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 § 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 1-8 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.
Applicant states “photographs a detection range”, it is unclear as to what this limitation means as typically a detection range would denote range in meters in which returned electromagnetic waves are received and not something that can be photographed. Based on the disclosure (see [0045] of the published application), it appears applicant means that a photographing range includes an area in of the detection range of the sensor unit. For examination purposes, the limitation will be understood in such a manner. Similar issue is taken with claims 4-5 & 8.
Claim 1 states “whether or not the object detected by the sensor unit is included in an image signal from a camera”. Such a phrase is ambiguous because it is unclear if the claim only requires one of determining or not determining, or if the claim requires the control unit to be capable of performing both the determination of an object being detected and the object not being detected. As a number of the dependent claims are directed towards instances of the determination of an image not being detected, if the former interpretation is used then the dependent claims become optional limitations. Thus, it is believed that applicant intended to claim the control unit in the latter interpretation where the control unit performs a determination to detect if the object is detected and performs a determination if the object is not detected.
Claims 4-5 recites the limitation "an image signal", “a camera”, “a detection range”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if these limitations are the same as those recited in claim 1 or different from that of claim 1. For examination purposes, the limitation will be understood as those recited in claim 1 (i.e., the image signal, the camera, the detection range). Similar issue is taken with claim 5
Claims 4-5 recites the limitation "a determination " in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if applicant is referring to the determination made in claim 1, or the determination made again in claim 5. For examination purposes, the limitation will be understood as referring to the determination made again in claim 5.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the object included in the signal is detected by the sensor unit”. However, the claim already recites that the objected detected by the sensor unit is not included in the image signal. Thus, it is unclear as to how the object can be present in the image signal when it is not present in the image signal. For examination purposes, the limitation will be understood as though a subsequent detection is made after the heating and cleaning in which a camera detects an object in the image signal. Clarification and correction are required.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the sensor" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation will be understood as “the sensor unit”.
As to claim 7, the grammatical structure of claim 7 makes it unclear as to what the claim actually entails as it states “and reflects the electromagnetic waves as reflected waves with predetermined intensity or higher”. It is unclear as to what this limitation is attributed towards, the camera or the sensor unit? Is applicant stating that the control unit reflects such waves with a predetermined intensity of higher? For examination purposes, the limitation will be understood as though applicant is stating the sensor reflects the electromagnetic waves with a predetermined intensity or higher. Clarification and correction are required.
The remaining claims are rejected for being dependent upon a previously rejected claim.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Lottermann (DE102018206384A1) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lottermann (DE102018206384A1) in view of Olaru (EP3364210A1) and Totsuka (WO2020170679A1).
As to claim 1, Lottermann discloses an outer cover (see [0003, 0019, & 0022] indicating that the sensors can be cameras, lidars, or radars, which have optical surfaces that read on an outer cover, see also [0006] stating that a sensor surface can have a heating wire and thereby indicates the presence of a sensor surface which reads on an outer cover); a sensor unit (refs 2-4) disposed behind the outer cover and detects an object using electromagnetic waves transmitted and received through the optical surface and output a detection signal related to the detection of the object (this is how a camera, lidar sensor, or radar functions); a control unit (ref 8) which determines whether an object is detected by the sensor unit via comparison to a signal from a camera [0016] mounted on the vehicle and images a region in which the sensor unit performs detection (see [0013] indicating that comparison of the sensor data is made with respect to each other for the determination of the most plausible cause, thus the sensor data is compared with a camera for determination of the presence of an object in order to determine plausibility). As the claim does not differentiate a sensor optical surface from an outer cover, an optical surface of a sensor reads on an outer cover. The limitation of a sensor being disposed deeper inside a vehicle than an outer cover is not a required limitation of the vehicle sensor device, as such a limitation is directed towards a vehicle assembly with the sensor device and not the sensor device itself.
However, assuming arguendo that it is not clearly and explicitly detailed that the sensor data from the sensor unit is compared with data from the camera, the following alternative rejection is provided. Although Lottermann does not explicitly disclose the comparison of the camera with another sensor for determining of the presence of an object, the feature of comparing sensor data with another sensor to determine an abnormality is a known feature in the art, as seen by Olaru.
Further, assuming arguendo that Lottermann does not showcase the presence of an outer cover, the placement of a sensor within an outer cover is known in the art and would be obvious, as seen by Totsuka.
Olaru discloses an art related sensor system for a vehicle (abstract), wherein it is disclosed that it may be difficult to determine a malfunctioning state of a radar using only its own data, thus it should be cross-checked with image data from a camera based on overlapping objects that are detected or not detected [0006, 0009, 0010, & 0012-0013].
Totsuka discloses an art related sensor system for a vehicle (abstract), wherein it is shown that a camera, lidar, and radar can be provided within a housing of a lamp which has an outer translucent out [0034]. By placing sensors in the housing of the lamp, accuracy of detecting the vehicle surroundings can be improved [0006].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Lottermann to provide the sensor within an outer housing a lamp in order to improve detection accuracy (Totsuka [0006]). A skilled artisan would also find it obvious to compare radar data to determine if objects detected by the radar are present in camera images in order to cross-check the radar to increase precision of detected a radar blockage (Olaru [0006-0007 & 0012]). Such a modification would be in-line with the desire of Lottermann to determine plausibility regarding the sensors (Lottermann [0012-0016]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lottermann (DE102018206384A1) in view of Olaru (EP3364210A1) and Totsuka (WO2020170679A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dissette (US 20160176384 A1) and Winter (US 20050115943 A1).
As to claim 2, Modified Lottermann teaches the device of claim 1, wherein it is indicated that a heater may be provided on a sensor surface and activated when plausibility determines that heating should be utilized to remove a contaminant (Lottermann [0006, 0014, & 0016]). Further, Olaru indicates that when an object is detected by a radar and not a camera, it may indicate that the radar is obstructed [0013], which can occur under snow [0004]. Since Lottermann also indicates that plausibility of the sensors is determined based on sensors determining a weather characteristic probability [0016], a skilled artisan would find it obvious to operate a heater to remove snow form the outer cover, when the radar detects an object not present in the image signal. However, assuming arguendo that the references do not explicitly disclose the operation of the heater during when a contaminant is present, such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Dissette and Winter.
Dissette discloses an art related sensor cleaning system (abstract), wherein a heating element is provided on a front cover of a sensor (see Figs.4-4A ref 128), and the heater is activated upon a determination that the sensor is contaminated [0033]. The activation of the heater is controlled via a control unit [0035].
Winter discloses an art related vehicle sensor device (abstract), wherein it is disclosed that snow deposits can occur on a front cover of a radar which impair functionality of the radar and thus should be removed (abstract & [0001]). To this extent, Winter discloses the presence of a heating wire (Fig.1 ref 3) in order to remove the snow deposits [0008 & 0020-0021].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Lottermann to provide a heater on the outer cover and actuate the heater when the sensor unit detects an object not present in the image signal in order to remove snow from outer cover (Dissette [0033 & 0035] & Winter [0008 & 0020-0021]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lottermann (DE102018206384A1) in view of Olaru (EP3364210A1) and Totsuka (WO2020170679A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Winter (US 20050115943 A1).
As to claim 3, Modified Lottermann teaches the device of claim 1, wherein Lottermann discloses that a cleaner is present which injects liquid toward the sensor surface [0006, 0023, & 0031] and the control unit controls the cleaner [0034-0035] to clean the sensor when a determination is made that the sensor is dirty. Further, it is known that when a radar detects an object not present in an image signal of a camera the radar sensor is contaminated (Olaru [0013]). Thus, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to operate the cleaner when the object detected by the sensor unit is not included in the image signal. The limitation of the nozzle providing the fluid from an outside of the vehicle is merely intended use. Further, the vehicle is a not a positively recited limitation of the sensor device. However, assuming arguendo that the limitation of the nozzle ejecting fluid from the exterior of the vehicle is intended to be a required limitation, Totsuka showcases the presence of a lamp cleaner (ref 46a) disposed farther outside the vehicles than the outer cover and which sprays a cover with liquid or air [0045] when an outer cover is dirty. Further, the use such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Winter.
Winter discloses an art related vehicle sensor device (abstract), wherein it is disclosed that snow deposits can occur on a front cover of a radar which impair functionality of the radar and thus should be removed (abstract & [0001]). To this extent, Winter discloses the presence of a heating wire (Fig.1 ref 3) in order to remove the snow deposits [0008 & 0020-0021], a nozzle (Fig.4 ref 15) disposed outside the vehicle to and sprays an outer cover of the radar in order to remove deposits such as ice/snow [0023], or a combination of both systems can be provided [0024].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Lottermann to include a nozzle that injects a liquid from the outside of the vehicle in order to aid in removal of deposits on the outer cover (Winter [0023]), as desired by Lottermann.
