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 .
Excessive Information Disclosure Statement
An applicant's duty of disclosure of material information is not satisfied by presenting a patent examiner with "a mountain of largely irrelevant data from which he is presumed to have been able, with his expertise and with adequate time, to have found the critical data. It ignores the real world conditions under which examiners work." Rohm & Haas Co. v. Crystal Chemical Co., 722 F.2d 1556, 1573,220 U.S.P.Q. 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied 469 U.S. 851 (1984). An applicant has a duty to not just disclose pertinent prior art references but to make a disclosure in such way as not to "bury" it within other disclosures of less relevant prior art. See Golden Valley Microwave Foods Inc. v. Weaver Popcorn Co. Inc., 24 U.S.P.Q.2d 1801 (N.D. Ind. 1992); Molins PLC v. Textron Inc. 26 U.S.P.Q.2d 1889, 1899 (D. Del. 1992); Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea LarkBoats, Inc. et al.,175 U.S.P.Q. 260, 272 (S.D. FI. 1972). It is unreasonable for Examiner to review all of the cited references thoroughly. By initialing the accompanying 1449 forms, examiner is merely acknowledging the submission of the cited references and indicating that only a cursory review has been made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/28/2026 regarding the excessive IDS statement have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the IDS is not excessive.
Examiner disagrees. The excessive IDS statement is mainly to state examiner has only conducted a cursory review. Lastly, applicant claims the relevant PCT opinion and cited art were not ‘buried’. Examiner notes the PCT opinion was one of 26 NPL documents cited, mainly all PCT opinions of applications the applicant has filed, and the five documents pointed to in arguments are simply five of over 300 US and foreign patent documents.
Further, many of the US Patent documents appear to be related to LiDAR and ranging in general, and not specifically with applicant’s invention of detecting a window state. MPEP 2004, regarding duty of disclosure, asks the question of the origin of the invention and its point of departure from prior art. Thus, the basics of LiDAR would not be seen as a point of departure, but instead “marginally pertinent cumulative information” (See MPEP 2004 point 13). That is, this is background information of the art, not a point of departure.
Thus, the excessive IDS statement is not withdrawn, as the number of documents are in excess of what examiner is able to consider with more than cursory review.
Applicant’s arguments, regarding 112(f) interpretation are persuasive. Thus, the 112(f) interpretation is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the claim amendments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of McWhirter (US 20180284268 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.
Claims 1-6, 7, 11-18, 23-29, 33, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shotan (US 20220179057 A1) in view of McWhirter (US 20180284268 A1).
Claim 1: Shotan teaches a method of performing window blockage detection for a Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) system, comprising:
generating one or more beams of light using a laser source within the LiDAR system ([0037]-[0037]),
wherein the LiDAR system having a window and an optical component coupled to receive the one or more beams of light (Fig. 1B, sensor unit 102 having first LiDAR unit 120 and second unit 122 enclosed by window/housing 126);
transmitting, using the optical component, the one or more beams of light through the window ([0042]);
receiving, by an optical receiver, scattered light pulses […] reflected light pulses from an object in a field-of-view (FOV) of the LiDAR system (Fig. 5, step 506);
detecting, based upon the received scattered light pulses and received reflected light pulses, a window state indicating whether the window is blocked (Fig. 5, step 508 and ([0156]-[0157];
generating, based upon the detected window state, a notification; and sending the notification to a vehicle perception and planning system of a vehicle ([0026] - activating cleaning mechanism in response to obstruction).
Shotan does not teach, but McWhirter does teach the scattered light pulses are formed by the window ([0137] – detecting debris on window). Instead, Shotan only teaches detecting an obstruction which may or may not be attached to the housing ([0160]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the detection as taught by McWhirter, in the method as taught by Shotan, because this would allow for window debris to be detected and removed (versus Shotan’s method which requires further processing to determine if the debris are on the window.
Claim 2: Shotan, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the detecting of the window state comprises,
determining, for each firing cycle of a plurality of firing cycles, whether there is a reflected light pulse (Fig. 5, step 506 - detecting return pulses);
determining, for each firing cycle of the plurality of firing cycles, whether there is a scattered light pulse; counting a number of firing cycles that have reflected light pulses; counting a number of firing cycles that have scattered light pulses but no reflected light pulses; and detecting the window state based on the number of firing cycles that have reflected light pulses and the number of firing cycles that have scattered light pulses ([0169] - finding ratio of sent to returned light pulses to find where housing is occluded).
Claim 3: Shotan, as modified, teaches the method of claim 2,
wherein the plurality of firing cycles corresponds to a frame of point cloud data provided by the LiDAR system, wherein detecting the window state based on the number of firing cycles that have reflected light pulses and the number of firing cycles that have scattered light pulses comprises: determining a first ratio of the number of firing cycles that have reflected light pulses with respect to a total number of the plurality of firing cycles; determining whether the first ratio is greater than or equal to a first threshold; and identifying, in response to the first ratio equal to or greater than the first threshold, the window state to be unblocked ([0169] - finding ratio of emitted to return light pulses and comparing to threshold to determine obstruction of housing).
Claim 4: Shotan, as modified, teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the detecting of the window state further comprises, in response to the first ratio less than the first threshold: determining a second ratio of the number of firing cycles that have scattered light pulses but no reflected light pulses with respect to the total number of plurality of firing cycles; determining whether the second ratio is greater than or equal to a second threshold; and identifying, in response to the second ratio greater than or equal to the second threshold, the window state to be blocked ([0169] - finding ratio of emitted to return light pulses - thus also would find ratio of emitted to not received).
Claim 5: Shotan, as modified, teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the detecting of the window state further comprises, in response to the second ratio less than the second threshold, the window state to be null, wherein a null state exists when the one or more beams of light are transmitted toward an empty sky or a highly absorbent object ([0157]).
Claim 6: Shotan, as modified, teaches the method of Claim 1. Shotan, as modified, does not teach, but McWhirter does teach the method further comprising: measuring signal widths of the received scattered light, wherein the signal widths of the received scattered light facilitate the detecting of the window state indicating whether the window is blocked ([0138] – detecting characteristics of light pulse, such as pulse duration, to detect debris).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of detecting pulse duration, as taught by McWhirter, in the method as taught by Shotan, as modified. Specifically, McWhirter’s pulse duration detection could be added to the detection as taught by Shotan, as modified, because analyzing other characteristics of the light pulse (other than just TOF) would allow for more sensitive and accurate detection of debris blocking the window as more parameters are examined to provide a more complete picture of the state of the window.
Claim 7: Shotan, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, further comprises: in response to detecting the window state, setting a window blockage state flag indicating the window state; and storing the window blockage state flag in a window state database ([0026] - activating cleaning mechanism in response to obstruction - indicates a notification/flag).
Claim 11: Shotan, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising at least one of, detecting a transition from a blocked window state to a non-blocked window state, based on a first delay time and a first threshold of a first ratio; and detecting a transition from a non-blocked window state to a blocked window state, based on a second delay time and a second threshold of a second ratio ([0160] - detecting obstruction or lack of obstruction implies possible detection of transition (when state changes between scans)).
Claim 12: Shotan, as modified, teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions in a memory device, the instructions being executable by one or more processors for performing a method of window blockage detection for a Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) system, the method comprising:
generating one or more beams of light using a laser source within the LiDAR system, wherein the LiDAR system having a window and an optical component coupled to receive the one or more beams of light (Fig. 1B, sensor unit 102 having first LiDAR unit 120 and second unit 122 enclosed by window/housing 126);
transmitting, using the optical component, the one or more beams of light through the window ([0042]);
receiving, by an optical receiver, scattered light pulses […] and reflected light pulses from an object in a field-of-view (FOV) of the LiDAR system (Fig. 5, step 506);
detecting, based upon the received scattered light pulses and received reflected light pulses, a window state indicating whether the window is blocked (Fig. 5, step 508 and ([0156]-[0157]);
generating, based upon the detected window state, a notification; and sending the notification to a vehicle perception and planning system of a vehicle ([0026] - activating cleaning mechanism in response to obstruction).
Shotan does not teach, but McWhirter does teach the scattered light pulses are formed by the window ([0137] – detecting debris on window). Instead, Shotan only teaches detecting an obstruction which may or may not be attached to the housing ([0160]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the detection as taught by McWhirter, in the method as taught by Shotan, because this would allow for window debris to be detected and removed (versus Shotan’s method which requires further processing to determine if the debris are on the window.
Claim 13: Shotan, as modified, teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 12, wherein the detecting of the window state comprises,
determining, for each firing cycle of a plurality of firing cycles, whether there is a reflected light pulse (Fig. 5, step 506 - detecting return pulses);
determining, for each firing cycle of the plurality of firing cycles, whether there is a scattered light pulse; counting a number of firing cycles that have reflected light pulses; counting a number of firing cycles that have scattered light pulses but no reflected light pulses; and detecting the window state based on the number of firing cycles that have reflected light pulses and the number of firing cycles that have scattered light pulses ([0169] - finding ratio of sent to returned light pulses to find where housing is occluded).
Claim 14: Shotan, as modified, teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 13, wherein the plurality of firing cycles corresponds to a frame of point cloud data provided by the LiDAR system, wherein detecting the window state based on the number of firing cycles that have reflected light pulses and the number of firing cycles that have scattered light pulses comprises: determining a first ratio of the number of firing cycles that have reflected light pulses with respect to a total number of the plurality of firing cycles; determining whether the first ratio is greater than or equal to a first threshold; and identifying, in response to the first ratio equal to or greater than the first threshold, the window state to be unblocked ([0169] - finding ratio of emitted to return light pulses and comparing to threshold to determine obstruction of housing).
Claim 15: Shotan, as modified, teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 14, wherein the detecting of the window state further comprises, in response to the first ratio less than the first threshold: determining a second ratio of the number of firing cycles that have scattered light pulses but no reflected light pulses with respect to the total number of plurality of firing cycles; determining whether the second ratio is greater than or equal to a second threshold; and identifying, in response to the second ratio greater than or equal to the second threshold, the window state to be blocked ([0169] - finding ratio of emitted to return light pulses - thus also would find ratio of emitted to not received).
Claim 16: Shotan, as modified, teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the detecting of the window state further comprises, in response to the second ratio less than the second threshold, the window state to be null, wherein a null state exists when the one or more beams of light are transmitted toward an empty sky or a highly absorbent object ([0157]).
Claim 17: Shotan, as modified, teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 12. Shotan, as modified, does not teach, but McWhirter does teach the computer-readable medium further comprising: measuring signal widths of the received scattered light, wherein the signal widths of the received scattered light facilitate the detecting of the window state indicating whether the window is blocked ([0138] – detecting characteristics of light pulse, such as pulse duration, to detect debris).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of detecting pulse duration, as taught by McWhirter, in the method as taught by Shotan, as modified. Specifically, McWhirter’s pulse duration detection could be added to the detection as taught by Shotan, as modified, because analyzing other characteristics of the light pulse (other than just TOF) would allow for more sensitive and accurate detection of debris blocking the window as more parameters are examined to provide a more complete picture of the state of the window.
Claim 18: Shotan, as modified, teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 12, further comprises: in response to detecting the window state, setting a window blockage state flag indicating the window state; and storing the window blockage state flag in a window state database ([0026] - activating cleaning mechanism in response to obstruction - indicates a notification/flag).
Claims 23-29: Claims 23-29 are product claims corresponding to computer-readable medium claims 12-17. Thus, see rejections above.
Claim 33: Shotan, as modified, teaches the LiDAR system of claim 23, wherein the one or more processors is further configured to perform at least one of, detecting a transition from a blocked window state to a non-blocked window state, based on a first delay time and a first threshold of a first ratio; and detecting a transition from a non-blocked window state to a blocked window state, based on a second delay time and a second threshold of a second ratio ([0160] - detecting obstruction or lack of obstruction implies possible detection of transition (when state changes between scans)).
Claim 34: Shotan teaches a vehicle comprising a LiDAR system, the LiDAR system comprises:
a laser source configured to generate one or more beams of light within the LiDAR system (Fig 4B, transmitter 420, [0037]-[0037]);
a window and an optical component coupled to receive the one or more beams of light (Fig. 1B, sensor unit 102 having first LiDAR unit 120 and second unit 122 enclosed by window/housing 126),
wherein the optical component is configured to transmit the one or more beams of light through the window ([0042]);
an optical receiver configured to receive scattered light […], and reflected light from an object, if any, in a field-of-view (FOV) of the LiDAR system (Fig. 4B, receiver 430 and Fig. 5, step 506);
a window blockage detector configured to: detect, based upon the received scattered light and received reflected light, a window state indicating whether the window is blocked (Fig. 5, step 508 and ([0156]-[0157]);
generate, based upon the detected window state, a notification; and send the notification to a vehicle perception and planning system of a vehicle ([0026] - activating cleaning mechanism in response to obstruction).
Shotan does not teach, but McWhirter does teach the scattered light pulses are formed by the window ([0137] – detecting debris on window). Instead, Shotan only teaches detecting an obstruction which may or may not be attached to the housing ([0160]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the detection as taught by McWhirter, in the method as taught by Shotan, because this would allow for window debris to be detected and removed (versus Shotan’s method which requires further processing to determine if the debris are on the window.
Claims 8-10, 19-22, and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shotan, in view of McWhirter, in view of Daisuke (JP 2018072288 A).
Claim 8: Shotan, as modified, teaches the method of Claim 1.
Shotan, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein detecting the window state comprises: dividing the FOV into a grid of segments corresponding to scanning ranges of the LiDAR system in two directions; determining, for each grid segments, a window blockage state flag indicating whether a portion of the window corresponding to the grid segment is blocked; detecting the window blockage state based on window blockage state flags associated with a group of grid segments
However, Shotan, as modified, does teach emitting lasers through different sections of the housing ([0023]) and sensing obstructed sections ([0165]).
Shotan, as modified, does not teach, but Daisuke does teach, that the segments are grid segments (Fig. 5 and pg 4 of attached PDF).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the specific grid, as taught by Daisuke, instead of the more broad ‘sections’ as taught by Shotan, as modified, because a defined grid would allow for precise mapping of any debris that are detected.
Claim 9: Shotan, as modified, teaches the method of claim 8, wherein detecting the window blockage state based on window blockage state flags associated with a group of grid segments comprises: determining a number of the window blockage state flags indicating that window blockage exists; determining whether the number of the window blockage state flags indicating that window blockage exists is greater than or equal to a threshold number of window blockage flags; identifying, in response to the number of the window blockage flags indicating window blockage exists greater than or equal to the threshold number of window blockage flags, the window state to be blocked. ([0168]-[0169] - determining if count of bright pulses or returning pulses is above or below threshold).
Claim 10: Shotan, as modified, teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising, in response to the number of the window blockage state flags indicating that window blockage exists less than the threshold number of window blockage flags: determining, for each firing cycle of a plurality of firing cycles, whether there is a reflected light pulse; determining, for each firing cycle of the plurality of firing cycles, whether there is a scattered light pulse; counting a number of firing cycles that have reflected light pulses; counting a number of firing cycles that have scattered light pulses; and detecting the window state based on the number of firing cycles that have reflected light pulses and the number of firing cycles that have scattered light pulses, wherein the plurality of firing cycles correspond to a frame of point cloud data provided by the LiDAR system. ([0168]-[0169] - determining if count of bright pulses or returning pulses is above or below threshold).
Claim 19: Shotan, as modified, teaches the computer readable medium of Claim 12.
Shotan, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein detecting the window state comprises: dividing the FOV into a grid of segments corresponding to scanning ranges of the LiDAR system in two directions; determining, for each grid segments, a window blockage state flag indicating whether a portion of the window corresponding to the grid segment is blocked; detecting the window blockage state based on window blockage state flags associated with a group of grid segments.
However, Shotan, as modified, does teach emitting lasers through different sections of the housing ([0023]) and sensing obstructed sections ([0165]).
Shotan, as modified, does not teach, but Daisuke does teach, that the segments are grid segments (Fig. 5 and pg 4 of attached PDF).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the specific grid, as taught by Daisuke, instead of the more broad ‘sections’ as taught by Shotan, as modified, because a defined grid would allow for precise mapping of any debris that are detected.
Claim 20: Shotan, as modified, teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 19, wherein detecting the window blockage state based on window blockage state flags associated with a group of grid segments comprises: determining a number of the window blockage state flags indicating that window blockage exists; determining whether the number of the window blockage state flags indicating that window blockage exists is greater than or equal to a threshold number of window blockage flags; identifying, in response to the number of the window blockage flags indicating window blockage exists greater than or equal to the threshold number of window blockage flags, the window state to be blocked ([0168]-[0169] - determining if count of bright pulses or returning pulses is above or below threshold).
Claim 21: Shotan, as modified, teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 20, further comprising, in response to the number of the window blockage state flags indicating that window blockage exists less than the threshold number of window blockage flags: determining, for each firing cycle of a plurality of firing cycles, whether there is a reflected light pulse; determining, for each firing cycle of the plurality of firing cycles, whether there is a scattered light pulse; counting a number of firing cycles that have reflected light pulses; counting a number of firing cycles that have scattered light pulses; and detecting the window state based on the number of firing cycles that have reflected light pulses and the number of firing cycles that have scattered light pulses, wherein the plurality of firing cycles correspond to a frame of point cloud data provided by the LiDAR system ([0168]-[0169] - determining if count of bright pulses or returning pulses is above or below threshold).
Claim 22: Shotan, as modified, teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 21, further comprising at least one of, detecting a transition from a blocked window state to a non-blocked window state, based on a first delay time and a first threshold of a first ratio; and detecting a transition from a non-blocked window state to a blocked window state, based on a second delay time and a second threshold of a second ratio ([0160] - detecting obstruction or lack of obstruction implies possible detection of transition (when state changes between scans)).
Claims 30-32: Claims 30-32 are product claims corresponding to computer-readable medium claims 19-21. Thus, see rejections above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLARA CHILTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6-2 MT.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at 571-270-5227. 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.
/CLARA G CHILTON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/ SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights