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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 8/03/2026 with respect to the 103 rejections and Astron, 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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).
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Guo does not teach an obstruction sensor, as Guo only detects far field objects.
Examiner disagrees. Guo was only brought in to teach two sensors, and Astron teaches a specific obstruction sensor. Although Astron is not used in the current office action, Guo is, so this argument still applies.
Applicant argues Claims 11 and 12 add limitations as they add the obstruction and object related sensor.
Examiner disagrees. Claim 1 already recites “an obstruction sensor” and “an object related sensor”. Thus, nothing new is added in Claims 11 and 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 already teaches an obstruction sensor and object related sensor, and thus Claims 11 and 12 do not add any limitations.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 10-14, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by McWhirter (US 20180284268 A1).
Claim 1: McWhirter teaches a LIDAR system for detecting an obstruction on a window that is associated with the LIDAR system, the LIDAR system comprising:
at least one processor configured to detect, based on detection signals generated by an obstruction sensor of the LIDAR system, an obstruction that at least partially obstructs a passage of light through the window ([0139] - detecting moisture on window)
wherein the obstruction sensor differs from an object related sensor of the LIDAR system that is configured to detect of one or more objects within a field of view (FOV) of the LIDAR system ([0023]).
Claim 10: McWhirter teaches the LIDAR system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to detect the obstruction also based on illumination information indicative of portions of the window that were illuminated, at different points in time, by light transmitted by the LIDAR system during an objects detection period of time (Fig. 13, step 804 - number of blocked FOVs).
Claim 11: McWhirter teaches the LIDAR system according to claim 1, comprising the obstruction sensor ([0139]).
Claim 12: McWhirter teaches the LIDAR system according to claim 11, comprising the object related sensor of the LIDAR system ([0023]).
Claim 13: McWhirter teaches the LIDAR system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to detect the obstruction by comparing between reference clean window detection signals of the obstruction sensor to the detection signals generated by the obstruction sensor (Fig. 14, step 810 - comparing threshold of 'clean' window).
Claim 14: McWhirter teaches the LIDAR system according to claim 13, wherein the comparing is a threshold based comparison (Fig. 14, step 810).
Claim 17: McWhirter teaches the LIDAR system according to claim 1, at least one processor configured to detect the obstruction based on the detection signals generated by the obstruction sensor and based on the detection signals generated by the object related sensor ([0040], [0117] - processor).
Claim 19: Claim 19 is a method claim corresponding to Claim 1, thus, see rejection above.
Claim 20: McWhirter teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium for detecting an obstruction formed on a window associated with a LIDAR system, the non-transitory computer readable medium stores instructions that once executed by at least one processor that is associated with the LIDAR system, cause the at least one processor to:
receive detection signals generated by an obstruction sensor of the LIDAR system; wherein the obstruction sensor differs from an object related sensor of the LIDAR system that is configured to detect of one or more objects within a field of view (FOV) of the LIDAR system ([0139]),
and detect the obstruction based on the detection signals generated by an obstruction sensor of the LIDAR system ([0139]),
wherein the obstruction at least partially obstructs a passage of light through the window ([0023]).
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 2-4, 6, 7, 9, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McWhirter in view of Guo (US 20230258806 A1).
Claim 2: McWhirter teaches the LIDAR system according to claim 1. McWhirter does not teach, but Guo does teach, wherein the at least one processor is configured to detect the obstruction while ignoring detection signals generated by the object related sensor (Fig. 4, step S418 - detection at different times).
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 timing, as taught by Guo, in the system as taught by McWhirter, specifically making the object and obstruction sensors of McWhirter fire at different times, because this would remove interference between the two systems and reduce noise.
Claim 3: McWhirter teaches the LiDAR system according to Claim 1. McWhirter does not teach, but Guo does teach, (i) receive the detection signals generated by the obstruction sensor during one or more obstruction detection periods of time, and (ii) receive detection signals generated by the object related sensor during one or more objects detection periods of time,
wherein the one or more obstruction detection periods of time do not overlap the one or more objects detection periods of time (Fig. 4, steps S414 and S416, [0061]-[0062], where step S414 can be performed prior to step S416).
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 scanning at different times, as taught by Guo, in the system as taught by McWhirter, because this would allow for better differentiation between the two measurements, as only one is done at once.
Claim 4: McWhirter teaches the LiDAR system according to Claim 1. McWhirter does not teach, but Guo does teach, wherein a resolution of the obstruction sensor is smaller than an area of the window that is instantaneously illuminated by a transmission of light by the LIDAR system during an objects detection period of time (Fig. 1, FOVs 112a and 112b).
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 different FOVs, as taught by Guo, in the system as taught by McWhirter – and specifically the smaller FOV as the obstruction sensor, because this would limit the data the processor needs to sort through to detect an obstruction to only the area most affected by obstruction, thus reducing processing power.
Claim 6: McWhirter teaches the LiDAR system according to Claim 1. McWhirter does not teach, but Guo does teach, wherein the detection signals generated by an obstruction sensor of the LIDAR system resulted from an illumination of the window by one or more obstruction illumination sources that differ from one or more objects related illumination sources configured to transmit light in relation to the detection of the one or more objects (Fig. 1, separate laser sources 106a and 106b).
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 different illumination sources as taught by Guo, in the system as taught by McWhirter, because this would allow for better differentiation between the two measurements, as aspects of the light can be different, such as wavelength, to differentiate them.
Claim 7: McWhirter, as modified, teaches the LIDAR system according to claim 6, wherein the one or more obstruction illumination sources are multiple obstruction illumination sources that are configured to illuminate different areas of the window (Fig. 14, step 804 - implies different FOVs are illuminated).
Claim 9: McWhirter, as modified, teaches the LIDAR system according to claim 6, wherein the one or more obstruction illumination source comprise a total immersion reflection (TIR) illumination (Fig. 5, along with definition of TIR in application specification - [0108]).
Claim 21: McWhirter teaches the LiDAR system according to Claim 1. McWhirter does not teach, but Guo does teach, wherein the obstruction sensor is located outside an optical path of the object related sensor (Fig. 1A, showing different optical paths of light beams 111a, 111b).
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 different light paths as taught by Guo, in the system as taught by McWhirter, because this would reduce interference between the light to the object and obstruction sensors, thus reducing noise.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McWhirter in view of Kao (US 20110304842 A1).
Claim 5: McWhirter teaches the LiDAR system according to Claim 1. McWhirter does not teach, but Kao does teach, wherein the obstruction sensor exhibits an adjustable exposure period ([0019]).
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 adjustable exposure period, as taught by Kao, in the system as taught by McWhirter, because this allows for objects at a farther distance to be better measured, as well as reducing power requirements for near objects (See Kao [0004]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McWhirter in view of Guo, further in view of Smith (US 20200150238 A1).
Claim 8: McWhirter, as modified, teaches the LIDAR system according to claim 6. McWhirter, as modified, does not teach, but Smith does teach, wherein the one or more obstruction illumination sources are multiple obstruction illumination sources that are configured to generate illumination beams that differ from each other by at least one parameter out of wavelength and size ([0006] – each sensor has a light source with a different wavelength).
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 different wavelengths, as taught by Smith, in the system as taught by McWhirter, as modified, because this minimizes interference between the two sensors (Smith, abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15, 16, and 18 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:
Regarding Claim 15: Claim 15 recites a distance between a DOF far limit and window is 15 cm or less. This was not found in prior art.
Regarding Claim 18: Claim 18 recites a sensor triggered when ambient light reaches or is above a threshold. All prior art found teaches away from this limitation (i.e.: teaching how not to capture ambient light when it is above a threshold).
Claim 16 is dependent on Claim 15, and thus would be allowed due to dependency.
Conclusion
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
/MARK HELLNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights