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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the Claims received on 08/05/2026. Claims 1-14 are pending in the application, and Claims 2 and 14 have been amended to correct typographical errors.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On Page 9 of the remarks, applicant argues that Herman does not teach or suggest “prohibit[ing] the contamination detection unit from executing the contamination detection.”. The examiner disagrees, and notes that in [0113] Herman teaches that ‘a measured light intensity of the reflected light 302D below a threshold may be an indication that the optical window 148 of the illuminator module 135 has an obstruction 310.’ In [0116] Herman teaches that “the vehicle computer 110 determines that an obstruction 310 is present on the optical window 148, the process 400 continues in a block 455. Otherwise, the process 400 ends,” and the examiner notes here that this determination uses the reflected light intensity referenced in [0113]. The examiner further notes that the process 400 ends if the light is above the threshold. Process 400 is shown in Figure 4 and paragraph [0069] to be a process “for detecting an obstruction 310 on an optical window 148 covering an illuminator 144.” The examiner holds that Herman therefore teaches prohibiting the contamination detection unit from executing the contamination detection.
On Page 9 of the remarks, applicant argues that “Herman does not teach or suggest that the threshold is set based on a distance-measurement point distance corresponding to the light reception intensity” as required by the Claims. Page 3, Lines 10-12 of the specification describe the distance-measurement point distance as “a distance to the distance measurement point,” which the examiner interprets as a distance between the laser radar and the observation point in the scene. In paragraph [0037] Herman teaches the use of a LiDAR system, which is well-known in the art to provide distance or range information about objects in the scene, which Herman terms ‘relative locations.’ In [0113] Herman notes that light intensity below a threshold may be an indication of an obstruction, and notes elsewhere in the spec (at least [0111], ) that the threshold may be set to the expected intensity of the light plus a percentage, where the expected intensity is “based on a type and location of an object proximate to the vehicle” as described in [0027]. The examiner therefore maintains that Herman teaches that the threshold is based on the distance as required by the Claims.
Examiner notes that these responses apply to Independent Claims 1, 13, and 14, and therefore maintains the rejections under 35 USC 103.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 9, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeruhami (US 2020/0249354 A1) in view of Herman (US 2020/0271823 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Yeruhami discloses a contamination detection apparatus ([0009]) comprising:
a distance-measurement point acquiring unit that is configured to acquire distance-measurement point information from a laser radar apparatus ([0096]; [0099]: “the term “detecting an object” may refer to generating a point cloud map in which every point of one or more points of the point cloud map correspond to a location in the object or a location on a face thereof”) that is configured to:
emit laser light toward outside by transmitting the laser light through an optical window (Figure 10A, element 1010) from inside a casing ([0120]: “ all the components of LIDAR system 100 may be contained within a single housing 200”); detect the laser light that arrives inside the casing after being reflected at a distance measurement point ([0009]: “receive LIDAR reflections signals from at least one sensor, wherein the LIDAR reflections signals include indications of light reflected from the protective window and light reflected from objects in the field of view and passing through the protective window prior to reaching the at least one sensor); and generate the distance-measurement point information that indicates a distance-measurement point distance that is a distance to the distance measurement point ([0226]: “processor 804 may develop a LIDAR image (e.g., point cloud) and/or ranging information relative to objects in the LIDAR FOV based on acquired reflections of LIDAR light that are received after reflecting from objects in the LIDAR FOV.) and light reception intensity that is intensity of the detected laser light ([0116]: “ In addition to location, each gray dot may also be associated with different types of information, for example, intensity (e.g., how much light returns back from that location));
a scattered-light information acquiring unit that is configured to acquire scattered light information that indicates scattered light intensity of scattered light from a scattered light sensor ([0219]: “ some embodiments may include supplemental sensor 808, which may be similar to or the same as sensor 806. Supplemental sensor 808 may be used to generate an output to extraneous detected light (e.g., ambient light or internally reflected light within the LIDAR system originating from operation of the light source 812).) that is configured to detect scattered light that is generated by the laser light scattering inside the casing as a result of emission of the laser light by the laser radar apparatus ([0262]: “Internal reflection signals from the protective window. Such internal reflection may include internal reflections of light originating from an internal light source may be used (whether that source includes the primary LIDAR light source or whether that source includes any other supplemental light source internal to LIDAR system 100));
a contamination detection unit that is configured to execute contamination detection that detects contamination of the optical window ([0247]: “obstructions on the protective window of the system may block light passage through the protective window.”; [0254]: “The presently disclosed system may operate in conjunction with light supplied by a primary light source, e.g., light source 1012 of the system 1000. That is, light incident on the sensor and used to determine the presence of a blockage on a protective window, at type of blockage, etc., may include light that originated from the primary light source 1012 of system 1000.”) based on the scattered light intensity indicated by the scattered light information ([0261]);
Yeruhami suggests but does not explicitly teach and Herman does teach an intensity prohibiting unit that is configured to prohibit the contamination detection unit from executing the contamination detection when the light reception intensity is equal to or greater than an intensity threshold that is set based on the distance-measurement point distance corresponding to the light reception intensity ([0027]: “estimate an expected intensity of light received from a sensor on the second side of the optical window based on a type and location of an object proximate to the vehicle; and detect the obstruction on the optical window upon the sensor on the second side of the optical window reporting data below the threshold”; [0113]; [0116]-[0117]; [0037]: The LiDAR can provide locations of objects relative to the vehicle, which is equivalent to a distance from the vehicle.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Yeruhami with the teaching of Herman to use a threshold based on object distance to trigger subsequent steps of obstruction detection and mitigation. The thresholds used in Herman are calculated for nearby objects based in part on their location relative to the detector. Subsequent actions in Herman are based on the observed light intensity crossing the threshold determined in this manner. Better defined threshold values can result in a more robust determinations of whether or not an obstruction is present, and can help avoid some of the problematic outcomes noted by Herman in [0001]: “cleaning an optical window and/or lenses when not necessary can be wasteful, e.g., may consume significant and often impractical amounts of electrical energy and/or cleaning fluid.”
Regarding Claim 2, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Yeruhami further discloses a background-light prohibiting unit that is configured to determine whether a background-light prohibiting condition is met, the background-light prohibiting condition being set in advance and indicating that an amount of background light entering inside the casing from the outside is large ([0264]: “Ambient reflections signals pass through the protective window. Such ambient reflections may include light originating from outside the protective window and passing into the LIDAR system through the protective window (e.g., where scratches, water, or other materials on the protective window cause unexpected ambient reflections from certain areas of the protective window). The system may monitor and detect areas of reduced light transmission (e.g., areas not passing as much light as neighboring areas).”), and prohibit the contamination detection unit from executing the contamination detection when the background-like prohibiting condition is met ([0265]: “In some embodiments, if an obstruction is detected, signal processing module 1026 may store an obstruction pattern associated with the obstruction.”).
Regarding Claim 9, which depends from rejected Claim 1, the contamination detection unit is configured to calculate a contamination level that indicates an extent of contamination of the optical window as the contamination detection ([0010]: “detect, based on the LIDAR reflections signals, a particular obstruction area at least partially obstructing light passage through the protective window at a first time.”)
Regarding Claim 12, which depends from rejected Claim 9, Yeruhami further discloses a contamination-level outputting unit that is configured to output contamination level information that indicates the contamination level calculated by the contamination detection unit ([0010]: “and initiate at least one remedial action, based on the detected obstruction area, to increase the amount of light passaging through the protective at a second time.” The contamination level must be output in order to initiate a remedial action.).
Regarding Claim 13, Yeruhami discloses a contamination detection system ([0009]) comprising:
a processor ([0006]: “a LIDAR system may include at least one processor”);
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium ([0008]: “ some embodiments may include a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”);
and a set of computer-executable instructions stored in the computer-readable storage medium that, when read and executed by the processor, cause the processor to implement ([0030]: “Other embodiments may include non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to execute one or more methods disclosed herein.”):
acquiring distance-measurement point information from a laser radar apparatus ([0096]; [0099]: “the term “detecting an object” may refer to generating a point cloud map in which every point of one or more points of the point cloud map correspond to a location in the object or a location on a face thereof”) that is configured to: emit laser light toward outside by transmitting the laser light through an optical window (Figure 10A, element 1010) from inside a casing ([0120]: “ all the components of LIDAR system 100 may be contained within a single housing 200”); detect the laser light that arrives inside the casing after being reflected at a distance measurement point ([0009]: “receive LIDAR reflections signals from at least one sensor, wherein the LIDAR reflections signals include indications of light reflected from the protective window and light reflected from objects in the field of view and passing through the protective window prior to reaching the at least one sensor); and generate the distance-measurement point information that indicates a distance-measurement point distance that is a distance to the distance measurement point ([0226]: “processor 804 may develop a LIDAR image (e.g., point cloud) and/or ranging information relative to objects in the LIDAR FOV based on acquired reflections of LIDAR light that are received after reflecting from objects in the LIDAR FOV.) and light reception intensity that is intensity of the detected laser light ([0116]: “ In addition to location, each gray dot may also be associated with different types of information, for example, intensity (e.g., how much light returns back from that location));
acquiring scattered light information that indicates scattered light intensity of scattered light from a scattered light sensor ([0219]: “ some embodiments may include supplemental sensor 808, which may be similar to or the same as sensor 806. Supplemental sensor 808 may be used to generate an output to extraneous detected light (e.g., ambient light or internally reflected light within the LIDAR system originating from operation of the light source 812).) that is configured to detect scattered light that is generated by the laser light scattering inside the casing as a result of emission of the laser light by the laser radar apparatus ([0262]: “Internal reflection signals from the protective window. Such internal reflection may include internal reflections of light originating from an internal light source may be used (whether that source includes the primary LIDAR light source or whether that source includes any other supplemental light source internal to LIDAR system 100));
executing contamination detection that detects contamination of the optical window ([0247]: “obstructions on the protective window of the system may block light passage through the protective window.”; [0254]: “The presently disclosed system may operate in conjunction with light supplied by a primary light source, e.g., light source 1012 of the system 1000. That is, light incident on the sensor and used to determine the presence of a blockage on a protective window, at type of blockage, etc., may include light that originated from the primary light source 1012 of system 1000.”) based on the scattered light intensity indicated by the scattered light information ([0261]); and
Yeruhami suggests but does not explicitly teach and Herman does teach an intensity prohibiting unit that is configured to prohibit the contamination detection unit from executing the contamination detection when the light reception intensity is equal to or greater than an intensity threshold that is set based on the distance-measurement point distance corresponding to the light reception intensity ([0027]: “estimate an expected intensity of light received from a sensor on the second side of the optical window based on a type and location of an object proximate to the vehicle; and detect the obstruction on the optical window upon the sensor on the second side of the optical window reporting data below the threshold”; [0113]; [0116]-[0117]; [0037]: The LiDAR can provide locations of objects relative to the vehicle, which is equivalent to a distance from the vehicle.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Yeruhami with the teaching of Herman to use a threshold based on object distance to trigger subsequent steps of obstruction detection and mitigation. The thresholds used in Herman are calculated for nearby objects based in part on their location relative to the detector. Subsequent actions in Herman are based on the observed light intensity crossing the threshold determined in this manner. Better defined threshold values can result in more robust determinations of whether or not an obstruction is present, and can help avoid some of the problematic outcomes noted by Herman in [0001]: “cleaning an optical window and/or lenses when not necessary can be wasteful, e.g., may consume significant and often impractical amounts of electrical energy and/or cleaning fluid.”
Regarding Claim 14, Yeruhami discloses a contamination detection method ([0009]) comprising: acquiring distance-measurement point information from a laser radar apparatus ([0096]; [0099]: “the term “detecting an object” may refer to generating a point cloud map in which every point of one or more points of the point cloud map correspond to a location in the object or a location on a face thereof”) that is configured to:
emit laser light toward outside by transmitting the laser light through an optical window (Figure 10A, element 1010) from inside a casing ([0120]: “ all the components of LIDAR system 100 may be contained within a single housing 200”);
detect the laser light that arrives inside the casing after being reflected at a distance measurement point ([0009]: “receive LIDAR reflections signals from at least one sensor, wherein the LIDAR reflections signals include indications of light reflected from the protective window and light reflected from objects in the field of view and passing through the protective window prior to reaching the at least one sensor); and
generate the distance-measurement point information that indicates a distance-measurement point distance that is a distance to the distance measurement point ([0226]: “processor 804 may develop a LIDAR image (e.g., point cloud) and/or ranging information relative to objects in the LIDAR FOV based on acquired reflections of LIDAR light that are received after reflecting from objects in the LIDAR FOV.) and light reception intensity that is intensity of the detected laser light ([0116]: “ In addition to location, each gray dot may also be associated with different types of information, for example, intensity (e.g., how much light returns back from that location));
acquiring scattered light information that indicates scattered light intensity of scattered light from a scattered light sensor ([0219]: “ some embodiments may include supplemental sensor 808, which may be similar to or the same as sensor 806. Supplemental sensor 808 may be used to generate an output to extraneous detected light (e.g., ambient light or internally reflected light within the LIDAR system originating from operation of the light source 812).) that is configured to detect scattered light that is generated by the laser light scattering inside the casing as a result of emission of the laser light by the laser radar apparatus ([0262]: “Internal reflection signals from the protective window. Such internal reflection may include internal reflections of light originating from an internal light source may be used (whether that source includes the primary LIDAR light source or whether that source includes any other supplemental light source internal to LIDAR system 100));
executing contamination detection that detects contamination of the optical window based ([0247]: “obstructions on the protective window of the system may block light passage through the protective window.”; [0254]: “The presently disclosed system may operate in conjunction with light supplied by a primary light source, e.g., light source 1012 of the system 1000. That is, light incident on the sensor and used to determine the presence of a blockage on a protective window, at type of blockage, etc., may include light that originated from the primary light source 1012 of system 1000.”) on the scattered light intensity indicated by the scattered light information ([0261]); and
Yeruhami suggests but does not explicitly teach and Herman does teach an intensity prohibiting unit that is configured to prohibit the contamination detection unit from executing the contamination detection when the light reception intensity is equal to or greater than an intensity threshold that is set based on the distance-measurement point distance corresponding to the light reception intensity ([0027]: “estimate an expected intensity of light received from a sensor on the second side of the optical window based on a type and location of an object proximate to the vehicle; and detect the obstruction on the optical window upon the sensor on the second side of the optical window reporting data below the threshold”; [0113]; [0116]-[0117]; [0037]: The LiDAR can provide locations of objects relative to the vehicle, which is equivalent to a distance from the vehicle.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Yeruhami with the teaching of Herman to use a threshold based on object distance to trigger subsequent steps of obstruction detection and mitigation. The thresholds used in Herman are calculated for nearby objects based in part on their location relative to the detector. Subsequent actions in Herman are based on the observed light intensity crossing the threshold determined in this manner. Better defined threshold values can result in more robust determinations of whether or not an obstruction is present, and can help avoid some of the problematic outcomes noted by Herman in [0001]: “cleaning an optical window and/or lenses when not necessary can be wasteful, e.g., may consume significant and often impractical amounts of electrical energy and/or cleaning fluid.”
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeruhami in view of HERMAN as applied to Claim 2, and in view of Lu (US 2013/0300869 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, which depends from rejected Claim 2, Yeruhami further discloses a state determining unit that is configured to determine transition between an attached state in which a contaminant is attached to the optical window and a non-attached state in which a contaminant is not attached to the optical window, based on a determination result from the contamination detection unit ([0292]; [0293]: “the processor 1018 may estimate the efficiency of the system to provide feedback. For example, the processor 1018 may determine that the detection efficiency increased to a default level after a cleaning cycle was executed, indicating that the blockage was cleared effectively. In another example, the system 1000 may continue to operate at an insufficient efficiency, causing the obstruction clearing module to execute instructions to alert a user of the system that the system is blocked.” Thus, the system can determine whether a contaminant is present or not present on the window.); and
Yeruhami does not teach and HERMAN does not teach and Lu does teach a transition prohibiting unit that is configured to determine whether a traveling speed of a vehicle to which the laser radar apparatus is mounted is equal to or less than a return determination prohibiting speed that is set in advance, and prohibit the state determining unit from determining the transition from the non-attached state to the attached state when the traveling speed is equal to or less than the return determination prohibiting speed (Claim 1, Abstract, Lu teaches a contaminant detection scheme for a vision system that only operates when the vehicle is moving.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yeruhami in view of HERMAN with the teaching of Lu to only trigger the state determining unit in the case that the vehicle is actually moving. Since there is no danger of collision when the vehicle is stationary, this restriction results in power savings and reduced use of cleaning agent if applicable since those systems will not be engaged unnecessarily.
