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 .
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over USPN 12,362,470 to Heinrich in view of US Pub. No. 2018/0354469 to Krishnan.
Regarding claims 1-3 and 5, Heinrich teaches systems, apparatus’, and methods for determining a characteristic of a radome, such as a radome of a radar system or unit (Heinrich, Abstract, column 1 line 64 to column 2 line 20). Heinrich teaches that the systems, methods, and apparatus may enable a computing device to determine the transmissivity of the radome of a radar system to verify accurate performance and operation of the radar system, and to detect undesired accumulation of matter or material (e.g., rain, snow, spray, debris, moisture, etc.) on the radome that may degrade the performance of the radar system (Id., column 1 line 64 to column 2 line 20). Heinrich teaches that an alert or notification may be generated when the condition of the radome has reduced the performance of the radar system to an undesired level (Id.). Heinrich teaches that the vehicle radar system can include one or more radar systems or units positioned at various locations on a vehicle, such as exterior locations (Id., column 4 lines 47-62). Heinrich teaches that when a radar system is located on the exterior of the vehicle, the radar system may undesirably encounter contact from road debris, which can damage and degrade the performance of the radar system (Id., column 4 line 63 to column 6 line 10).
Heinrich teaches that to overcome the drawbacks associated with manual inspections and offline testing of a vehicle radar system, embodiments describe techniques for monitoring, testing, and evaluating a radome (Heinrich, column 6 line 39 to column 7 line 31). Heinrich teaches that a system or apparatus may be configured to determine the transmission characteristics of a radome (Id., column 7 line 50 to column 8 line 4). Heinrich teaches that when the transmission characteristics of the radome fail to meet a threshold value, based on the difference between the parameter of the reflect radar signals, the computing device may be configured to generate or provide a notification or alert to indicating an undesired condition of the radome (Id., column 9 lines 20-38). Heinrich teaches that the computing device may provide an alert that indicates the radome requires cleaning and/or may initiate an automatic process that helps remove the material on the radome, such as activating a cleaning mechanism to attempt to clean the radome (Id., column 9 lines 39-55). Additionally, Heinrich teaches the radome, the internal radar components, the computing device, and other components for accomplishing the invention of Heinrich (see generally Id., column 20 line 12 to column 22 line 19, column 24 line 10 to column 25 line 7, column 25 lines 34-50, column 29 lines 4-52, claims 1-18).
Heinrich does not appear to specifically teach a determining device performing a decontamination possibility determining process as claimed. However, Krishnan teaches cleaning vehicle sensors comprising a computer programmed to determine debris on a sensor of a vehicle, determine an absence of an ongoing execution of a collision avoidance instruction, and based on the determinations, apply a fluid to the sensor to remove the debris (Krishnan, Abstract, paragraphs 0014, 0017, 0043, 0071-0072). Krishnan teaches that the sensor is a camera or light detection and ranging (LIDAR) device (Id., paragraph 0024), which provides imaging data to an autonomous driving system (Id., paragraph 0010). Krishnan teaches that the computer determines whether a collision avoidance instruction is being executed or will be executed, and if executed, then the computer executes a pause or delay before applying fluid (Id., paragraphs 0064-0075, Fig. 5).
Each of Heinrich and Krishnan are directed to determining if sensors are required to be cleaned. Heinrich teaches that when the transmission characteristics of the radome fail to meet a threshold value, based on the difference between the parameter of the reflect radar signals, the computing device may be configured to generate or provide a notification or alert to indicating an undesired condition of the radome. Krishnan further establishes that when the sensor executes, the computer determines whether to apply a fluid to the sensor to remove the debris. Therefore, the prior art establishes that when it is determined that the sensor is operationally and functionally impaired by debris, then the sensor will be cleaned as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the system of Heinrich, wherein the computing device determines if the sensor is obstructed with debris and additionally is required, such that it can be cleaned, such as claimed, as taught by Krishnan, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional cleaning system having predictably advantageous parameters for determining the necessity of cleaning a sensor while maintaining functionality and safety.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments have been considered but are moot based on the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are 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 PETER Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-6730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/PETER Y CHOI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights