DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant cancelled Claims 5-6 and 18.
Applicant has amended Claims 1, 7, 10, 15, 17 and 19.
Applicant has added new Claims 21-23.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous grounds of rejection. However, new grounds of rejection are being applied based on new primary reference Kim (US20180267168).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 7 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US20180267168) in view of FlowDry (see Line U from List of References Cited by Examiner posted 4/20/26).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim teaches a sensor assembly comprising:
a rotatable mount (rotary PCB 220, see FIG. 4);
transmitter components (light-emitting source 232 of distance measuring unit 230, see FIGS. 5 & 9) and receiver components (receiving sensor 237) supported by the rotatable mount (220) so as to rotate with the rotatable mount;
a motor (140) configured to rotate the rotatable mount by rotating a shaft (240) connected to the rotatable mount (the side view shown in FIG. 4 shows shaft 240 extending through and engaging rotary PCB 220, the perspective view in FIG. 4 also shows the circular openings allowing shaft 240 to extend through and engage rotary PCB 220);
a bearing configured to support the shaft (a base of motor 140 supports shaft 240); and
PNG
media_image1.png
520
465
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a contaminant trap (formed by the rectangular lower housing component labeled below in marked up FIG. 4 using dashed lines) between the bearing and each of the transmitter components (220) and the receiver components (222) (FIG. 4 shows how an upper portion of the lower housing component separates the lower portion of motor 140 including the bearing from sensors located within the cap or cover protecting distance measuring unit 230, see [0041]), the contaminant trap (140) to the transmitter components and the receiver components wherein the contaminant trap defines a center aperture through which the shaft extends beyond an outer surface of the contaminant trap, the contaminant trap extends around the shaft (FIG. 4 shows shaft 240 extending through a central opening in the contaminant trap and outside the containment trap).
Kim does not teach the incorporation of a vapor trapping material as indicated by the stricken out claim limitations above. However, FlowDry teaches a contaminant trap including an outer porous material defining a housing including sorbent material (see discussion on page 3 describing how PolySorb material can form an inner layer of the enclosure itself, thereby forming a housing).
FlowDry specifically discusses the application of PolySorb to LIDAR configurations and Kim discusses multiple different LIDAR configurations. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the configuration of Kim to incorporate PolySorb material within its rectangular base housing by applying it to an interior surface of the rectangular base housing as suggested on page 3 of FlowDry.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Kim and FlowDry teaches the sensor assembly of claim 1, wherein the transmitter components include at least one of a light beam transmitter, a mirror, and a lens ([0089] of Kim describes the use of a collimator lens 233 with light-emitting source 232).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Kim and FlowDry teaches the sensor assembly of claim 1, wherein the receiver components include at least one of a receiver, a mirror, and a lens ([0090] of Kim describes the use of a light receiving sensor 237 including a plurality of cells & FIG. 9 shows the light receiving unit including receiving lens 235).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Kim and FlowDry teaches the sensor assembly of claim 1, wherein the sensor assembly is configured as a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) sensor (distance measuring unit 230).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Kim and FlowDry teaches the sensor assembly of claim 1, wherein the contaminant trap includes at least one of activated carbon, alumina, polyurethane, polyethylene, polypropylene, and a graphitic material (FlowDry describes PolySorb as being injection-molded and although its composition is customized for particular use cases it would include a polymer base made of one of polyethylene, polypropylene or polyurethane).
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Kim and FlowDry teaches the sensor assembly of claim 1, wherein the contaminant trap is a single piece (the combination of Kim with FlowDry results in the lower housing of Kim including an inner layer formed of PolySorb and in this combination would form a single piece contaminant trap).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kim (US20180267168) in view of FlowDry (see Line U from List of References Cited by Examiner posted 4/20/26), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Gilbertson (US20210263133).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Kim and FlowDry teaches the sensor assembly of claim 1, further comprising: a window (cap 250 as described in [0048] does not rotate with rotary PCB 220), the rotatable mount is seated behind the window (FIG. 4, see cross-sectional view showing rotary PCB 220 seated behind cap 250 {erroneously labeled 240}); but fails to teach the remainder of claim 8.
