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
Claims 1-15 and 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention and non-elected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/14/2026.
It is noted that claims 18-20 are further included as being withdrawn from consideration as the claims 18-20 read on the non-elected species which relates to orthogonal laser beams which is distinct from the elected species having interleaved laser beams. It is also noted that claims 30-33 are withdrawn from the restriction requirement and have been included in the examination consideration.
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention II with Specie 2 in the reply filed on 7/14/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious burden for search and/or examination because all the claims are clearly related wherein any slight subclassification difference presents no undue burden to the examiner and there would be unlikely additional search. This is not found persuasive because the application discloses various laser beam transmissions including interleaved laser beams or orthogonal laser beams which are distinct wherein such distinct beam transmissions are related to the deicing laser beam and the sensor laser beam rendering each of the inventions distinct although the inventions are related.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 16, 21-24 and 26-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asahara et al (US 2012/0182544) in view of Seubert et al (US 2018/0208028).
Asahara discloses the laser sensor system (10) claimed including a laser beam generator (1) in an aerospace vehicle to transmit laser beams, a detector system (shown by a light receiver 5; para 0025) to detect a backscatter light received in response to the transmitted laser beams wherein the laser beam generator transmits a sensor laser beam (the transmitted laser beam) through a laser sensor window (42; para 0037). But, Asahara does not show a control that controls the laser beam generator to transmit a deicing laser beam into the laser sensor window wherein the deicing laser beam has properties that remove ice from the laser sensor window.
Seubert discloses it is known to provide a laser sensor system having a computer (110; para 0030) as a controller that controls the laser sensor system to transmit a deicing laser (electromagnetic) beam from a laser beam generator (230) wherein the deicing laser beam has properties (e.g., wavelength of 700 nm; para 0029) to remove or defrost a sensor window (220; para 0023 and 0035). Seubert also discloses transmitting a sensor laser beam that is known to detect objects that are outside of the sensor windows (also, see para 0001).
In view of Seubert, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Asahara with a controller to control the laser beam generator to transmit a deicing laser beam from the laser beam generator to defrost or remove ice/frost from the laser sensor window to clear the window so that the sensor laser beam from the laser bean generator can more freely without obstruction to pass through the laser sensor window.
With respect to claim 21, Seubert discloses for transmitting the deicing laser beam for defrost the laser sensor window wherein the deicing laser beam would travel within the laser sensor window so that heat is generated within the window for heating or defrosting any frost/ice on the sensor window.
With respect to claim 22, Seubert discloses for the deicing laser beam that is transmitted at an angle into a surface of the laser sensor window as the laser beam generator is facing the sensor window.
With respect to claims 23 and 24, Asahara in view of Seubert discloses for the laser beam generator that transmits an infrared region (1550 nm; para 0040 of Asahara) or that the laser wavelength of 775 nm or 516 nm can be included (also, para 0040 of Asahara) wherein the wavelength of 775 nm can be used for deicing the sensor window as Seubert discloses the deicing laser wavelength of 700 nm which is in the similar infrared range for deicing, and as Asahara discloses for the detector system that is configured to determine attributes of the backscatter light including detecting ice crystal in the atmosphere in response to transmitting the laser beam that can be in the range of 775 nm, the detector system of Asahara is capable of determining whether the ice is present as the backscatter light attributes are determined which are also indicative of ice crystal in the atmosphere, and it would have been obvious to control the laser beam generator to halt transmitting the deicing laser beam in the deicing infrared range if ice or icy crystals are absent on the laser sensor window as there is no reason to transmit the deicing laser beam to remove the ice.
With respect to claim 26, Asahara discloses that the backscatter light is used to determine ice crystals that is known to have its associated properties including its crystal structure or shape (para 0026 and 0027),
With respect to claims 27-29, Seubert disclose for the properties of the deicing laser beam that is selected (e.g., increasing its laser beam intensity as well as having a wavelength of 700 nm; also, see para 0023 and 0029) to defrost or melt the ice/frost, and the laser wavelength of 700 nm would be the infrared wavelength which is disclosed as being safe for eye (see para 0058 on page 14 of the Applicant’s specification).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17 and 25 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.
Claims 30-33 are allowed over the prior art of record as the claims 30 and 32 include an allowable subject matter of “transmitting the deicing laser beam from the laser beam generator into the laser sensor window in response to determining that the ice present on the laser sensor window in an insufficient amount to degrade performance in using the sensor laser beam to detect a set of parameters for the aerospace vehicle, wherein the deicing laser beam has second properties that generate the backscatter light for detecting chemical elements in the atmosphere”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shah et al (US 10,845,480) and Goodwill (US 2019/0391271) disclose for a laser beam generator that is known to provide interleaved laser beams for scanning.
Bosetti et al (US 2018/0321386) and Brown (US 9,116,243) disclose an Lidar sensor for an ice detection system.
Kim et al (US 2019/0353762) and Rondeau et al (US 2015/0346328) disclose for an Lidar sensor coupled with a heating system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG Y PAIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4783. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30; M-F.
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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/SANG Y PAIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights