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 .
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.
Claim(s) below is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kobayashi (JP6537948).
Referring to claims 1, 13, and 21, Kobayashi shows a ruggedized sensor window apparatus (see figure 9), comprising:
a protective window (see figure 9 Ref 123) having a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface (see the sides of figure 9 Ref 123), wherein the protective window is configured to be positioned forward of an optical sensor (see figure 9 Ref 125) intersecting an optical path of a transmission component and a receiver component of the optical sensor (see figure 9 Ref 134a and 133a);
a light scatter blocking component (see figure 9 Ref 122) on the second surface of the protective window (see the second surface of Ref 123 that is connected to Ref 122) and configured to be positioned between the protective window and the optical sensor (see figure 9), wherein the light scatter blocking component has a first side (see figure 9 Ref 122), a second side opposite the first side (see figure 9 Ref 122 note the first and second surfaces of Ref 122), and an aperture extending completely through the light scatter blocking component from the first side to the second side (see figure 9 Ref 122a), wherein the aperture is configured to be positioned over the transmission component of the optical sensor to allow transmission of a sender beam to pass therethrough (see figure 9 Ref 122a and 133a), and
wherein the light scatter blocking component is opaque and has a low reflection coefficient to block light scattering from the sender beam from reaching the receiver component of the optical sensor (see paragraph 3 note the shielding member).
Referring to claims 4, 19, and 24, Kobayashi shows second aperture extending through the light scatter blocking component from the first side to the second side, wherein the second aperture is configured to be positioned over the receiver component of the optical sensor to allow the receiver component to detect reflected light, wherein the second aperture is spaced laterally apart from the first aperture by a distance (see figure 9 Ref 122b).
Referring to claim 8, Kobayashi shows the protective window is a thin substrate configured to avoid light scatter; and the protective window and the light scatter blocking component are configured to be positioned in physical contact with the optical sensor (see figure 9).
Referring to claim 9, Kobayashi shows the protective window is spaced apart from the sensor by a distance; and
the light scatter blocking component has a thickness defined by the distance between the protective window and a front surface of the optical sensor (see figure 9).
Referring to claim 14, Kobayashi shows the sensor is a laser distance
Sensor (see paragraph 3).
Referring to claim 26, Kobayashi shows the low reflection coefficient is applicable for the wavelengths emitting by the optical sensor (see paragraph 20).
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(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (JP6537948) in view of Svatek (4132471).
Referring to claims 2 and 23, Kobayashi fails to specifically indicate whatn the light scatter blocking component is made out of however Svatek shows a similar light blocking component comprises ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM) (see column 10 lines 63-65). It would have been obvious to include EPDM because this is an extremely well known light blocking material and adds no new or unexpected results.
Claim(s) 3, 9, 12, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (JP6537948).
Referring to claim 3, Kobayashi fails to specifically show the use of PLA for the light blocking material, however, PLA is an extremely well known thermoplastic used in optics and adds no new or unexpected results. The examiner is taking official notice indicating that PLA is extremely common and ubiquitous in manufacturing opaque optical components.
Referring to claims 9, 12, 17, and 18 Kobayashi renders obvious a window having a thickness any variety of thickness because this is extremely well known and adds no new or unexpected results.
Claim(s) 6, 20, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (JP6537948) in view of Chou (20220082672).
Referring to claims 6, 20, and 25, Kobayashi fails to show but Chou shows the first aperture extends along a first axis; and the second aperture extends along a second axis, wherein the first and second axes are not parallel to each other (see figure 4). It would have been obvious to include the non-parallel axes because this allows for specific light gathering and projecting for a specified FOV as shown by Chou.
Claim(s) 10, 15, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (JP6537948) in view of Yamanobe (20130240717).
Referring to claim 10, 15, and 22, Kobayashi fails to show but Yamanobe shows protective window has a recessed portion surrounding the transmission component; and
the light scatter blocking component is positioned in the recessed portion (see figure 2 note Ref 32a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the protective window as shown by Yamanobe because the recesses allow for compactness of size of the sensor as shown by Yamanobe.
Claim(s) 26 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (JP6537948) in view of Makela (AU2004224107).
Referring to claims 26 and 27, Kobayashi fails to specifically show an application for the ruggedized window apparatus. Makela shows a similar housing apparatus that is mounted on a bucket machine on a mining site (see paragraph 10 and figure 1). It would have been obvious to include the use of a bucket machine in a mine site because this is an extremely well known application for a rugged proximity sensor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Referring to the argument that the “light shielding member” fails to have the properties as claim in claim 1, specifically that the “light shielding member” fails to be “opaque and has a low reflation coefficient to block light scattering from a sender beam from reaching the receiver component”.
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a component that is a “light shielding member” with “light passage holes” (Ref 122a and Ref 122b) would block light elsewhere. This type of device would inherently be opaque and have a low reflection because this is what light shielding members like that described by Kobayashi are and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a translucent, transparent, or highly reflective surface would not shield light but would cause internal reflections to distort or otherwise contaminate the function of the proximity sensor.
For a further explanation of how a shielding member performs see paragraph 20.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LUKE D RATCLIFFE whose telephone number is (571)272-3110. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571-272-6970. 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.
/LUKE D RATCLIFFE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