Regarding Claim 4, which depends from rejected Claim 3, Yeruhami further discloses wherein the contamination detection unit is configured to calculate a contamination level that indicates an extent of contamination of the optical window as the contamination detection ([0010]: “detect, based on the LIDAR reflections signals, a particular obstruction area at least partially obstructing light passage through the protective window at a first time; and initiate at least one remedial action, based on the detected obstruction area, to increase the amount of light passaging through the protective at a second time.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of a contamination level, an obstruction area satisfies this limitation).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeruhami in view of HERMAN and in view of Lu as applied to Claim 4, and in view of Sagawa (JP 2005/010094 A).
Regarding Claim 5, which depends from rejected Claim 4, Yeruhami does not teach and HERMAN does not teach and Lu does not teach and Sagawa does teach an attached-state determining unit that is configured to determine that a state is an attached state in which a contaminant is attached to the optical window, when a state in which the contamination level is equal to or greater than an attached-state determination value that is set in advance continues for an attached-state determination time that is set in advance or more ([0013]: “the determination means preferably determines that dirt is attached to the radar means on the condition that, for a first predetermined number or more of the multiple transmitted waves irradiated into the predetermined angular range, the measurement time is shorter than a predetermined measurement time and the intensity of the reflected wave is equal to or greater than a predetermined intensity for a first predetermined time.” This teaches that the ‘attached-state’ criteria must be met for a predetermined time or longer in order to satisfy the attached-state condition.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yeruhami in view of HERMAN and in view of Lu with the teaching of Sagawa to require the observations to satisfy an attached-state criteria for a predetermined time or longer. Sagawa notes in [0013] that “this improves the accuracy of detecting dirt and grime.” Improved accuracy is highly beneficial for vehicle-mounted sensors, and can improve the safety of the vehicles given that dirt and grime can be more accurately detected and remedial action taken.
Regarding Claim 6, which depends from rejected Claim 5, Yeruhami does not teach and HERMAN does not teach and Sagawa does teach wherein a non-attached state determining unit that is configured to determine that a state is a non-attached state in which a contaminant is not attached to the optical window, when the state in which the contamination level is equal to or less than a non-attached state determination value that is set in advance continues for a non-attached state determination time that is set in advance or more ([0014]: “it is preferable that the determination means, after determining that dirt has adhered to the radar means, cancels the dirt adhesion determination if the measurement time is shorter than a predetermined measurement time and the number of transmitted waves whose reflected wave intensity is equal to or greater than a predetermined intensity decreases to a second predetermined number which is less than a first predetermined number for a second predetermined time. This teaches that the non-attached criteria must be met for a predetermined time before the non-attached state is fully satisfied.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yeruhami in view of HERMAN in view of Lu and in view of Sagawa with the further teaching of Sagawa that the non-attached state must persist for a predetermined amount of time or longer or more before being fully satisfied. Sagawa notes in [0013] that this type of hold time can “improve the accuracy of detecting dirt and grime.” Improved accuracy is highly beneficial for vehicle-mounted sensors, and can improve the safety of the vehicles given that a clean state can be more accurately detected.
Regarding Claim 7, which depends from rejected Claim 6, Yeruhami further discloses a contamination-level outputting unit that is configured to output contamination level information that indicates the contamination level calculated by the contamination detection unit ([0010]: “and initiate at least one remedial action, based on the detected obstruction area, to increase the amount of light passaging through the protective at a second time.” The contamination level must be output in order to initiate a remedial action.).
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeruhami in view of HERMAN as applied to Claim 1, and in view of Lu (US 2013/0300869 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Yeruhami further discloses a state determining unit that is configured to determine transition between an attached state in which a contaminant is attached to the optical window and a non-attached state in which a contaminant is not attached to the optical window, based on a determination result from the contamination detection unit ([0292]; [0293]: “the processor 1018 may estimate the efficiency of the system to provide feedback. For example, the processor 1018 may determine that the detection efficiency increased to a default level after a cleaning cycle was executed, indicating that the blockage was cleared effectively. In another example, the system 1000 may continue to operate at an insufficient efficiency, causing the obstruction clearing module to execute instructions to alert a user of the system that the system is blocked.” Thus, the system can determine whether a contaminant is present or not present on the window.); and
Yeruhami does not teach and HERMAN does not teach and Lu does teach a transition prohibiting unit that is configured to determine whether a traveling speed of a vehicle to which the laser radar apparatus is mounted is equal to or less than a return determination prohibiting speed that is set in advance, and prohibit the state determining unit from determining the transition from the non-attached state to the attached state when the traveling speed is equal to or less than the return determination prohibiting speed (Claim 1, Abstract, Lu teaches a contaminant detection scheme for a vision system that only operates when the vehicle is moving.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yeruhami in view of HERMAN with the teaching of Lu to only trigger the state determining unit in the case that the vehicle is actually moving. Since there is no danger of collision when the vehicle is stationary, this restriction results in power savings and reduced use of cleaning agent if applicable since those systems will not be engaged unnecessarily.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeruhami in view of HERMAN as applied to Claim 9, and in view of Sagawa.
Regarding Claim 10, which depends from rejected Claim 9, Yeruhami does not teach and HERMAN does not teach and Sagawa does teach an attached-state determining unit that is configured to determine that a state is an attached state in which a contaminant is attached to the optical window, when a state in which the contamination level is equal to or greater than an attached-state determination value that is set in advance continues for an attached-state determination time that is set in advance or more ([0013]: “the determination means preferably determines that dirt is attached to the radar means on the condition that, for a first predetermined number or more of the multiple transmitted waves irradiated into the predetermined angular range, the measurement time is shorter than a predetermined measurement time and the intensity of the reflected wave is equal to or greater than a predetermined intensity for a first predetermined time.” This teaches that the ‘attached-state’ criteria must be met for a predetermined time or longer in order to satisfy the attached-state condition.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yeruhami in view of HERMAN with the teaching of Sagawa to require the observations to satisfy an attached-state criteria for a predetermined time or longer. Sagawa notes in [0013] that “this improves the accuracy of detecting dirt and grime.” Improved accuracy is highly beneficial for vehicle-mounted sensors, and can improve the safety of the vehicles given that dirt and grime can be more accurately detected and remedial action taken.
Regarding Claim 11, which depends from rejected Claim 9, Yeruhami does not teach and HERMAN does not teach and Sagawa does teach wherein a non-attached state determining unit that is configured to determine that a state is a non-attached state in which a contaminant is not attached to the optical window, when the state in which the contamination level is equal to or less than a non-attached state determination value that is set in advance continues for a non-attached state determination time that is set in advance or more ([0014]: “it is preferable that the determination means, after determining that dirt has adhered to the radar means, cancels the dirt adhesion determination if the measurement time is shorter than a predetermined measurement time and the number of transmitted waves whose reflected wave intensity is equal to or greater than a predetermined intensity decreases to a second predetermined number which is less than a first predetermined number for a second predetermined time. This teaches that the non-attached criteria must be met for a predetermined time before the non-attached state is fully satisfied.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yeruhami in view of HERMAN with the teaching of Sagawa that the non-attached state must persist for a predetermined amount of time or longer or more before being fully satisfied. Sagawa notes in [0013] that this type of hold time can “improve the accuracy of detecting dirt and grime.” Improved accuracy is highly beneficial for vehicle-mounted sensors, and can improve the safety of the vehicles given that a clean state can be more accurately detected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 WADE CLOUSER whose telephone number is (571)272-0378. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5:00.
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, ISAM ALSOMIRI can be reached at (571) 272-6970. 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.
/B.W.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