.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lottermann (DE102018206384A1) in view of Olaru (EP3364210A1) and Totsuka (WO2020170679A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tariq (US 20210201464 A1), Yokota (US 20210073971 A1), and Winter (US 20050115943 A1).
As to claim 4, Modified Lottermann teaches the device of claim 1, wherein Lottermann indicates that a spray nozzle and heater can both be provided and controlled by a control unit [0023-0024] for the cleaning of the radar sensor surface. The spray nozzles can provide a liquid while the heater can be provided on the sensor surface (Lottermann [0006 & 0023]). Further, it is known that when a radar detects an object not present in an image signal of a camera the radar sensor is contaminated (Olaru [0013]) and thus should be cleaned. Lottermann also indicates that after a cleaning procedure is performed, a check is again performed regarding the sensor data and deterioration (see Fig.2 and [0037-0038]). Thus, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to operate at least one of the spray device or heater when the object detected by the sensor unit is not included in the image signal in order to remove contaminants on the radar and check if after the cleaning whether such deterioration is present based on whether an object is present in an image signal. Modified Lottermann does not explicitly disclose the indication of a camera failure should the object still not be present in the image signal. However, the determination of the failure of a camera based on the inability to detect an object in an image signal is known in the art, as seen by Tariq and Yokota. The limitation of the nozzle providing the fluid from an outside of the vehicle is merely intended use. Further, the vehicle is a not a positively recited limitation of the sensor device. However, assuming arguendo that the limitation of the nozzle ejecting fluid from the exterior of the vehicle is intended to be a required limitation, Totsuka showcases the presence of a lamp cleaner (ref 46a) disposed farther outside the vehicles than the outer cover and which sprays a cover with liquid or air [0045] when an outer cover is dirty. Further, the use such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Winter.
Tariq discloses an art related vehicle sensor device (abstract), wherein image quality may be poor due to a malfunctioning sensor [0010 & 0023].
Yokota discloses an art related vehicle sensor device (abstract & Fig.1), wherein it is known that a faulty camera cannot produce an image [0055].
Winter discloses an art related vehicle sensor device (abstract), wherein it is disclosed that snow deposits can occur on a front cover of a radar which impair functionality of the radar and thus should be removed (abstract & [0001]). To this extent, Winter discloses the presence of a heating wire (Fig.1 ref 3) in order to remove the snow deposits [0008 & 0020-0021], a nozzle (Fig.4 ref 15) disposed outside the vehicle to and sprays an outer cover of the radar in order to remove deposits such as ice/snow [0023], or a combination of both systems can be provided [0024].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Lottermann to determine that a camera failure is present should an object not be present in an image signal when it is detected by a radar sensor as it is known in the art (Tariq [0010 & 0023], & Yokota [0055]). Such a modification is logical as when image quality is poor and the camera cannot detect an object such a situation is present (Olaru [0022], Tariq [0010 & 0023], & Yokota [0055]). A skilled artisan would also find it obvious to include a nozzle that injects a liquid from the outside of the vehicle in order to aid in removal of deposits on the outer cover (Winter [0023]), as desired by Lottermann.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lottermann (DE102018206384A1) in view of Olaru (EP3364210A1) and Totsuka (WO2020170679A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jeon (US 20200116854 A1), Ouchi (US 20150234044 A1), and Winter (US 20050115943 A1).
As to claim 5, Modified Lottermann teaches the device of claim 1, wherein Lottermann indicates that a spray nozzle and heater can both be provided and controlled by a control unit [0023-0024] for the cleaning of the radar sensor surface. The spray nozzles can provide a liquid while the heater can be provided on the sensor surface (Lottermann [0006 & 0023]). Further, it is known that when a radar detects an object not present in an image signal of a camera the radar sensor is contaminated (Olaru [0013]) and thus should be cleaned. Lottermann also indicates that after a cleaning procedure is performed, a check is again performed regarding the sensor data and deterioration (see Fig.2 and [0037-0038]). Thus, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to operate at least one of the spray device or heater when the object detected by the sensor unit is not included in the image signal in order to remove contaminants on the radar and check if after the cleaning whether such deterioration is present based on whether an object is present in an image signal and the radar data. Modified Lottermann does not explicitly disclose the indication of a radar failure should the object be present in the image signal but not in the radar data. However, the determination of the failure of a radar based on the inability to detect an object in an image signal is known in the art, as seen by Jeon and Ouchi. The limitation of the nozzle providing the fluid from an outside of the vehicle is merely intended use. Further, the vehicle is a not a positively recited limitation of the sensor device. However, assuming arguendo that the limitation of the nozzle ejecting fluid from the exterior of the vehicle is intended to be a required limitation, Totsuka showcases the presence of a lamp cleaner (ref 46a) disposed farther outside the vehicles than the outer cover and which sprays a cover with liquid or air [0045] when an outer cover is dirty. Further, the use such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Winter.
Jeon discloses an art related automotive radar sensor and camera (abstract), wherein it is known that when an object is present in a camera image but not detected by a radar sensor it is indicative of a malfunction of the radar sensor (see Figs.6-7, also [0115]).
Ouchi discloses an art related radar and sensor system for a vehicle (abstract), wherein when a camera detects an object but a radar does not, it is indicative of a failure of the radar sensor (Fig.2 & [0049]).
Winter discloses an art related vehicle sensor device (abstract), wherein it is disclosed that snow deposits can occur on a front cover of a radar which impair functionality of the radar and thus should be removed (abstract & [0001]). To this extent, Winter discloses the presence of a heating wire (Fig.1 ref 3) in order to remove the snow deposits [0008 & 0020-0021], a nozzle (Fig.4 ref 15) disposed outside the vehicle to and sprays an outer cover of the radar in order to remove deposits such as ice/snow [0023], or a combination of both systems can be provided [0024].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Lottermann to determine that a radar failure is present should an object be present in an image signal when it is not detected by a radar sensor as it is known in the art (Jeon Figs.6-7, also [0115], & Ouchi Fig.2 and [0049]). Further, as it is known that when a camera detects a certain number of objects the camera data is generally reliable (Olaru [0022]), it would be logical to conclude that an inconsistency between a radar and camera is due to a failure of the radar. Furthermore, since such a determination occurs after a cleaning procedure is performed, a skilled artisan would reasonably expect that any contaminant on the outer cover would be removed such that the inability of the radar to detect is not due to the presence of contaminants. A skilled artisan would also find it obvious to include a nozzle that injects a liquid from the outside of the vehicle in order to aid in removal of deposits on the outer cover (Winter [0023]), as desired by Lottermann.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lottermann (DE102018206384A1) in view of Olaru (EP3364210A1) and Totsuka (WO2020170679A1).
As to claim 6, Modified Lottermann teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the control unit makes the determination by comparing of a position of the object detected by the sensor unit with a position of the object included in the image signal (see Olaru Fig.2 & [0009-0010, 0035]).
As to claim 7, Modified Lottermann teaches the device of claim 1, wherein a radar sensor detects objects based on a reflected electromagnetic wave having a predetermined intensity. Accordingly, the determination of whether or not object is present in the image signal is conducted based on the intensity of the reflected wave being higher than a predetermined amount.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lottermann (DE102018206384A1) in view of Olaru (EP3364210A1), Totsuka (WO2020170679A1), and Winter (US 20050115943 A1).
As to claim 8, Lottermann discloses an outer cover (see [0003, 0019, & 0022] indicating that the sensors can be cameras, lidars, or radars, which have optical surfaces that read on an outer cover, see also [0006] stating that a sensor surface can have a heating wire and thereby indicates the presence of a sensor surface which reads on an outer cover); a sensor unit (refs 2-4) disposed behind the outer cover and detects an object using electromagnetic waves transmitted and received through the optical surface and output a detection signal related to the detection of the object (this is how a camera, lidar sensor, or radar functions); a spray nozzle and heater can both be provided and controlled by a control unit [0023-0024] for the cleaning of the radar sensor surface, the spray nozzles can provide a liquid while the heater can be provided on the sensor surface (Lottermann [0006 & 0023]); a control unit (ref 8) which determines whether an object is detected by the sensor unit via comparison to a signal from a camera [0016] mounted on the vehicle and images a region in which the sensor unit performs detection (see [0013] indicating that comparison of the sensor data is made with respect to each other for the determination of the most plausible cause, thus the sensor data is compared with a camera for determination of the presence of an object in order to determine plausibility). A skilled artisan would find it obvious to use the control unit to operate at least one of the spray device or heater when the object detected by the sensor unit is not included in the image signal in order to remove contaminants on the radar. As the claim does not differentiate a sensor optical surface from an outer cover, an optical surface of a sensor reads on an outer cover. The limitation of a sensor being disposed deeper inside a vehicle than an outer cover is not a required limitation of the vehicle sensor device, as such a limitation is directed towards a vehicle assembly with the sensor device and not the sensor device itself. However, assuming arguendo that it is not clearly and explicitly detailed that the sensor data from the sensor unit is compared with data from the camera, the following alternative rejection is provided. Although Lottermann does not explicitly disclose the comparison of the camera with another sensor for determining of the presence of an object, the feature of comparing sensor data with another sensor to determine an abnormality is a known feature in the art, as seen by Olaru. Further, assuming arguendo that Lottermann does not showcase the presence of an outer cover, the placement of a sensor within an outer cover is known in the art and would be obvious, as seen by Totsuka.
Olaru discloses an art related sensor system for a vehicle (abstract), wherein it is disclosed that it may be difficult to determine a malfunctioning state of a radar using only its own data, thus it should be cross-checked with image data from a camera based on overlapping objects that are detected or not detected [0006, 0009, 0010, & 0012-0013].
Totsuka discloses an art related sensor system for a vehicle (abstract), wherein it is shown that a camera, lidar, and radar can be provided within a housing of a lamp which has an outer translucent out [0034]. By placing sensors in the housing of the lamp, accuracy of detecting the vehicle surroundings can be improved [0006].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Lottermann to provide the sensor within an outer housing a lamp in order to improve detection accuracy (Totsuka [0006]). A skilled artisan would also find it obvious to compare radar data to determine if objects detected by the radar are present in camera images in order to cross-check the radar to increase precision of detected a radar blockage (Olaru [0006-0007 & 0012]). Such a modification would be in-line with the desire of Lottermann to determine plausibility regarding the sensors (Lottermann [0012-0016]).
Further, it is known that when a radar detects an object not present in an image signal of a camera the radar sensor is contaminated (Olaru [0013]) and thus should be cleaned. Thus, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to have the control unit operate at least one of the spray device or heater when the object detected by the sensor unit is not included in the image signal in order to remove contaminants on the radar. The limitation of the nozzle providing the fluid from an outside of the vehicle is merely intended use. Further, the vehicle is a not a positively recited limitation of the sensor device. However, assuming arguendo that the limitation of the nozzle ejecting fluid from the exterior of the vehicle is intended to be a required limitation, Totsuka showcases the presence of a lamp cleaner (ref 46a) disposed farther outside the vehicles than the outer cover and which sprays a cover with liquid or air [0045] when an outer cover is dirty. Further, the use such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Winter.
Winter discloses an art related vehicle sensor device (abstract), wherein it is disclosed that snow deposits can occur on a front cover of a radar which impair functionality of the radar and thus should be removed (abstract & [0001]). To this extent, Winter discloses the presence of a heating wire (Fig.1 ref 3) in order to remove the snow deposits [0008 & 0020-0021], a nozzle (Fig.4 ref 15) disposed outside the vehicle to and sprays an outer cover of the radar in order to remove deposits such as ice/snow [0023], or a combination of both systems can be provided [0024].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Lottermann to include a nozzle that injects a liquid from the outside of the vehicle in order to aid in removal of deposits on the outer cover (Winter [0023]), as desired by Lottermann.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schmidt (US 20180272998 A1) discloses a determination of a sensor being dirty is made by comparing one sensor data with another to see if both sensors detect an object [0049]. Should one sensor detect an object while the other does not, it can be determined that the sensor which does not detect the object requires cleaning [0049].
Laroia (US 20160004144 A1) discloses obtaining data from multiple sensors and comparing data from one sensor with data from at least one other sensor in order to make a determination as to whether or not the sensor is dirty (see Fig.5a & [0075, 0081, 0084-0085, 0089-0091]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAIR CHAUDHRI whose telephone number is (571)272-4773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am to 5:00pm EST.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at (571)272-1414. 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.
/OMAIR CHAUDHRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711