DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/29/23 and 7/18/25 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 6-8, 10, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eshel et al., US 20210389467 A1 ("Eshel").
Regarding claim 1, Eshel discloses a system, comprising: a light source configured to emit light (Fig. 8A, light source 112, Paragraph [0151]); a scanner configured to scan the emitted light across at least a field of regard through a window (Fig. 8A, light deflectors 114A, Paragraph [0151]); a first detector configured to detect at least a portion of the emitted light scattered by a target located downrange from the system (Fig. 8A, sensor 116, Paragraph [0151]); a second detector configured to detect at least a portion of the emitted light scattered by a close object located between the window and a minimum detection distance associated with the first detector (Fig. 8A, supplementary sensor 716, Paragraph [0151]; See also Figs 7A-B; object 710, distance threshold 705, Paragraph [0147]-[0148]); and a processor configured to analyze detected information from the second detector to provide an indication associated with detecting the close object (Fig. 8A, processor 718D, Paragraph [0152]; See also Fig. 9 process 900).
Regarding claim 2, Eshel discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first detector, the second detector, a transmit lens, a receive lens, and a readout integrated circuit (ROIC) are included in a receiver component of the system (Fig. 8A, sensor 116, supplementary sensor 716, one or more of processors 718A, 718B, 718C, and 718D, Paragraph [0155], Paragraph [0066]: optical paths may include components like lenses), and wherein the first detector and the second detector are coupled to the readout integrated circuit (ROIC) (Fig. 8A, processor 718B, processor 718D, Paragraph [0152], [0155]).
Regarding claim 3, Eshel discloses the system of claim 2, wherein an output beam is included in the emitted light (Fig. 8A, light source 112, illuminated space 701, Paragraph [0151]), an input beam is included in the at least the portion of the emitted light scattered by the close object (Figs 7A-B; object 710, distance threshold 705, Paragraph [0147]-[0148]), the output beam passes through the transmit lens, and the input beam passes through the receive lens (Paragraph [0066]: optical paths may include components like lenses (See Fig. 2E and [0083] as an example)).
Regarding claim 4, Eshel discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the output beam and the input beam both pass through at least a same portion of the window (Fig. 8A, light source 112, illuminated space 701, supplementary sensor field of view 704, Paragraph [0151], [0152]).
Regarding claim 6, Eshel discloses the system of claim 3, wherein a beam size of the output beam is smaller than or equal in size to the close object (Fig. 7B, light 720, object 710, Paragraph [0147]).
Regarding claim 7, Eshel discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to initiate an output beam power reduction process in response to detecting the at least the portion of the emitted light scattered by the close object (Fig. 9, step 950, Paragraph [0172]).
Regarding claim 8, Eshel discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the provided indication associated with detecting the close object includes a location of the detected close object (Fig. 9, step 950, Paragraph [0171]).
Regarding claim 10, Eshel discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the close object includes a human body part (Fig. 7B, object 710, Paragraph [0146]-[0147]).
Claim 15 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16, Eshel discloses a system, comprising: a light source configured to emit light (Fig. 8A, light source 112, Paragraph [0151]); a scanner configured to scan the emitted light across one or more fields of regard through a window using a first output beam and a second output beam (Fig. 8A, light deflectors 114A, illuminated space 701, Paragraph [0151], [0156]); a first primary detector configured to detect at least a portion of the emitted light associated with the first output beam scattered by a first target located downrange from the system (Fig. 8A, sensor 116, Paragraph [0151]; See also Figs 7A-B; object 711, distance threshold 705, Paragraph [0147]-[0148]); a second primary detector configured to detect at least a portion of the emitted light associated with the second output beam scattered by a second target located downrange from the system (Fig. 8A, sensor 116, Paragraph [0151]; See also Figs 7A-B; object 711, distance threshold 705, Paragraph [0147]-[0148]; See also Paragraph [0098]: sensor may be a detector array with multiple detector elements); a close object detector configured to detect at least a portion of the emitted light associated with the first output beam scattered by a close object located between the window and a minimum detection distance associated with the first primary detector (Fig. 8A, supplementary sensor 716, Paragraph [0151]; See also Figs 7A-B; object 710, distance threshold 705, Paragraph [0147]-[0148]); and a processor configured to analyze detected information from the close object detector to provide an indication associated with detecting the close object (Fig. 8A, processor 718D, Paragraph [0152]; See also Fig. 9 process 900).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eshel in view of Holler et al., US 20210190951 A1 (“Holler”).
