Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/060,442

LIDAR SENSOR WITH WINDOW BREAKAGE DETECTION

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Nov 30, 2022
Examiner
HUTCHENS, CHRISTOPHER D.
Art Unit
3647
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Continental Autonomous Mobility US LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
77%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allow Rate
378 granted / 570 resolved
+14.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+10.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
605
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
43.2%
+3.2% vs TC avg
§102
28.1%
-11.9% vs TC avg
§112
25.9%
-14.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 570 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Para [0015] discusses layer 404, which is not shown in the drawings. Para [0024] states the conductive element is both 214 and 314. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claims 1 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shin et al. (US 2023/0161007). In re. claim 1, Shin teaches a lidar sensor assembly comprising: a housing (80) having a window (20) (Fig. 5); a light source (11) disposed within said housing and configured to generate light which is directed through said window (fig. 7) (para [0067]); a detector array (12) disposed within said housing and configured to detect light generated by said light source and reflected off at least one object (100) (fig. 7) (para [0065]); and a controller (70) in communication with said light source to control operation of said light source (by sending signal to vehicle instrument panel) (para [0076]); and a strain gauge in communication with said controller and including a conductive element (60) disposed on said window (understood to be conductive based on change in resistance detected) (para [0056])); said controller configured to deactivate said light source in response to said strain gauge indicating damage to said window (immediate stoppage required) (para [0076]). In re. claim 6, Shin teaches the lidar sensor assembly as set forth in claim 1 wherein said strain gauge is configured to sense a resistance of the conductive element (para [0056]). In re. claim 7, Shin teaches the lidar sensor assembly as set forth in claim 6 wherein said controller is configured to compare the sensed resistance to a predetermined resistance to determine whether damage has occurred to said window (change in resistance as compared to no change in resistance) (para [0056). In re. claim 8, Shin teaches a method of detecting damage to a window of lidar sensor assembly, wherein the lidar sensor assembly includes a housing (80) defining an opening, the window (20) disposed in the opening (fig. 5), a light source (11) disposed within the housing and configured to generate light which is directed through the window (para [0065]), a detector array (12) disposed within the housing and configured to detect light generated by the light source and reflected off at least one object (para [0065]), said method comprising: disposing a conductive element (60) disposed on the window (understood to be conductive based on change in resistance detected) (para [0056])); sensing a resistance of the conductive element as part of a strain gauge (para [0056]); and determining whether damage has occurred to the window based on the sensed resistance of the conductive element (immediate stoppage required) (para [0076]). In re. claim 9, Shin teaches the method as set forth in claim 8 further comprising deactivating said light source in response to said strain gauge indicating damage to said window (immediate stoppage required) (para [0076]). In re. claim 10, Shin teaches the method as set forth in claim 8 wherein sensing the resistance of the conductive element is further defined as sensing the resistance of the conductive element over time (time required for damage to change resistive value) (para [0076]). 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. Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Varga et al. (US 2021/0271343), hereinafter Varga. In re. claim 2, Shin fails to disclose said window includes a first pane and a second pane and wherein said conductive element is sandwiched between said first pane and said second pane. Varga teaches a window includes a first pane (3a) and a second pane (3b) and wherein said conductive element (7a, 7b) is sandwiched between said first pane and said second pane (fig. 1) (para [0026]). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Shin to incorporate the teachings of Varga to have the recited window arrangement, for the predictable result of providing an increased layer of protection for the window in the form of a composite glass pane. In re. claim 3, Shin as modified by Varga (see Varga) teach the lidar sensor assembly as set forth in claim 2 wherein said window further includes polyvinyl butyral (5) sandwiched between said first pane and said second pane (fig. 1) (para [0024]). In re. claim 4, Shin as modified by Varga (see Varga) teach the lidar sensor assembly as set forth in claim 2 wherein said first pane and said second pane are formed of glass (para [0024]). Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kurtz (US 4,327,359). In re. claim 5, Shin fails to disclose said strain gauge further includes a Wheatstone bridge electrically connected to said conductive element. Kurtz teaches a strain gauge further includes a Wheatstone bridge (in alarm control (14)) (fig. 6) (col. 5, ln. 20-24) electrically connected to said conductive element (11) (fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Shin to incorporate the teachings of Kurtz to have the recited strain gauge arrangement, for the purpose of associating the force capable of breaking the glass, providing increased control of the sensor (Kurtz; col. 6, ln. 7-15). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher D. Hutchens whose telephone number is (571)270-5535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5. 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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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. /C.D.H./ Primary Examiner Art Unit 3647 /Christopher D Hutchens/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 30, 2022
Application Filed
Nov 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12584322
Folding Utility Scaffold
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575475
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ESTIMATING PERFORMANCE FOR POSITION-SPECIFIC CONTROL OF AN AGRICULTURAL MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12568891
PLANT GROWING SYSTEM AND METHODS OF USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12557785
PUPPY APARTMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12543635
One Hand Controller for Zero Turn Mowers
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
66%
Grant Probability
77%
With Interview (+10.7%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 570 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month