DETAILED NON-FINAL OFFICE 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 .
Comments
This office action is in response to the preliminary amendment of June 14, 2024, which amendment has been ENTERED.
The drawings of June 14, 2024 have been accepted as FORMAL.
The information disclosure statements (IDS) of June 14, 2024 and of January 16, 2026 have been considered during examination.
Please note that any mention of a line number of a claim in this office action refers to the claims as they appear in the official claim listing in the image file wrapper (IFW).
Prior Art Rejections
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-12, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weigel (EP 3715911 A1), hereinafter Weigel (‘911)..
Looking, first, to independent claim 1, “A detecting module” (line 1) is plainly disclosed in Weigel (‘911), noting, for example, paragraph [0049] at line 1 (“sensor arrangement”).
The claim 1, “radar unit …” as recited on lines 2-3 is met in Weigel (‘911) by the disclosed radar modules, such as “radar module 101,” noting, for example, paragraph [0049].
The claim 1 “mirror having a reflective surface …” as recited on lines 4-5 of claim 1 is met in Weigel (‘911) by the disclosed “deflector 400,” noting, for example, paragraph [0017] (noting “mirror”), paragraph [0018], paragraph [0032], and paragraph [0033] at lines 1-3 (noting “mirror”).
The claim 1, “optical detection unit …” as recited on lines 6-7 of claim 1 is met in Weigel (‘911) by the disclosed “sensor module” or “receiver module,” noting, for example, paragraph [0021], paragraph [0021] at lines 1-2, paragraph [0022], paragraph [0023], paragraph [0024] at line 1, paragraph [0025] at lines 1-2, paragraph [0027], paragraph [0028], and, paragraph [0051] at lines 1-2.
The claim 1 limitations, “the radar unit, the mirror, and the optical detection unit are placed such that a field of view of the radar unit and a field of view of the optical detection unit overlap each other” (lines 8-9) are met in Weigel (‘911) by the arrangement of the “common beam path 201a,” noting, for example, paragraph [0061] and paragraph [0014].
In that each and every claim limitation recited in independent claim 1 is plainly disclosed in Weigel (‘911), independent claim 1 is anticipated by Weigel (‘911).
The further limitations of dependent claim 2 are met by Weigel (‘911) due to the arrangement for the common beam path 201a” since the radar beam is wider than the lidar sensor, noting, for example, paragraph [0003].
The further limitations of dependent claim 3 are met by Weigel (‘911) in that the “common beam path 201a” would be in the “same plane.” A single line can always be considered in a plane.
The further limitations of dependent claim 4 are met by Weigel (‘911) in that “the first signal and the second signal, are coaxial …”, noting the common beam path and item 201a in Figure 1, and, paragraph [0054] at lines 3-6.
The further limitations of dependent claim 5 are met by Weigel (‘911), noting, for example, paragraph [0051] at lines 4-6 (i.e., the second signal source of a “laser signal” is, by definition, a LiDAR), and, further noting that the illustrated arrangements in the drawings show the “second beam path” and the “common beam path” are shown “in the same plane” (e.g., noting items 202 and 201a in Figure 1).
The further limitations of dependent claim 6 are met in Weigel (‘911), noting, for example, paragraph [0024] at line 1.
The further limitations of dependent claim 7 are met in Weigel (‘911), noting, for example, that the mirror is illustrated in drawing Figure 1 as having a “flat plate shape” and extending in a “perpendicular” direction out of the plane of the page.
The further limitations of dependent claim 8 are met in Weigel (‘911), noting, for example, that in paragraph [0052] the angle is disclosed as being 45 degrees, which is within the range of 30 degrees to 60 degrees.
As for the further limitations of dependent claims 10, 11, and 12, these are met in Weigel (‘911) by the “scanner module” as it is applied to the disclosed radar sensor and the disclosed optical sensors.
The limitations of independent claim 17 are met by Weigel (‘911) as applied above to independent claim 1.
The further limitations of dependent claim 18 are met in Weigel (‘911), at least, by the disclosure in paragraphs [0040] through [0043].
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 9, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weigel (‘911).
A person of ordinary skill-in-the-art would be a person having a degree in some form or engineering or in physics with several years of practical experience in the design and/or testing of sensor systems.
Regarding dependent claim 9, Weigel (‘911) discloses a “mirror” generally, so, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that any suitable form of “mirror” could be used in Weigel (‘911), with a reasonable likelihood of success. Alternatively, regarding dependent claim 9, in that Weigel (‘911) discloses a “mirror” generally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try various forms of mirrors, including those in claim 9, in an effort to optimize the functioning of the Weigel (‘911) device, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
As for the further limitations of dependent claim 13, Weigel (‘911) discloses generally a “dielectric mirror” and a mirror with a “metal coating,” so, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try various types of dielectric mirrors and of metallic mirrors, including those in claim 13, in an effort to optimize the functioning of the Weigel (‘911) device, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
With respect to independent claim 16, all of the claimed features recited in the claim are met by Weigel (‘911), except for the limitation, “a field of view of the radar unit and a field of view of the optical detection unit do not overlap each other” (lines 8-9). Weigel (‘911) discloses and teaches the use of a “multitude of channels,” noting paragraph [0039], for the advantage “to allow for several scan plans to be realized.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to supply a “multitude of channels” in Weigel (‘911) as disclosed and taught by Weigel (‘911) in order to obtain the advantage taught by Weigel (‘911), with a reasonable likelihood of success. In this arrangement of Weigel (‘911), some fields of view of radar channels would not overlap some fields of view of optical detection channels.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weigel (‘911) in view of Teranishi et al (‘045).
A person of ordinary skill-in-the-art would be a person having a degree in some form or engineering or in physics with several years of practical experience in the design and/or testing of sensor systems.
Looking, first, to dependent claim 14, although the recited limitations in the body of the claim (i.e., line 2) are present in Weigel (‘911), Weigel (‘911) does not disclose, “A lamp device” (line 1). In Weigel (‘911), it is disclosed generally to use the device with a vehicle to detect other vehicles and objects, noting column 2, paragraph [0015] at lines 7-13, not stating where the device would be placed on the vehicle using the device.
Teranishi et al (‘045), in the same field of endeavor, teaches to place a sensing unit within a vehicular lamp for the advantage to protect the device from “mud splashes, rain water, and the like,” noting paragraph [0018], especially noting lines 4-9 of that paragraph.
So, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the Weigel (‘911) device in the vehicular lamp arrangement of Teranishi et al (‘045) as taught by Teranishi et al (‘045) in order to obtain the advantages taught by Teranishi et al (‘045), with a reasonable likelihood of success. Thus, dependent claim 14 is obvious over the applied combination of Weigel (‘911) in view of Teranishi et al (‘045).
The further limitations of dependent claim 15 are met by the applied combination of Weigel (‘911) in view of Teranishi et al (‘045) as applied above to dependent claim 14.
Potentially-Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-22 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.
Prior Art of General Interest
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yonemoto et al (‘304) is of general interest for the disclosed arrangement of a vehicle headlamp.
Winner et al (‘385) is of general interest for column 4 at lines 48-54.
Schramek et al (‘966) is of general interest for the disclosure of a detector using millimeter wave radar and optical detection, as well as, for the disclosed mirror arrangement.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARR E GREGORY whose telephone number is (571)272-6972. The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays through Fridays from 7:30 am to 3:30 pm eastern time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-5144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights