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
Applicants Amendment did not overcome the previous rejections. Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims have been considered and are not persuasive.
This office action is made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the portion of the primary photosensor that varies, as discussed in lines 7-8, is not shown or discussed in the disclosure sufficiently to convey understanding of the invention to one skilled in the relevant art.
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 20, the non-triangulating optical arrangement of the secondary optics is not shown or discussed in the disclosure sufficiently to convey understanding of the invention to one skilled in the relevant art.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, the portion of the primary photosensor that varies is not shown or discussed in the disclosure. This creates confusion as to the scope of the claim.
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 20, the non-triangulating optical arrangement of the secondary optics, as discussed in line 10, in not shown or discussed in the disclosure. This creates confusion as to the scope of the claim.
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 1-2, 5-6, 9-15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Becker et al. (US 2016/0146938), hereinafter Becker.
In re. claim 1, Becker teaches a proximity sensor comprising: a triangulating optical arrangement including an illumination source (120) (fig. 1), a primary photosensor (180) spaced apart from the illumination source (fig. 1), and corresponding primary optics (550) (fig. 5) arranged to direct light from the illumination source to a target area such that light from the illumination source reflected from an object at the target area is monitored by the primary photosensor and received at a portion of the primary photosensor (para [0030]), wherein the portion of the primary photosensor at which the reflected light is received varies based on the distance between the proximity sensor and the object (light detected by various photodetectors (270) of far zone sensor) (para [0027]) (fig. 2), such that reflected light from objects at different distances is received at different positions on the primary photosensor (each detector in the array receives a slightly different angle of reflected light from the object) (para [0024]), and wherein the triangulating optical arrangement has a primary working range above a minimum distance (beyond near object) (fig. 1) and a blind zone below the minimum distance (near object and transmissive medium distance) (fig. 1); the blind zone existing due to reflected light from the object landing beyond a periphery of the primary photosensor when the object is located closer to the proximity sensor than the minimum distance (the far zone light sensor 180 is positioned and/or configured to receive substantially only light reflected from the far object 142 in response to reflected light emitted from the source 130) (para [0021]) (near zone reflected light from near object (140) shown beyond periphery of far zone sensor (180) in figure 1); a non-triangulating optical arrangement including a secondary photosensor (170) and corresponding secondary optics ((fig. 6) lens can be employed on near zone sensor (520)) (fig. 5) (para [0030]) directed at the target area such that the light from the illumination source reflected from the object in at least a portion of the target area is monitored by the secondary photosensor (light detected by various photodetectors (260) of near zone sensor) (para [0027]) (fig. 2), wherein the non-triangulating optical arrangement has a secondary working range that includes at least a portion of the blind zone (para [0034]) (fig. 1).
In re. claims 2 and 15, Becker teaches a controller circuitry (190) interfaced with the illumination source and with the first and the second photosensors, the controller circuitry operative to: read distance measurement information as measured by the primary photosensor (para [0019]), the distance measurement information corresponding to the target area monitored by the photosensor (para [0019]); read a detection measurement made by the secondary photosensor (para [0019]); computationally determine any presence of at least a portion of an object within the primary working range in the target area (via processed output of converter), wherein the determination of the presence within the primary working range is based on the distance measurement information (output from sensors); in an absence of any portion of an object within the primary working range in the target area, computationally determine any presence of at least a portion of an object within the secondary working range, wherein the determination of the presence within the secondary working range is based on the detection measurement (compare outputs from sensors 170 and 180) (para [0019]).
In re. claims 5 and 19, Becker teaches the secondary working range includes the entire blind zone (para [0034]).
In re. claim 6, Becker teaches the proximity sensor of claim 1, wherein the secondary optics include a light guide (lens for near zone sensor) (para [0030]).
In re. claim 9, Becker teaches the proximity sensor of claim 1, wherein the primary photosensor is spaced apart from the illumination source by a spacing distance, and wherein the secondary photosensor is situated within the spacing distance (fig. 3).
In re. claim 10, Becker teaches the proximity sensor of claim 1, wherein the primary photosensor comprises a set of position-sensitive photoelectric elements, and wherein the secondary photosensor is a non-position-sensitive photosensor (example where only multiple photodetectors (270) are used) (para [0027]).
In re. claim 11, Becker teaches the proximity sensor of claim 1, wherein the primary optics comprise an illumination lens aligned with the illumination source, and a receiving lens aligned with the primary photosensor (fig. 5).
In re. claim 12, Becker teaches the proximity sensor of claim 1, wherein the primary optics are integrally formed with the secondary optics (integral to substrate) (para [0018]).
In re. claim 13, Becker teaches the proximity sensor of claim 1, wherein the illumination source, the primary photosensor, and the secondary photosensor are assembled as a unitary module (unitary to substrate) (para [0018]).
In re. claim 14, Becker teaches a method for operating a proximity sensor, the method comprising: directing light, by a triangulating optical arrangement, from an illumination source (120) (fig. 1) to a target area such that light from the illumination source is reflected from an object at the target area (fig. 1); monitoring the target area by a primary photosensor (180) that is spaced apart from the illumination source (fig. 3), wherein the primary photosensor has a primary working range above a minimum distance and a blind zone below the minimum distance (para [0034]); the blind zone existing due to reflected light from the object landing beyond a periphery of the primary photosensor when the object is located closer to the proximity sensor than the minimum distance (the far zone light sensor 180 is positioned and/or configured to receive substantially only light reflected from the far object 142 in response to reflected light emitted from the source 130) (para [0021]) (near zone reflected light from near object (140) shown beyond periphery of far zone sensor (180) in figure 1); and monitoring the target area by a non-triangulating optical arrangement including a secondary photosensor (170) and corresponding secondary optics (lens for near zone sensor not shown) (para [0030]) directed at the target area such that the light from the illumination source reflected from the object in at least a portion of the blind zone area is monitored by the secondary photosensor (fig. 1).
In re. claim 20, Becker teaches a proximity sensor, comprising: means for directing light from an illumination source (120) (fig. 1) to a target area such that light from the illumination source is reflected from an object at the target area (fig. 1); means for monitoring the target area by a primary photosensor (180) that is spaced apart from the illumination source (fig. 3), wherein the primary photosensor has a primary working range above a minimum distance and a blind zone below the minimum distance (para [0034]); the blind zone existing due to reflected light from the object landing beyond a periphery of the primary photosensor when the object is located closer to the proximity sensor than the minimum distance (the far zone light sensor 180 is positioned and/or configured to receive substantially only light reflected from the far object 142 in response to reflected light emitted from the source 130) (para [0021]) (near zone reflected light from near object (140) shown beyond periphery of far zone sensor (180) in figure 1); and means for monitoring the target area by a secondary photosensor (170) arranged such that the light from the illumination source reflected from the object in at least a portion of the blind zone area is monitored by the secondary photosensor (fig. 1).
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 3-4 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker as applied to claims 2 and 15 respectively above and further in view of Yeruhami et al. (US 2020/0249351), hereinafter Yeruhami.
In re. claims 3 and 16, Becker fails to disclose the controller circuitry is further operative to: computationally determine any presence of an obstruction of the proximity sensor based on the detection measurement.
Yeruhami teaches a controller circuitry is further operative to: computationally determine any presence of an obstruction of the proximity sensor based on the detection measurement (para [0268]).
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 Becker to incorporate the teachings of Yeruhami to determine any presence of an obstruction, for the purpose of preventing degradation of system performance.
In re. claims 4 and 17, Becker teaches the controller circuitry is further operative to receive distance measurement information (predetermined distance) and a detection measurement (presence) (para [0019]).
Becker fails to disclose computationally determine a property of the object based on the measurements.
Yeruhami teaches wherein the controller circuitry is further operative to computationally determine a property of the object based on a distance measurement information and a detection measurement (aspects of object 208, such as shape, color, material, etc. may also be determined) (para [0149]).
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 Becker to incorporate the teachings of Yeruhami to determine a property of the object, for the purpose of providing additional information of the environment to the system to improve control of the sensor.
Claims 7-8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker as applied to claims 6 and 14 respectively above and further in view of Hwangbo et al. (US 2020/0225331), hereinafter Hwangbo.
In re. claims 7 and 18, Becker fails to disclose the light guide comprises a light pipe.
Hwangbo teaches the light guide comprises a light pipe (cylinder of photodetector (120) in figure 5) (para [0082]).
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 Becker to incorporate the teachings of Hwangbo to have the light guide comprises a light pipe, for the predictable result of providing a means of supporting the lens above the sensor.
In re. claim 8, Becker fails to disclose the light guide comprises an entry surface having an angled surface oriented at a predefined inclination to the optical axis.
Hwangbo teaches the light guide comprises an entry surface (143) having an angled surface oriented at a predefined inclination to the optical axis (figure 5).
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 Becker to incorporate the teachings of Hwangbo to have the recited angled surface, for the purpose of directing light received at an angle to a desired location on the sensor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues With respect to the claimed “primary optics,” the specification expressly identifies those structures in the Detailed Description pertaining to FIG. 2: “Optical system 200 includes … primary photosensor 220, secondary photosensor 222, receiving lens 219, and light guide 223.” FIG. 2 shows these same structures. FIG. 3 and its corresponding description show and describe primary photosensor 320, receiving lens 319, secondary photosensor 322, and light guide 323, which function similarly to the similarly-numbered counterpart components as described above with reference to FIG. 2. Thus, the “primary optics” are not absent from the drawings; they are shown as the illumination lens and receiving lens associated with the illumination source and primary photosensor.
The applicant states that the specification expressly identifies the structure, but fails to cite any portion of the specification in the argument. Instead, a list of the optical system has been provided. It remains unclear if the primary optics encompass the entire optical system, that as the applicant has argued, includes the secondary photosensor. One having ordinary skill in the art would likely not interpret a primary optics to encompass a secondary photosensor. Therefore, the argument is considered non-persuasive.
Applicant argues The Summary states: “A non-triangulating optical arrangement includes a secondary photosensor and corresponding secondary optics directed at the target area such that the light from the illumination source reflected from the object in at least a portion of the target area is monitored by the secondary photosensor, and the non-triangulating optical arrangement has a secondary working range that includes at least a portion of the blind zone.” The Detailed Description of FIG. 2 then identifies the corresponding structure: “Reflected beam 218A, 218B, or 218C, corresponding to the near, intermediate, or far distances 204A, 204B, or 204C, respectively, is directed through receiving lens 219 to primary photosensor 220, and through light guide 223 to secondary photosensor 222.” The specification further states: “Secondary photosensor 222 and light guide 223 are arranged to detect light reflecting from objects at any practical distance …” FIGs. 2 and 3 of the drawings show these same elements. Accordingly, the drawings do indeed show the secondary photosensor and corresponding secondary optics that the specification identifies as the non-triangulating optical arrangement.
As the applicant appears to only rely on the figures to show a non-triangulating optical arrangement, the examiner annotated figure 2 displays how one having ordinary skill in the art would interpret the optical arrangement of the secondary optics.
PNG
media_image1.png
485
841
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As the applicant has failed to identify what clearly constitutes a non-triangulating optical arrangement of the secondary optics in the figures, while the examiner has provided an example of a triangulating optical arrangement of the secondary optics in the annotated figure above, the argument is considered non-persuasive.
Applicant argues The specification expressly explains that the position of impingement on the primary photosensor changes with object distance. In particular, the Detailed Description states: “The position of light impingement on photosensor 220 is correlated to the distance of the surface 204A, 204B, 204C by a known relationship …” The specification then states “reflected beam 218B from a surface at intermediate distance 204B impinges at one side of photosensor 220 (as indicated at N); whereas reflected beam 218C from a surface at far distance 204C impinges at another side of photosensor 220 (as indicated at F).” FIG. 2 visually depicts those different portions of the primary photosensor as “N” and “F.” This disclosure reasonably conveys possession of the claimed concept that reflected light is received “at a portion of the photosensor” and that the relevant portion varies with distance.
As stated by the applicant, the position of light impingement changes with object distance, not the portion of the photosensor itself. As recited in claim 1, “the portion of the primary photosensor at which the reflected light is received varies” would mean that the portion indicated at N would change to the portion indicated at F. The examiner recommends amending the claim to recite the portion of light impingement, and not the portion of the photosensor. Therefore, the argument is considered non-persuasive.
Applicant argues The Office Action also states: “Regarding claims 1, 14, and 20, the non-triangulating optical arrangement of the secondary optics is not shown or discussed in the disclosure sufficiently to convey understanding of the invention to one skilled in the relevant art.”
The examiner’s response provided above regarding this topic is maintained. Therefore, the argument is considered non-persuasive.
Applicant argues The Office Action further states: “Regarding claims 1, the portion of the primary photosensor that varies is not shown or discussed in the disclosure. This creates confusion as to the scope of the claim.” In fact, the specification expressly describes that positional variation on the primary photosensor.
The examiner’s response provided above regarding this topic is maintained. Therefore, the argument is considered non-persuasive.
Applicant argues The Office Action also states: “Regarding claims 1, 14, and 20, the non-triangulating optical arrangement of the secondary optics, as discussed in line 10, in not shown or discussed in the disclosure. This creates confusion as to the scope of the claim.” Applicant respectfully disagrees because, as quoted above, the Summary and Detailed Description expressly disclose “a non-triangulating optical arrangement,” a “secondary photosensor,” and the corresponding “light guide 223” / “323” as the secondary optics.
The examiner’s response provided above regarding this topic is maintained. Therefore, the argument is considered non-persuasive.
Applicant argues Becker explains the problem addressed by its “blind spots” as follows: “At certain distances between the object to be detected and the photodetector, blind spots can occur where it cannot be determined whether or not the object is detected or merely reflections detected from the glass.” Thus, Becker’s “blind spots” arise from ambiguity between object reflections and reflections from an optically transmissive medium, such as glass. Becker does not disclose a blind zone existing due to reflected light from the object landing beyond a periphery of the primary photosensor when the object is located closer to the proximity sensor than the minimum distance, as recited in claims 1, 14, and 20. Becker’s cited “blind Zone” is therefore not the claimed blind zone.
The applicant is focusing on the blind spots recited in Decker, however the blind spots of Decker were not relied upon in the previous rejection. The citation of para [0034] to Decker states “If only a single sensor were employed as in conventional systems, a blind zone may occur when the object is at closer distances. To detect objects within the blind zone, the near zone light sensor 750 is employed.” This is portrayed in figure 1, which shows the reflected light from the object extending beyond the perimeter of the far zone sensor (180) to the near zone sensor (170). Applicant’s discussion of the blind spot and the reflected light from the transmissive medium is irrelevant to the claimed blind zone, and is thus considered non-persuasive.
Applicant argues Becker does not disclose the triangulating optical arrangement in which reflected light from objects at different distances is received at different positions on the primary photosensor, as claimed in claim 1. The Office Action relies on Becker paragraph [0027] and maps the claimed varying portion of the primary photosensor to “light detected by various photodetectors (270) of far zone sensor.” Paragraph [0027] of Becker states: “Each of the near Zone light sensor 220 and the far Zone light sensor 210 can include one or more photodetectors 260 and 270, respectively to detect light reflected from the object and/or from the transmissive medium in response to light from the source 230, as described above.” This passage merely states that the near-zone and far-zone light sensors may include one or more photodetectors for detecting reflected light. It does not disclose that reflected light from objects at different distances is received at different positions on the far-zone sensor, and it does not disclose a triangulating optical arrangement having a primary photosensor that operates as recited in claim 1.
In paragraph [0024], Becker states: “As a further example, distance of the object 140/142 can be determined by comparing received photodetector signal values between photodetectors of the respective near Zone sensor 170 and the far Zone sensor 180.” Becker then states that “photodetector arrays can be employed where each detector in the array receives a slightly different angle of reflected light from the object 140/142.” This optional example still does not disclose the claimed arrangement in which the reflected light from objects at different distances is received at different positions on the primary photosensor. Instead, Becker describes comparing signal values between photodetectors of the near-zone and far-zone sensors, and optionally using detectors that receive different angles of reflected light. Becker does not disclose that the far-zone sensor 180 is a primary photosensor of a triangulating optical arrangement, nor does Becker disclose that a minimum-distance blind zone exists because close-object reflected light lands beyond the far-zone sensor’s periphery.
The examiner notes that the triangular arrangement of Becker creates the differing position of impinging light on the photodetector array, as is clear from figures 1 and 2. As further stated in Becker, para. [0024], “the photodetector arrays can be employed where each detector in the array receives a slightly different angle of reflected light from the object 140/142, where analyzing output (e.g., A/D values) from the different detectors in the array can be utilized to determine how far the object 140/142 is from the receiver 150.” Becker clearly correlates the angle of light impinging on different photodetectors in the array for determining object distance, which is equivalent to the applicant’s “N” and “F” of the primary photosensor depicted in applicant’s figure 2. Therefore, the argument is considered non-persuasive.
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 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
Prosecution Insights