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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (e).
Drawings
The originally filed drawings were received on 12/7/2023. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Abstract is too long.
Abstract, line 1- delete ‘is disclosed. The apparatus’
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, line 12 recites ‘a seal’. However, Claim 1, line 7 also recites ‘a seal. This appears to be problematic, since it is not clear whether the seal in line 12 is to refer to that in line 7, or to a separate, unique seal not previously recited. For purposes of examination, Claim 1, line 12 has been interpreted to be ‘the seal’. Correction is required.
Claims 2-38 are dependent on Claim 1, and hence inherit the deficiencies of Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-10, 17-20, 27-30, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rehau (DE 20 2018 107266 U1), of record.
Rehau discloses an apparatus (See for example Abstract; Figures 1-4) for protecting an optical device (See for example Paragraphs 0012, 0023) from contamination, the apparatus comprising a window (See for example 1, S in Figure 4) disposed between the optical device and a contaminating environment, the window being rotatable about a rotational axis (See for example ‘X’ in Figure 4) and including an outwardly facing surface (See for example ‘S’ in Figure 4) that is curved in at least one direction about the rotational axis; a bezel (See for example 3 in Figure 4) enclosing a portion of the outwardly facing surface and defining a clear aperture for transmission of electromagnetic radiation to or from the optical device, the bezel including a seal (See for example 6, 7 in Figure 4) extending around a periphery of the clear aperture, the bezel being configured to cause the seal to conform to the outwardly facing surface when the window and bezel are urged into contact with each other; an actuator (See for example Paragraph 0005, in the form of, for example, an electric motor with a reduction gear) configured to cause relative rotation between the window and the bezel to cause the outwardly facing surface to move with respect to the bezel; the seal configured to dispense a film (See for example 7 in Figure 4; Paragraphs 0008, 0019) onto a portion of the outwardly facing surface that enters the clear aperture during the relative rotation, the film being operable to reduce bonding of optical contaminants to the outwardly facing surface within the clear aperture while transmitting the electromagnetic radiation to or from the optical device through the clear aperture; and wherein the seal (See for example 6 in Figure 4; Paragraphs 0007, 0018) is configured to dislodge contaminants entrained in the film or adhered to a portion of the outwardly facing surface moving out of the clear aperture during the relative rotation. Rehau further discloses the outwardly facing surface is circularly curved in at least one direction about the rotational axis (See for example ‘S’ in Figure 4); the film comprises a liquid film that remains in a liquid state after being dispensed (See for example 7, ‘F’ in Figure 4); the film comprises one of a liquid material that at least partly cures after being dispensed; a liquid material and a non-liquid material, the liquid material being operable to at least partially evaporate after being dispensed (See for example 7, ‘F’ in Figure 4); or a non-liquid material that is dispensed by being abraded from the seal to form the film during the relative rotation; the seal comprises a dispenser portion (See for example 7 in Figure 4; Paragraphs 0008, 0019) operable to dispense the film onto the portion of the outwardly facing surface that enters the clear aperture during rotation of the window; and a wiper portion (See for example 6 in Figure 4; Paragraphs 0007, 0018) operable to dislodge the contaminants entrained in the film or adhered to the portion of the outwardly facing surface moving out of the clear aperture during rotation of the window; the dispenser portion of the seal and the wiper portion of the seal are disposed at opposite sides (See for example 6, 7 in Figure 4) of the bezel and the rotation of the window is in a direction to cause the outwardly facing surface to move toward the wiper portion of the seal; the wiper portion of the seal (See for example 6 in Figure 4; Paragraphs 0007, 0018) comprises a wiper extending around a full periphery of the clear aperture and wherein the dispenser portion of the seal (See for example 7 in Figure 4; Paragraphs 0008, 0019) comprises a separate seal disposed spaced outwardly from the wiper; the optical device and the window are enclosed within a housing (See for example 1 in Figures 1-2) and wherein the bezel comprises a portion of the housing (See for example 1, 3 in Figures 1-2); the actuator is configured to cause rotation of the window in a single direction about the rotational axis and wherein the rotation causes the seal to dislodge contaminants from a first portion of the outwardly facing surface moving out of the clear aperture while the dispenser replenishes the film on a second portion of the outwardly facing surface on entering the clear aperture (See for example Paragraph 0005; 6, 7 in Figure 4); the window comprises an inwardly facing surface (See for example ‘IS’ in Figure 4) that is curved in the at least one direction about the rotational axis to define a curved wall between the outwardly
facing surface and the inwardly facing surface; the curved wall (See for example 1, ‘S’, ‘IS’ in Figure 4) extends beyond the clear aperture and wherein the actuator is configured to cause a reciprocating rotation of the window about the rotational axis (See for example Paragraph 0005, in the form of, for example, an electric motor with a reduction gear; Figure 4), wherein rotation in a first direction causes the seal to dislodge contaminants when a first portion of the outwardly facing surface moves out of the clear aperture and wherein rotation in a second direction causes the seal to dispense the film onto the first portion of the outwardly facing surface while reentering the clear aperture (See for example 6, 7 in Figure 4); the seal encloses the clear aperture (See for example 6, 7 in Figure 4) and wherein the rotation in the first direction causes the seal to dispense the film onto a second portion of the outwardly facing surface entering the clear aperture and wherein the rotation in the second direction causes the seal to dislodge contaminants entrained in the film or adhered to the second portion of the outwardly facing surface while moving out of the clear aperture (See for example 6, 7 in Figure 4); the curved wall of the window comprises a spherical shell extending about the rotational axis to define an enclosed region within the curved wall (See for example 1, ‘S’, ‘IS’ in Figure 4); the outwardly facing surface of the window comprises a cylindrical surface (See for example 1 in Figures 1-2, 4; Paragraphs 0005-0006, 0017); the cylindrical surface comprises a circular cylindrical surface (See for example 1 in Figures 1-2, 4; Paragraphs 0005-0006, 0017); the electromagnetic radiation transmitted to or from the optical device comprises electromagnetic radiation having a wavelength in at least one of: an ultraviolet range of wavelengths; a visible range of wavelengths; an infrared range of wavelengths (See for example Paragraphs 0003, 0012, 0022-0023); a long-wave infrared range of wavelengths; or an x-ray range of wavelengths; and the actuator is configured to cause one of a continuous relative rotation; an intermittent relative rotation; or a relative rotation in one direction followed by a relative rotation in an opposite direction (See for example Paragraph 0005; Figure 4).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 12-14, 21-23, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rehau in view of Ray et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2015/0216402 A1).
Rehau discloses the invention as set forth above, except for the outwardly facing surface is circularly curved in the at least one direction about the rotational axis and wherein the outwardly facing surface is further circularly curved in a direction orthogonal to the at least one direction to define a spherical outwardly facing surface and wherein the bezel comprises a circular bezel. However, Ray et l. teaches a similar apparatus for protecting a device from contamination (See for example Abstract; Figures 1-11), wherein the window is in the form of a spherical window (See for example 26 in Figures 1-10) and the bezel surrounding the spherical window is circular (See for example 28 in Figure 1-10). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the outwardly facing surface of Rehau, be circularly curved in the at least one direction about the rotational axis and wherein the outwardly facing surface is further circularly curved in a direction orthogonal to the at least one direction to define a spherical outwardly facing surface and wherein the bezel comprises a circular bezel, as taught by Ray et al., to allow the apparatus to accommodate different shapes of the windows based on the intended application of the apparatus.
The combined teachings of Rehau and Ray et al. additionally disclose the window comprises a spherical solid and wherein the optical device is disposed behind the spherical solid and wherein the electromagnetic radiation is transmitted to or from the optical device through the clear aperture and the spherical solid (See for example 26 in Figure 4 of Ray et al.; Paragraph 0025); at least one optical element disposed within the enclosed region to transmit the electromagnetic radiation to the optical device (See for example 24 in Figures 4, 6 of Ray et al.); the optical device (See for example Paragraph 0024 in Ray et al.) is disposed outside the enclosed region and wherein the optical element comprises one of one or more lenses (See for example 24 in Figures 4, 6 in Ray et al.) configured to condition the electromagnetic radiation being transmitted to or from the optical device; or a mirror including a reflective surface disposed to redirect the electromagnetic radiation impinging on the reflective surface to or from the optical device; and the optical device (See for example Paragraph 0024 in Ray et al.) is disposed outside the enclosed region and wherein the spherical shell comprises at least one opening (See for example 27 in Figures 4-6 of Ray et al.) and wherein the at least one optical element (See for example 24 in Figures 4, 6 of Ray et al.) is mounted on a support structure (See for example 30, 32 in Figures 4-6 of Ray et al.) extending through the at least one opening into the enclosed region to support the at least one optical element in fixed relation to the optical device.
Claim(s) 38, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rehau in view of Ray et al.
Rehau in view of Ray et al. discloses the invention as set forth above, except for the optical device comprises a plurality of optical devices configured to emit or receive the electromagnetic radiation. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the optical device comprises a plurality of optical devices configured to emit or receive the electromagnetic radiation, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to have the optical device comprises a plurality of optical devices configured to emit or receive the electromagnetic radiation, to allow for a plurality of sensors, camera units, radar units, LIDAR units, etc. (See for example Paragraph 0003 of Rehau) to be operable in the apparatus, thus allowing for multiple signal detection. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCCP 1960).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 11, 15-16, 24-26, 31-37 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 4-5, 11, 15-16, 24-26, 31-37 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 110775294 A to Liu et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARNEL C LAVARIAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2315. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 AM-7 PM.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
ARNEL C. LAVARIAS
Primary Examiner
Group Art Unit 2872
12/23/2025
/ARNEL C LAVARIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872