Regarding claim 5, Eshel discloses the system of claim 3.
Eshel does not teach: wherein a beam size of the output beam is larger than the close object.
However, Holler teaches a LIDAR system where the beam is comparatively large in relation to the objects outside of the shield (Fig. 3, LIDAR system 300, shield 320, particles 330, Paragraph [0040]).
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 the thing Eshel’s light source by making the light beam larger than objects outside the device, which is disclosed by Holler. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “enable early identification and optionally elimination of soiling functional disturbances with lower equipment outlay”, as suggested by Holler (Paragraph [0007]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eshel in view of Wilkerson et al., US 20220350000 A1 (“Wilkerson”).
Regarding claim 9, Eshel discloses the system of claim 1.
Eshel does not teach: wherein the minimum detection distance associated with the first detector is greater than or equal to half a meter.
However, Wilkerson teaches a near field range for a lidar device of 1-2 meters (Paragraph [0067]). Thus, the minimum detection distance above the near field would be greater than half a meter.
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 Eshel’s sensor by configuring the long range sensor to have a sensitivity range of greater than 2 meters, which is disclosed by Wilkerson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to mitigate the effects of dazzle, as suggested by Wilkerson (Paragraph [0067]).
Claims 11-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eshel in view of Terefe, US 20200174156 A1 (“Terefe”).
Regarding claim 11, Eshel discloses the system of claim 1.
Eshel does not teach: further comprising a third detector configured to detect at least a portion of the emitted light scattered by a blocking contaminant on the window.
However, Terefe teaches a photodiode that detects scattered light from light blockage due to foreign material on the surface of a window (Fig. 3, photodiode 28, foreign material 20 , window 18, Paragraph [0022]-[0023]). The photodiode is connected to a processing circuit that determines the presence of the blockage and calculates the distance and amplitude (Fig. 3, signal processing circuit 38, Paragraph [0023]-[0024]). When the blockage exceeds a threshold, the processor circuit activates a cleaner to remove the blockage (Fig. 3, processor circuit 38, cleaner 42, Paragraph [0030]).
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 Eshel’s LIDAR device by including a photodiode to detect window blockage, which is disclosed by Terefe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated “to help take appropriate measures in event of such blockage”, as suggested by Terefe (Paragraph [0008]).
Regarding claim 12, Eshel, as modified in view of Terefe, discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the processor is further configured to initiate a cleaning process to at least in part remove the blocking contaminant on the window (Terefe, Fig. 3, processor circuit 38, cleaner 42, Paragraph [0030]).
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 Eshel’s LIDAR device by including a photodiode and cleaning process to detect and clean window blockage, which is disclosed by Terefe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated “to help take appropriate measures in event of such blockage”, as suggested by Terefe (Paragraph [0008]).
Regarding claim 13, Eshel, as modified in view of Terefe, discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the processor is further configured to analyze detected information from the third detector to provide an indication associated with detecting the blocking contaminant on the window (Terefe, Fig. 3, photodiode 28, foreign material 20 , window 18, signal processing circuit 38, Paragraph [0023]-[0024]).
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 Eshel’s LIDAR device by including a photodiode and cleaning process to detect and clean window blockage, which is disclosed by Terefe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated “to help take appropriate measures in event of such blockage”, as suggested by Terefe (Paragraph [0008]).
Regarding claim 14, Eshel, as modified in view of Terefe, discloses the system of claim 13, wherein the provided indication associated with detecting the blocking contaminant on the window includes a location of the detected blocking contaminant on is the window (Terefe, Fig. 3, photodiode 28, foreign material 20 , window 18, signal processing circuit 38, Paragraph [0023]-[0024]).
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 Eshel’s LIDAR device by including a photodiode and cleaning process to detect and clean window blockage, which is disclosed by Terefe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated “to help take appropriate measures in event of such blockage”, as suggested by Terefe (Paragraph [0008]).
