CTNF 18/374,422 CTNF 101513 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. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by US20220291351 (hereinafter Yun) . Regarding Claim 1, Yun teaches a sensor assembly comprising: a rotatable mount (second circuit board 206, see FIG. 2) ; transmitter components (light emitting window 220, see FIG. 2) and receiver components (reception window 222) supported by the rotatable mount (second circuit board 206) so as to rotate with the rotatable mount; a motor (208) configured to rotate the rotatable mount by rotating a shaft ([0057] describes a shaft disposed within fourth cylinder 606 & see shaft A in marked up FIG. 3 below) connected to the rotatable mount; a bearing (bearing B) configured to support the shaft; and a contaminant trap (formed by concentric cylinders 600, 602, 604 and 606 and second circuit board 206, see FIGS. 3 and 6) between the bearing (bearing B) and each of the transmitter components (220) and the receiver components (222) , the contaminant trap configured to capture contaminants to restrict passage of contaminants from the bearing (B) to the transmitter components and the receiver components (LiDAR module 200) . PNG media_image1.png 350 544 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 2, Yun 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 (light emitting window 220 & laser, see [0024]). Regarding Claim 3 , Yun teaches the sensor assembly of claim 1, wherein the receiver components include at least one of a receiver, a mirror, and a lens (reception window 222 & internal light reception unit, see [0024]). Regarding Claim 4, Yun teaches the sensor assembly of claim 1, wherein the sensor assembly is configured as a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) sensor (LIDAR module 200) . Regarding Claim 5, Yun teaches the sensor assembly of claim 1, wherein the contaminant trap extends around the shaft ([0057] describes a shaft disposed within fourth cylinder 606 & see shaft A in marked up FIG. 3 above) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun in view of FlowDry (see Notice of References Cited, NPL Section, Line U for full citation) . Regarding Claim 6, Yun teaches the sensor assembly of claim 5, however Yun fails to teach wherein the contaminant trap includes a sorbent material configured to trap vapor released from lubricant included with the bearing. However, FlowDry teaches wherein the contaminant trap includes a sorbent material configured to trap vapor released from lubricant included with the bearing (see discussion on page 3 describing how PolySorb material can be molded to fit inside a LIDAR sensor package and is critical for protecting sensor assemblies from moisture) . Yun and FlowDry both describe LIDAR implementations. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to replace a component of the LIDAR configuration taught by Yun with a component made of PolySorb in order to protect the LIDAR sensors from being damaged by moisture as described in FlowDry. The replaced component would be cylinder 606 as this would maximize the amount of absorbent material in close proximity to the shaft and bearing supporting the shaft, allowing for more rapid absorption of any vaporized material in the bearing. Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Yun and FlowDry teaches the sensor assembly of claim 5, 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) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun in view of US20210263133 (hereinafter Gilbertson) . Regarding Claim 8, Yun teaches the sensor assembly of claim 1, further comprising: a window (window 210, see FIG. 2) , the rotatable mount is seated behind the window; 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] 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) . Yun and Gilbertson 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 Yun 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 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 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun in view of US20200025879 (hereinafter Pacala) . Regarding Claim 10, Yun teaches a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) sensor assembly (200) comprising: a window (window 210) ; a rotatable mount (second circuit board 206, see FIG. 2) configured to rotate behind the window (see FIG. 1 showing 206 behind window 210) ; a mirror and a lens (220, 222) supported by the rotatable mount (206) ; a motor (208) configured to rotate the rotatable mount (206) by rotating a shaft (shaft A as shown in marked up FIG. 3 above) connected to the rotatable mount; a bearing (bearing B as shown in marked up FIG. 3 above) configured to support the shaft; and a contaminant trap (formed by concentric cylinders 600, 602, 604 and 606 and second circuit board 206, see FIGS. 3 and 6) extending around the shaft between the bearing and the rotatable mount, the contaminant trap 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. Yun does not specifically teach that the sensor assembly mounted to circuit board 206 include 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). Yun and Pacala are both directed to spinning LIDAR configurations in which a LIDAR module is mounted atop a spinning circuit board. Given that Yun 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. 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 (Yun describes LIDAR module 200 including light emitting window 220, reception window 222, internal light reception window & laser, see [0024] and FIG. 2 showing LiDAR 200 mounted to second circuit board 206) . 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 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 13-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun in view of Pacala and further in view of US20210263133 (hereinafter Gilbertson) . Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Yun and Pacala 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 Yun 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 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 Yun, Pacala 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. Regarding Claim 15, Yun teaches a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) sensor assembly comprising: a window (window 210) ; a rotatable mount (second circuit board 206, see FIG. 2) configured to rotate behind the window (see FIG. 1 showing 206 behind window 210) ; a mirror and a lens mounted to the rotatable mount; a motor (208) configured to rotate the rotatable mount (206) by rotating a shaft (shaft A as shown in marked up FIG. 3 above) connected to the rotatable mount; a bearing (bearing B as shown in marked up FIG. 3 above) configured to support the shaft ; and 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. Yun 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). Yun and Pacala are both directed to spinning LIDAR configurations in which a LIDAR module is mounted atop a spinning circuit board. Given that Yun 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 Yun 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. Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Yun, Pacala and Gilbertson 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 Yun, Pacala and Gilbertson teaches the LiDAR sensor assembly of claim 15, further comprising a contaminant trap (formed by concentric cylinders 600, 602, 604 and 606 and second circuit board 206, see FIGS. 3 and 6 of Yun) extending around the shaft between the bearing and the rotatable mount, the contaminant trap 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. Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Yun, Pacala and Gilbertson teaches the LiDAR sensor assembly of claim 17, further comprising a light transmitter and a light receiver mounted to the rotatable mount (Yun describes LIDAR module 200 including light emitting window 220, reception window 222, internal light reception window & laser, see [0024] and FIG. 2 showing LiDAR 200 mounted to second circuit board 206) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun in view of Pacala and further in view of Gilbertson as applied to claim 17 and further in view of FlowDry (see Notice of References Cited, NPL Section, Line U for full citation) . Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Yun, Pacala and Gilbertson teaches the LiDAR sensor assembly of claim 17, but the combination fails to teach wherein the contaminant trap includes a sorbent material configured to trap vapor released from lubricant included with the bearing. However, FlowDry teaches wherein the contaminant trap includes a sorbent material configured to trap vapor released from lubricant included with the bearing (see discussion on page 3 of FlowDry describing how PolySorb material can be molded to fit inside a LIDAR sensor package and is critical for protecting sensor assemblies from moisture) . FlowDry and the combination of Yun, Pacala and Gilbertson both describe LIDAR implementations. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to replace a component of the LIDAR configuration taught by the combination of Yun, Pacala and Gilbertson with a component made of PolySorb in order to protect the LIDAR sensors from being damaged by moisture as described in FlowDry. The replaced component would be cylinder 606 as this would maximize the amount of absorbent material in close proximity to the shaft and bearing supporting the shaft, allowing for more rapid absorption of any vaporized material in the bearing. Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Yun, 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) . Conclusion 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 /HELAL A ALGAHAIM/ SPE , Art Unit 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/374,422 Page 2 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/374,422 Page 3 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/374,422 Page 4 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/374,422 Page 5 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/374,422 Page 6 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/374,422 Page 7 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/374,422 Page 8 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/374,422 Page 9 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/374,422 Page 10 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/374,422 Page 11 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/374,422 Page 12 Art Unit: 3645
Prosecution Insights