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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group A (Species I) and Group B (Species IV), claims 1-17 and 19-21, in the reply filed on 05/27/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Group A species I-II are not different species, and Group B species III-IV are not different species (Remarks, pp. 1-3). This is found persuasive and the restriction requirement between Species I-V, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 03/27/2026, is hereby withdrawn. Claims 1-21 are pending. Claims 1-21 are examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11, 13-15, 19 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claims 1 and 21:
The recitation “the electromagnetic radiation of one or more frequencies” (l. 8) is believed to be in error for – the electromagnetic radiation of the one or more frequencies –.
Regarding Claim 11:
The recitation “the supporting arms” (ll. 6-7) is believed to be in error for – the one or more supporting arms –.
The recitation “the electromagnetic radiation of one or more frequencies” (l. 15) is believed to be in error for – the electromagnetic radiation of the one or more frequencies –.
Regarding Claims 13 and 15:
The recitation “the electromatic radiation” (l. 2 in claim 13; ll. 2-3 in claim 15) is believed to be in error for – the electromagnetic radiation –.
Regarding Claim 14:
The recitation “along its longitudinal direction of the at least one emission element” (l. 15) is believed to be in error for – along a longitudinal direction of the at least one emission element –.
Regarding Claim 19:
The recitation “one electromatic radiation emitter” (l. 6-7) is believed to be in error for – one electromagnetic radiation emitter –.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 9 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang 2022/0260682 in view of Friedman 2022/0219712.
Regarding Claim 1, Wang teaches a radiant heating device 23 for removing and preventing condensation on an aperture window 44 of a light ranging and detection (LiDAR) system 20, the device 23 comprising ([0012, 0018]; Fig. 3):
at least one electromagnetic radiation emitter 22 emitting electromagnetic radiation of one or more frequencies (two different wavelengths: desired wavelength and undesired wavelength – it is inherent different wavelengths have different frequencies) ([0013, 0023]; Fig. 3),
the at least one electromagnetic radiation emitter 22 is oriented (seen in Fig. 3, arranged near window 44) such that the electromagnetic radiation radiates at least one aperture surface [a] (seen in annotated Fig. 3, below) of the aperture window 44 of the LiDAR system 20,
a portion of the electromagnetic radiation of one or more frequencies (undesired wavelength – inherent one frequency) is absorbed (absorbs the light) by the aperture window 44 of the LiDAR system 20([0013]; Fig. 3);
and the one or more frequencies (undesired wavelength – inherent one frequency) are different from all frequencies (desired wavelength that exits via lens 44 and onto receiving system 34, seen in Fig. 3) of detection light of the LiDAR system 20 ([0013; 0018-19]; Annotated Fig. 3, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
738
493
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: Annotated Fig. 3 of Wang (U.S. 2022/0260682)
Wang does not teach a portion of the electromagnetic radiation of one or more frequencies is absorbed by the aperture window of the LiDAR system and converted to heat.
Friedman teaches similar LiDAR system 400 and
a portion of the electromagnetic radiation (high power radiation) of one or more frequencies (wavelength of light projector 412) is absorbed by the aperture window (absorbed… by window 430) of the LiDAR system 400 and converted to heat (heat window 430) ([0124; 0132; 0135]; Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one electromagnetic radiation emitter 22 of Wang to have a portion of the electromagnetic radiation (high power radiation) of one or more frequencies (wavelength of light projector 412) is absorbed by the aperture window (absorbed… by window 430) of the LiDAR system 400 and converted to heat (heat window 430), as taught by Friedman, in order “to remove, defrost, and/or de-ice one or more substances on the window 430, for example, by heating one or more parts of the window 430” (Friedman [0124]).