However, Gilbertson teaches a cleaning member (wiper 380, see FIG. 5) mounted to an outer surface of the rotatable mount and in contact with an inner surface of the window such that as the rotatable mount rotates the cleaning member slides along the inner surface of the window to clean the window ([0049] of Gilbertson describes how rotation of the internal sensor components relative to the housing causes the wiper to remove debris from the sensor input surface, i.e. sensor input surface 330, described in [0035] of Gilbertson as a “window” allowing the sensor to transmit or receive signals).
Gilbertson and the combination of Kim and FlowDry are both directed to spinning lidar equipped vehicles. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the LiDAR of Kim to include at least one of wipers 680 on rotary PCB 220 of Kim so that, as described in Gilbertson, rotation of internal sensor components causes the wiper to remove debris from window 210. The person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to do this in light of the issue identified in [0002] of Gilbertson, which describes issues with the interior of a lidar housing becoming dirty to a level where sensor readings are blocked.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Yun and Gilbertson teaches the sensor assembly of claim 8, wherein the cleaning member includes a cleaning pad ([0043] of Gilbertson teaches that wiper blade 382 can take the form of rubber, plastic, or a solid or sponge-like foam or fabric that is analogous to a pad) configured to remove build-up on the inner surface of contaminants released from the bearing.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US20180267168) in view of FlowDry (see Line U from List of References Cited by Examiner posted 4/20/26) and Pacala (US20200025879).
Regarding Claim 10, Kim teaches a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) sensor assembly (230) comprising:
a window (cap 250);
a rotatable mount (rotary PCB 220, see FIG. 4) configured to rotate behind the window (see FIG. 4 showing 220 behind cap 250);
(collimator lens 233) supported by the rotatable mount (220);
a motor (140) configured to rotate the rotatable mount (220) by rotating a shaft (240) connected to the rotatable mount;
a bearing (motor 140 has a rotating shaft 240, which would include a bearing) configured to support the shaft (240); and
a contaminant trap (formed by the lower rectangular housing shown in marked up FIG. 4 above) between the bearing and each of the transmitter components and the receiver components, least one of the mirror and the lens, wherein the contaminant trap defines a center aperture through which the shaft extends beyond an outer surface of the contaminant trap. Kim does not specifically teach that the sensor assembly mounted to circuit board 206 includes a mirror.
However, Pacala teaches a LIDAR module utilizing a mirror ([0076] of Pacala describes the use of a MEMS oscillating mirror to help effectuate a scan pattern).
Pacala and the combination of Kim and FlowDry are both directed to spinning LIDAR configurations in which a LIDAR module is mounted atop a spinning circuit board. Given that Kim is silent as to what specific scanning mechanism would be used to achieve vertical scanning of the laser, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the LIDAR design taught by Kim with the oscillating MEMS mirror taught by Pacala to achieve fast oscillation in the vertical axis as rotation of the circuit board enables horizontal sweeping of the laser.
The combination of Kim and Pacala fails to teach the material details of the contaminant trap as indicated by the strikethrough text. However, FlowDry teaches a contaminant trap including an outer porous material defining a housing including sorbent material (see discussion on page 3 describing how PolySorb material can form an inner layer of the enclosure itself, thereby forming a housing).
FlowDry specifically discusses the application of PolySorb to LIDAR configurations and the combination of Kim and Pacala is directed to a LIDAR configuration. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the configuration of Kim to incorporate PolySorb material within its rectangular base housing by applying it to an interior surface of the rectangular base housing as suggested on page 3 of FlowDry.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Yun and Pacala teaches the LiDAR sensor assembly of claim 10, further comprising a light transmitter and a light receiver mounted to the rotatable mount (Kim describes distance measurement unit 230 including an emitting source 222 and a light receiving sensor 237 mounted to rotary PCB 220, see FIGS. 4 & 9).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Yun and Pacala teaches the LiDAR sensor assembly of claim 10, wherein the contaminant trap includes a sorbent material configured to trap vapor released from lubricant included with the bearing, the sorbent material including at least one of: activated carbon, alumina, polyurethane, polyethylene, polypropylene, and a graphitic material (FlowDry describes PolySorb as being injection-molded and although its composition is customized for particular use cases it would include a polymer base made of one of polyethylene, polypropylene or polyurethane).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kim (US20180267168) in view of FlowDry (see Line U from List of References Cited by Examiner posted 4/20/26) and Pacala (US20200025879), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Gilbertson (US20210263133).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Kim, Pacala and FlowDry teaches LiDAR sensor assembly of claim 10, but the combination fails to teach the LIDAR sensor assembly further comprising:
a cleaning member mounted to an outer surface of the rotatable mount and in contact with an inner surface of the window such that as the rotatable mount rotates the cleaning member slides along the inner surface of the window to clean the window.
However, Gilbertson teaches a cleaning member (wiper 380, see FIG. 5) mounted to an outer surface of the rotatable mount and in contact with an inner surface of the window such that as the rotatable mount rotates the cleaning member slides along the inner surface of the window to clean the window ([0049] describes how rotation of the internal sensor components relative to the housing causes the wiper to remove debris from the sensor input surface, i.e. sensor input surface 330, described in [0035] as a “window” allowing the sensor to transmit or receive signals).
Gilbertson and the combination of Kim, Pacala and FlowDry are both directed to spinning lidar equipped vehicles. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the LiDAR of the combination of Kim, Pacala and FlowDry to include at least one of wipers 680 on rotary PCB 220 of Kim so that, as described in Gilbertson, rotation of internal sensor components causes the wiper to remove debris from window 210. The person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to do this in light of the issue identified in [0002] of Gilbertson, which describes issues with the interior of a lidar housing becoming dirty to a level where sensor readings are blocked.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Kim, Pacala, FlowDry and Gilbertson teaches the LiDAR sensor assembly of claim 13, wherein the cleaning member includes a cleaning pad ([0043] of Gilbertson teaches that wiper blade 382 can take the form of rubber, plastic, or a solid or sponge-like foam or fabric that is analogous to a pad) configured remove build-up on the inner surface of contaminants released from the bearing.
Claims 15-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kim (US20180267168) in view of FlowDry (see Line U from List of References Cited by Examiner posted 4/20/26), Pacala (US20200025879), and Gilbertson (US20210263133).
Regarding Claim 15, Kim teaches a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) sensor assembly comprising:
a window (cap 250);
a rotatable mount (rotary PCB 220, see FIG. 4) configured to rotate behind the window (see FIGS. 3 & 4 showing distance measuring unit 230 behind cap 250);
(collimator lens 233 & light-receiving lens 235) mounted to the rotatable mount;
a motor (140) configured to rotate the rotatable mount (220) by rotating a shaft (shaft 240) connected to the rotatable mount;
a bearing (bearing of motor 140 as shown in FIG. 4) configured to support the shaft
a contaminant trap (see lower housing as indicated in marked up FIG. 4 above) extending around the shaft and defining a center aperture through which the shaft extends beyond an outer surface of the contaminant trap,
Kim fails to teach the stricken through portions of Claim 15 shown above. However, Pacala teaches a LIDAR module utilizing a mirror ([0076] of Pacala describes the use of a MEMS oscillating mirror to help effectuate a scan pattern).
Kim and Pacala are both directed to spinning LIDAR configurations in which a LIDAR module is mounted atop a spinning circuit board. Given that Kim is silent as to what specific scanning mechanism would be used to achieve vertical scanning of the laser, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the LIDAR design taught by Yun with the oscillating MEMS mirror taught by Pacala to achieve fast oscillation in the vertical axis as rotation of the circuit board enables horizontal sweeping of the laser.
Gilbertson teaches a cleaning member (wiper 380, see FIG. 5) mounted to an outer surface of the rotatable mount and in contact with an inner surface of the window such that as the rotatable mount rotates the cleaning member slides along the inner surface of the window to clean the window ([0049] describes how rotation of the internal sensor components relative to the housing causes the wiper to remove debris from the sensor input surface, i.e. sensor input surface 330, described in [0035] as a “window” allowing the sensor to transmit or receive signals).
Gilbertson and the combination of Kim and Pacala are both directed to spinning lidar equipped vehicles. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the LiDAR of the combination of Yun and Pacala to include at least one of wipers 680 on second circuit board 206 of Yun so that, as described in Gilbertson, rotation of internal sensor components causes the wiper to remove debris from the interior facing surface of window 210. The person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to make this combination in light of the issue identified in [0002] of Gilbertson, which cites issues with the interior of a lidar housing becoming dirty to a level where sensor readings are blocked.
FlowDry teaches a contaminant trap including an outer porous material defining a housing including sorbent material (see discussion on page 3 describing how PolySorb material can form an inner layer of the enclosure itself, thereby forming a housing).
FlowDry specifically discusses the application of PolySorb to LIDAR configurations and the combination of Kim, Pacala and Gilbertson teaches a LIDAR configurations. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the configuration of the combination of Kim, Pacala and Gilbertson to incorporate PolySorb material within the rectangular base housing of Kim by applying it to an interior surface of the rectangular base housing as suggested on page 3 of FlowDry.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Kim, Pacala, Gilbertson and FlowDry teaches the LiDAR sensor assembly of claim 15, wherein the cleaning member includes at least one of a pad, a cloth, and a sponge ([0043] of Gilbertson teaches that wiper blade 382 can take the form of rubber, plastic, or a solid or sponge-like foam or fabric) configured to remove build-up on the inner surface of the window of contaminants released from the bearing.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Kim, Pacala, Gilbertson and FlowDry teaches the LiDAR sensor assembly of claim 15, wherein the contaminant trap is configured to capture contaminants released from the bearing to restrict passage of the contaminants from the bearing to at least one of the mirror and the lens (the lower housing of Kim as modified by FlowDry as articulated in the rejection of Claim 15 is configured to capture any contaminants released from the bearing and would also restrict passage of the contaminants to the mirror and lens).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Kim, Pacala, Gilbertson and FlowDry teaches the LiDAR sensor assembly of claim 18, wherein the sorbent material includes at least one of: activated carbon, alumina, polyurethane, polyethylene, polypropylene, and a graphitic material (FlowDry describes PolySorb as being injection-molded and although its composition is customized for particular use cases it would include a polymer base made of one of polyethylene, polypropylene or polyurethane).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Kim, Pacala, Gilbertson and FlowDry teaches the LiDAR sensor assembly of claim 17, further comprising a light transmitter and a light receiver mounted to the rotatable mount (Kim describes distance measurement unit 230 including light-emitting unit 231 and light-receiving unit 234, mounted on rotary PCB 220 as shown in FIGS. 3 and 4).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kim (US20180267168) in view of FlowDry (see Line U from List of References Cited by Examiner posted 4/20/26), as applied to claim 1 in view of Wiechert (US20210126512).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Kim and FlowDry teaches the sensor assembly of claim 1, but the combination does not teach wherein the rotatable mount includes a chamber.
However, Wiechert teaches wherein a rotatable mount includes a chamber (see rotatable holder 6 having an inner circumference 10 and rotor 20 defining a chamber in which a position sensor 14 is disposed).
Wiechert and the combination of Kim and FlowDry both describe circular rotating mounts for supporting sensors. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to incorporate a chamber into the rotating mount from the combination of Kim and FlowDry to help accommodate / make room for a sensor, such as position sensor 14.
Examiner notes that rejecting this claim with Wiechert might not be possible if Claim 21 further specified how the chamber extends around the transmitter and/or sensor as shown in FIGS. 2 and 3 of the instant application. The rejection would become more problematic as the configuration of the combination of Kim and FlowDry requires outer visibility of the surroundings for the transmitter and sensor to work properly and fitting optical components within a recessed central chamber such as the one shown in FIG. 1 of Wiechert would tend to block exterior visibility.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kim (US20180267168) in view of FlowDry (see Line U from List of References Cited by Examiner posted 4/20/26) and Pacala (US20200025879), as applied to claim 10 above, further in view of Wiechert (US20210126512).
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of the combination of Kim, Pacala and FlowDry teaches the LiDAR sensor assembly of claim 10, wherein:
the contaminant trap is a unibody structure (the combination of Kim with FlowDry results in the lower housing of Kim including an inner layer formed of PolySorb and in this combination would form a single piece or unibody contaminant trap).
However, Wiechert teaches wherein a rotatable mount includes a chamber (see rotatable holder 6 having an inner circumference 10 and rotor 20 defining a chamber in which a position sensor 14 is disposed).
Wiechert and the combination of Kim, Pacala and FlowDry both describe circular rotating mounts for supporting sensors. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to incorporate a chamber into the rotating mount from the combination of Kim and FlowDry to help accommodate / make room for a sensor, such as position sensor 14.
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 BENJAMIN WIGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-4208. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 7:00pm.
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.
/BENJAMIN DAVID WIGGER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/JAMES R HULKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