Regarding claim 17, Eshel discloses the system of claim 16.
Eshel does not teach: further comprising a first blocking contaminant detector configured to detect at least a portion of the emitted light associated with the first output beam scattered by a first blocking contaminant on the window, and wherein the processor is further configured to analyze detected information from the first blocking contaminant detector to provide an indication associated with detecting the first blocking contaminant on the window.
However, Terefe teaches one or more photodiodes that detects scattered light from light blockage due to foreign material on the surface of a window (Fig. 3, photodiode 28, foreign material 20 , window 18, Paragraph [0022]-[0023]). The photodiode is connected to a processing circuit that determines the presence of the blockage and calculates the distance and amplitude (Fig. 3, signal processing circuit 38, Paragraph [0023]-[0024]). When the blockage exceeds a threshold, the processor circuit activates a cleaner to remove the blockage (Fig. 3, processor circuit 38, cleaner 42, Paragraph [0030]).
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 Eshel’s LIDAR device by including a photodiode to detect window blockage, which is disclosed by Terefe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated “to help take appropriate measures in event of such blockage”, as suggested by Terefe (Paragraph [0008]).
Regarding claim 18, Eshel, as modified in view of Terefe, discloses the system of claim 17, wherein the first blocking contaminant detector is further configured to detect at least a portion of the emitted light associated with the second output beam scattered by a second blocking contaminant on the window (Terefe, Fig. 3, photodiode 28, foreign material 20 , window 18, Paragraph [0022]-[0023]; Eshel, Fig. 8A, light source 112, beams scan illuminated space 701, Paragraph [0151]), and wherein the processor is further configured to analyze detected information from the first blocking contaminant detector to provide an indication associated with detecting the second blocking contaminant on the window (Terefe, Fig. 3, signal processing circuit 38, Paragraph [0023]-[0024]).
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 Eshel’s LIDAR device by including a photodiode to detect window blockage, which is disclosed by Terefe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated “to help take appropriate measures in event of such blockage”, as suggested by Terefe (Paragraph [0008]).
Regarding claim 19, Eshel, as modified in view of Terefe, discloses the system of claim 17, further comprising a second blocking contaminant detector configured to detect at least a portion of the emitted light associated with the second output beam scattered by a second blocking contaminant on the window (Terefe, Fig. 3, one or more photodiode 28, foreign material 20 , window 18, Paragraph [0022]-[0023]; Eshel, Fig. 8A, light source 112, beams scan illuminated space 701, Paragraph [0151]), and wherein the processor is further configured to analyze detected information from the second blocking contaminant detector to provide an indication associated with detecting the second blocking contaminant on the window (Terefe, Fig. 3, signal processing circuit 38, Paragraph [0023]-[0024]).
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 Eshel’s LIDAR device by including a photodiode to detect window blockage, which is disclosed by Terefe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated “to help take appropriate measures in event of such blockage”, as suggested by Terefe (Paragraph [0008]).
Regarding claim 20, Eshel, as modified in view of Terefe, discloses the system of claim 17, wherein the first primary detector, the second primary detector, the close object detector, the first blocking contaminant detector, a transmit lens, a receive lens, and a readout integrated circuit (ROIC) are included in a receiver component of the system (Eshel, Fig. 8A, sensor 116, supplementary sensor 716, one or more of processors 718A, 718B, 718C, and 718D, Paragraph [0155], Paragraph [0066]: optical paths may include components like lenses; Terefe, Fig. 3, photodiode 28, Paragraph [0022]-[0023]), and wherein the first primary detector, the second primary detector, the close object detector, and the first blocking contaminant detector are coupled to the readout integrated circuit (ROIC) (Eshel, (Fig. 8A, processor 718B, processor 718D, Paragraph [0152], [0155]; Terefe, Fig. 3, signal processing circuit 38, Paragraph [0023]-[0024]).
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 Eshel’s LIDAR device by including a photodiode to detect window blockage, which is disclosed by Terefe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated “to help take appropriate measures in event of such blockage”, as suggested by Terefe (Paragraph [0008]).
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