 “The transducers 28, 30 may be attached to a surface of the optical sensor surface 26 or embedded within a periphery of the optical sensor surface 26”) Rayford does not expressly disclose: wherein the optical element includes a base layer and a second layer encapsulating the ultrasonic transmitter and the ultrasonic receiver on the base layer. Meylan teaches emitters/transmitters encapsulated in between a base and upper layer (Fig. 14 ref. 20e). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Rayford with Meylan by providing t he optical element includes a base layer and a second layer encapsulating the ultrasonic transmitter and the ultrasonic receiver on the base layer in order to provide protection for the transmitter. In regards to claim 4, Rayford as combined discloses the LiDAR sensor as set forth in claim 1, wherein: but does not expressly disclose: the optical element includes a light-shaping region; the light emitter is aimed at the light-shaping region; Meylan teaches a light shaping region (Fig. 16 refs. 12 and ref. D), where the light emitter is aimed at the light-shaping region (Fig. 16 ref. 10 aimed at ref. 12, ref. D). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Rayford with Meylan by providing the optical element includes a light-shaping region and the light emitter is aimed at the light-shaping region in order to provide a compact emitter and as this layout is well known in the art. Rayford as combined further discloses: the light-shaping region is between the ultrasonic transmitter and the ultrasonic receiver (Rayford as combined, Rayford, Fig. 4 ultrasonic transmitter and the ultrasonic receiver are located on edges of optical surface ref. 26, accordingly the light-shaping region is within the central area and the light-shaping region is between the ultrasonic devices). In regards to claim 5, Rayford as combined discloses the LiDAR sensor as set forth in claim 1, but does not expressly disclose: wherein the optical element is a diffuser. Meylan teaches a diffuses for a LIDAR system (Fig. 16 ref. D). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Rayford with Meylan by providing the optical element is a diffuser in order to spread emissions is a given pattern to ensure coverage of an area. In regards to claim 6, Rayford as combined discloses the LiDAR sensor as set forth in claim 5, but does not expressly disclose: further comprising another diffuser between the diffuser and the light emitter. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide another diffuser between the diffuser and the light emitter in order to area coverage for the emitted light, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In regards to claim 9, Rayford discloses the LiDAR sensor as set forth in claim 1, further comprising a controller (Rayford ref. 20) programmed to control operation of the light emitter based on characteristics of sound emitted from the ultrasonic transmitter and detected by the ultrasonic receiver (Rayford C6:46 “If a defect 44 is detected, the controller 20 would take remedial action with regard to that sensor because the cleaning system could not correct for such damage. The remedial action may include simply shutting off the sensor or may include adjustments that limit or correct for the sensor defect” shutting off sensor which is shutting off light emitter). In regards to claim 10, Rayford as combined discloses the LiDAR sensor as set forth in claim 1, further comprising a controller programmed to disable the light emitter based on detection of impulse noise by the ultrasonic receiver generated from sound emitted by the ultrasonic transmitter and scattered by a crack in the optical element (Rayford C6:46 “If a defect 44 is detected, the controller 20 would take remedial action with regard to that sensor because the cleaning system could not correct for such damage. The remedial action may include simply shutting off the sensor or may include adjustments that limit or correct for the sensor defect” shutting off the sensor which is shutting off the light emitter, an obstruction or crack would return impulse /scatter to transducer of Rayford , seen as the peak in Fig. 6 , C6:44 disclose defects for shut down, “The memory device 22 includes a library of specific attributes of the energy wave signatures and corresponding debris, defects and crack types” ) . In regards to claim 11, Rayford as combined discloses the LiDAR sensor as set forth in claim 10, wherein the controller is programmed to disable the light emitter when the detected impulse noise is above a predetermined threshold (Rayford C6:25 “The detected attribute is analyzed to determine a position of the debris 40. The detected attribute may include a frequency, amplitude, phase and/or timing of the energy wave along with other recognized attributes of an energy wave” thus an amplitude or time represents a threshold for indication ) . In regards to claim 12, Rayford discloses the LiDAR sensor as set forth in claim 1, further comprising a controller (Rayford ref. 20) programmed to enable the light emitter based on detection by the ultrasonic receiver of an echo of sound emitted from the ultrasonic transmitter (Rayford C6:44 disclose defects for shut down, “The memory device 22 includes a library of specific attributes of the energy wave signatures and corresponding debris, defects and crack types” , the energy waves providing a reflection /echo to the receiver, C6:46 “If a defect 44 is detected, the controller 20 would take remedial action with regard to that sensor because the cleaning system could not correct for such damage. The remedial action may include simply shutting off the sensor or may include adjustments that limit or correct for the sensor defect” , if signature wave not detected operation continues Fig. 6 ). In regards to claim 13, Rayford discloses the LiDAR sensor as set forth in claim 12, further comprising a controller (Rayford ref. 20) programmed to disable the light emitter based on detection of impulse noise by the ultrasonic receiver generated from sound emitted by the ultrasonic transmitter and scattered by a crack in the optical element (Rayford C6:46 “If a defect 44 is detected, the controller 20 would take remedial action with regard to that sensor because the cleaning system could not correct for such damage. The remedial action may include simply shutting off the sensor or may include adjustments that limit or correct for the sensor defect” shutting off sensor which is shutting off light emitter, an obstruction or crack would return impulse to transducer of Rayford, seen as the peak in Fig. 6, C6:44 disclose defects for shut down, “The memory device 22 includes a library of specific attributes of the energy wave signatures and corresponding debris, defects and crack types”). In regards to claim 14, Rayford discloses a method of operating a LiDAR sensor, the method comprising: emitting sound from an ultrasonic transmitter (Fig. 2 refs. 28, 30, seen also in Fig. 3, C5:36 “The transducers 28A, 28B, 30A and 30B may be piezoelectric ultrasound transducers or capacitive micro-machined ultrasound transducers”) on an optical element (Rayford Fig. 2 ref. 26); detecting sound emitted from the ultrasonic transmitter with an ultrasonic receiver on the optical element (Rayford “Fig. 2 refs. 28, 30, abstract “at least two transducers arranged to input energy into the optical surface to produce an energy wave through the optical sensor surface and sense an attribute of an energy wave within the optical sensor surface”); Rayford does not expressly disclose: a light emitter aimed at the optical element. Meylan teaches a LIDAR device emitting light toward an optical element (seen at least in Fig. 15, 16, emitter ref. 10, optical element ref. 12, D) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Rayford with Meylan by providing a light emitter aimed at the optical element, in order to shape the emitted light for coverage of a field of view for the LIDAR device as is well known in the art. Rayford as combined further discloses: controlling operation of a light emitter aimed at the optical element based on characteristics of the detected sound from the ultrasonic transmitter ( Rayford Fig. 2 refs. 28, 30, abstract “at least two transducers arranged to input energy into the optical surface to produce an energy wave through the optical sensor surface and sense an attribute of an energy wave within the optical sensor surface”) . In regards to claim 15 , Rayford discloses t he method as set forth in claim 14, wherein controlling operation of the light emitter includes disabling the light emitter based on detection by the ultrasonic receiver of impulse noise generated from sound emitted by the ultrasonic transmitter and scattered by a crack in the optical element (Rayford C6:46 “If a defect 44 is detected, the controller 20 would take remedial action with regard to that sensor because the cleaning system could not correct for such damage. The remedial action may include simply shutting off the sensor or may include adjustments that limit or correct for the sensor defect” shutting off sensor which is shutting off light emitter, an obstruction or crack would return impulse to transducer of Rayford, seen as the peak in Fig. 6, C6:44 disclose defects for shut down, “The memory device 22 includes a library of specific attributes of the energy wave signatures and corresponding debris, defects and crack types”) . In regards to claim 16, Rayford discloses the method as set forth in claim 15, wherein controlling operation of the light emitter includes comparing the detected impulse noise to a predetermined threshold and disabling the light emitter when the detected impulse noise is above the predetermined threshold (Rayford C6:25 “The detected attribute is analyzed to determine a position of the debris 40. The detected attribute may include a frequency, amplitude, phase and/or timing of the energy wave along with other recognized attributes of an energy wave” thus an amplitude or time represents a threshold for indication) . In regards to claim 17, Rayford discloses the method as set forth in claim 14, wherein controlling operation of the light emitter includes enabling the light emitter based on detection by the ultrasonic receiver of an echo of sound generated by the ultrasonic transmitter (Rayford C6:46 “If a defect 44 is detected, the controller 20 would take remedial action with regard to that sensor because the cleaning system could not correct for such damage. The remedial action may include simply shutting off the sensor or may include adjustments that limit or correct for the sensor defect” shutting off sensor which is shutting off light emitter, an obstruction or crack would return impulse /echo to transducer of Rayford, seen as the peak in Fig. 6, C6:44 disclose defects for shut down, “The memory device 22 includes a library of specific attributes of the energy wave signatures and corresponding debris, defects and crack types”) . In regards to claim 18 , Rayford discloses t he method as set forth in claim 17, wherein controlling operation of the light emitter includes disabling the light emitter based on detection by the ultrasonic receiver of impulse noise generated from sound emitted by the ultrasonic transmitter and diffracted by a crack in the optical element (Rayford C6:44 disclose defects for shut down, “The memory device 22 includes a library of specific attributes of the energy wave signatures and corresponding debris, defects and crack types”, C6:46 “If a defect 44 is detected, the controller 20 would take remedial action with regard to that sensor because the cleaning system could not correct for such damage. The remedial action may include simply shutting off the sensor or may include adjustments that limit or correct for the sensor defect” shutting off sensor which is shutting off light emitter, an obstruction or crack would return impulse /noise to transducer of Rayford, seen as the peak in Fig. 6, C6:44 disclose defects for shut down) . Claim 7 , 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rayford, Meylan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al (US 20160266379 ). In regards to claim 7 , Rayford discloses t he LiDAR sensor as set forth in claim 1 , while Rayford discloses a single optical element, ref. 26, having an inboard and outboard side, Rayford does not expressly disclose: wherein the optical element has a base layer . Li teaches an optical element for a LIDAR system having a plurality of layers (Fig. 2 refs. 202, 210). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Rayford with Li by providing the optical element has a base layer in order to provide added protection for the internal parts of the LIDAR system. Rayford as combined further discloses: the ultrasonic transmitter and the ultrasonic receiver being aimed through the optical element at the inboard side (Rayford as seen in Fig. 2, refs. 28 and 30, Fig. 3 refs. 28 and refs. 30) . In regards to claim 8 , Rayford as combined discloses t he LiDAR sensor as set forth in claim 7, wherein the optical element includes a second layer on the outboard side of the base layer (Li ref. 202) , the ultrasonic transmitter and the ultrasonic receiver being on the outboard side of the base layer (Li ref. 102 outboard of ref. 210) , the second layer encapsulating the ultrasonic transmitter and the ultrasonic receiver on the outboard side of the base layer (Li as seen at least in Fig. 2, ref. 202 encloses /ecapsulate ref. 102 within area bound by ref. 210 ) . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure cited on PTO 892. The cited references display LIDAR devices as well as devices which recognize obstructions on the optical surfaces. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT VICENTE RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4798 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-TH 7-5 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT JOSHUA HUSON can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-5301 . 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. /V.R./ Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642