Regarding Claim 3, Wang in view of Friedman teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Wang further teaches
the at least one electromagnetic radiation emitter 22 is positioned internal (internal components [emitter 22] are supported by casing 32) to the LiDAR system 20 (emitter 22 is internal to LiDAR system, seen in Fig. 3) ([0016; 0018]; Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 5, Wang in view of Friedman teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Wang further teaches
the at least one electromagnetic radiation emitter 22 is configured such that the electromagnetic radiation radiates toward an aperture surface [a] that is interior of the LiDAR system 20 ([0016; 0018]; Annotated Fig. 3, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
738
493
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: Annotated Fig. 3 of Wang (U.S. 2022/0260682)
Regarding Claim 9, Wang in view of Friedman teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Wang further teaches
the electromagnetic radiation from the at least one electromagnetic radiation emitter 22 includes wavelengths less than or equal to 750 nanometers (“may emit light having a wavelength of between 750 nm and light having a wavelength between 1000-1100 nm … Alternatively, the light emitted by the light emitter 22 may be of any suitable wavelength.”) ([0023]. Wavelength between 750 nm reads as equal to 750 nanometers, as claimed).
Regarding Claim 21, Wang teaches a vehicle 28 comprising a radiant heating device 23 for removing and preventing condensation on an aperture window 44 of a light ranging and detection (LiDAR) system 20, the device 23 comprising ([0012, 0018]; Fig. 3):
at least one electromagnetic radiation emitter 22 emitting electromagnetic radiation of one or more frequencies (two different wavelengths: desired wavelength and undesired wavelength – it is inherent different wavelengths have different frequencies) ([0013, 0023]; Fig. 3),
the at least one electromagnetic radiation emitter 22 is oriented (seen in Fig. 3, arranged near window 44) such that the electromagnetic radiation radiates at least one aperture surface [a] (seen in annotated Fig. 3, below) of the aperture window 44 of the LiDAR system 20,
a portion of the electromagnetic radiation of one or more frequencies (undesired wavelength – inherent one frequency) is absorbed (absorbs the light) by the aperture window 44 of the LiDAR system 20([0013]; Fig. 3);
and the one or more frequencies (undesired wavelength – inherent one frequency) are different from all frequencies (desired wavelength that exits via lens 44 and onto receiving system 34, seen in Fig. 3) of detection light of the LiDAR system 20 ([0013; 0018-19]; Annotated Fig. 3, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
738
493
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: Annotated Fig. 3 of Wang (U.S. 2022/0260682)
Wang does not teach a portion of the electromagnetic radiation of one or more frequencies is absorbed by the aperture window of the LiDAR system and converted to heat.
Friedman teaches similar LiDAR system 400 and
a portion of the electromagnetic radiation (high power radiation) of one or more frequencies (wavelength of light projector 412) is absorbed by the aperture window (absorbed… by window 430) of the LiDAR system 400 and converted to heat (heat window 430) ([0124; 0132; 0135]; Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one electromagnetic radiation emitter 22 of Wang to have a portion of the electromagnetic radiation (high power radiation) of one or more frequencies (wavelength of light projector 412) is absorbed by the aperture window (absorbed… by window 430) of the LiDAR system 400 and converted to heat (heat window 430), as taught by Friedman, for the same reason as discussed in rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Friedman, and further in view of Inbar 6777701.
Regarding Claim 6, Wang in view of Friedman teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1. However, Wang in view of Friedman does not teach each of the at least one electromagnetic radiation emitter includes one or more reflectors configured to reflect at least a portion of the electromagnetic radiation toward the at least one aperture surface of the aperture window.
Inbar teaches
each of the at least one electromagnetic radiation emitter 200 includes one or more reflectors 210 configured to reflect at least a portion of the electromagnetic radiation (“reflects the infrared radiation produced by emitting element 214”) toward the at least one aperture surface (seen in Fig. 5) of the aperture window 218 (Col. 5, ll. 57-65, Col. 6, ll. 7-15; Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the at least one electromagnetic radiation emitter 22 of Wang in view of Friedman to include one or more reflectors 210 configured to reflect at least a portion of the electromagnetic radiation (“reflects the infrared radiation produced by emitting element 214”) toward the at least one aperture surface (seen in Fig. 5) of the aperture window 218, as taught by Inbar, in order to emit light from the emitter through the window in predetermined directions (Inbar Col. 5, l. 57-Col. 6, l. 4)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Friedman, and further in view of Nauen 2021/0011129.
Regarding Claim 8, Wang in view of Friedman teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1. However, Wang in view of Friedman does not teach the electromagnetic radiation from the at least one electromagnetic radiation emitter includes wavelengths greater than or equal to 2 mm.
Nauen teaches
the electromagnetic radiation from the at least one electromagnetic radiation emitter 28, 30 includes wavelengths (longer wavelengths) greater than or equal to 2 mm (5600 or 8100 nanometers [5.6 mm or 8.1mm]) ([0026; 0039]; Figs. 2-3. 1mm = 1000 nanometers; Therefore 5600 or 8100 nm is 5.6 mm or 8.1mm and reads on the claim.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one electromagnetic radiation emitter 22 of Wang in view of Friedman to emit electromagnetic radiation of wavelengths that are greater than or equal to 2 mm (5600 or 8100 nanometers [5.6 mm or 8.1mm]), as taught by Nauen, because it is known in the art to for emitters to emit light pulses with longer wavelengths such as 5600 or 8100 nanometers (Nauen [0026]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Friedman, and further in view of Bates 9110154.
Regarding Claim 10, Wang in view of Friedman teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Wang further teaches
the at least one electromagnetic radiation emitter 22 comprises a laser diode ([0022]).
Wang in view of Friedman does not teach the at least one electromagnetic radiation emitter comprises at least one of a quartz infrared bulb, a ceramic infrared emitter, a light emitting diode, and a UV bulb.
Bates teaches that laser diode can mean light diode (Col. 4, l. 56-Col. 5, l. 10; Fig. 2. Light diode reads as the “a light emitting diode” that is claimed.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one electromagnetic radiation emitter 22 of Wang in view of Friedman to comprise at least one a light emitting diode, as taught by Bates, because laser diode and light diode are well-known alternatives of electromagnetic radiation emitters (Bates Col. 5, ll. 8-10).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
34. Prior art does not teach or fairly suggest, either by itself or in combination with other prior art, and in combination with the other limitations of the dependent claims 2, 4, and 7, the following recitations:
Claim 2: recitation, “the at least one electromagnetic radiation emitter is positioned external to the LiDAR system.”
Claim 4: recitation, “the at least one electromagnetic radiation emitter is configured such that the electromagnetic radiation radiates toward an aperture surface that is exterior of the LiDAR system”
Claim 7: recitation, “at least one of the one or more reflectors is directly contacting the aperture window to transfer heat by conduction to the aperture window.”
35. Support for the above recitations is disclosed in the specification, [00121, 00126] and Figs. 7B-7D.
Closet prior art of Rockwell 8796627 teaches an apparatus 30 having emitter 10 arranged in a building and is mounted via angled attachment 12. However, Rockwell doesn’t teach recitations cited above.
Prior art of Wang, Friedman, Inbar, Nauen, Bates, and Rockwell does not teach or fairly suggest, either by itself or in combination with other prior art, and in combination with the other limitations of the dependent claims 2, 4, and 7, the recitations cited above.
Claims 11-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Prior art of Wang, Friedman, Inbar, Nauen, Bates, and Rockwell does not teach or fairly suggest, either by itself or in combination with other prior art, and in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim 11, the recitation “one or more supporting arms coupled to the housing of the LiDAR system, the supporting arms being positioned proximate to the aperture window; at least one electromagnetic radiation emitter coupled to the one or more supporting arms or a portion of the housing;” disclosed in the specification, [0042; 00117-118] and Fig. 7B.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACEK LISOWSKI whose telephone number is (408) 918-7635. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 10 am - 6 pm PST.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached on (571) 270-5426. 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.
/JACEK LISOWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights