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 .
Election
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 12/04/2025 is acknowledged. Non-elected claims 12-15 are withdrawn.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 9: “the first tube has a one inlet orifice . . . and the inlet orifice is disposed at an outer surface of the first tube”;
Claim 9: “the second tube has a one inlet orifice . . . and the inlet orifice is disposed at an outer surface of the second tube”;
Claim 10: “the first tube is configured to circulate the air and the water through a space defined by the outer surface and the inner surface”;
Claim 10: “the second tube is configured to circulate the air and the water through a space defined by the outer surface and the inner surface”;
Claim 11: “the first baffle has a first end connected to an inner surface of the first tube and a second end connected to the inner surface of the first tube”;
Claim 11: “the second baffle has a first end connected to an inner surface of the second tube and a second end connected to the inner surface of the second tube.”
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, and 12-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12071107. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, as shown in the table below:
Present Application
US Patent 12071107
Claim 1. A system, comprising:
a mast;
a first LiDAR unit attached to the mast, wherein the first LiDAR unit comprises a first lens;
a second LiDAR unit attached to the mast, wherein the second LiDAR unit comprises a second lens;
a first tube disposed around the first LiDAR unit, wherein the first tube comprises a first outlet orifice directed towards the first lens, wherein the first outlet orifice is configured to provide an airflow about the first lens to prevent debris accumulation about the first lens and/or remove debris from the first lens; and
a second tube disposed around the second LiDAR unit, wherein the second tube comprises a second outlet orifice directed towards the second lens, wherein the second outlet orifice is configured to provide an airflow about the second lens to prevent debris accumulation about the second lens and/or remove debris from the second lens.
Claim 8. A system, comprising:
a sensor comprising a lens;
an airflow device disposed around the lens, wherein the airflow device comprises an outlet orifice directed at the lens that is configured to provide an airflow around the lens to prevent debris accumulation around the lens and/or remove debris from the lens; and…
wherein the airflow device includes a tube disposed around the sensor and having a central opening,
wherein the sensor comprises a first lidar unit and a second lidar unit,
wherein the tube comprises a first tube disposed around the first lidar unit and a second tube disposed around the second lidar unit…
The specification discloses a mast 200 to which the first LiDAR unit and the second LiDAR unit are attached (see Figs. 2-4, col. 7 lines 32-48)
Claim 2 reciting, inter alia:
the first tube comprises an angled surface configured to correspond to a field of view of the first LiDAR unit, and
the second tube comprises an angled surface configured to correspond to a field of view of the second LiDAR unit
Claim 2 reciting, inter alia:
the tube comprises an angled surface configured to correspond to a field of view of the sensor
Claim 5 recites the sensor is a LiDAR
Claim 8 recites the sensor comprises a first LiDAR unit and a second LiDAR unit
Claim 3 reciting, inter alia:
the first LiDAR unit, the first tube, and the first outlet orifice are substantially circular, and
the second LiDAR unit, the second tube, and the second outlet orifice are substantially circular
Claim 4 reciting, inter alia:
the sensor, the tube, and the outlet orifice are substantially circular
Claim 5 recites the sensor is a LiDAR
Claim 8 recites the sensor comprises a first LiDAR unit and a second LiDAR unit
Claim 4 reciting, inter alia:
the first tube comprises a first baffle therein configured to distribute the airflow within the first tube to ensure sufficient pressure and velocity of the airflow exiting the first outlet orifice to prevent debris accumulation about the first lens and/or remove debris from the first lens, and
the second tube comprises a second baffle therein configured to distribute the airflow within the second tube to ensure sufficient pressure and velocity of the airflow exiting the second outlet orifice to prevent debris accumulation about the second lens and/or remove debris from the second lens
Claim 1 reciting, inter alia:
the tube has a baffle extending across a cross section of the tube to distribute the airflow within the tube to ensure sufficient pressure and velocity of the airflow exiting the outlet orifice and to prevent debris accumulation about the lens and/or remove debris from the lens
Claim 5 reciting, inter alia:
the first tube comprises a first inlet in communication with a supply of air, and
the second tube comprises a second inlet in communication with the supply of air…
Claim 6 reciting, inter alia:
wherein the airflow device comprises an inlet in communication with a supply of air.
Claim 6 reciting, inter alia:
the first baffle extends across a cross section of the first tube, divides an interior of the first tube into two chambers, wherein the first outlet orifice is in one of the two chambers, and
the second baffle extends across a cross section of the second tube, divides an interior of the second tube into two chambers, and wherein the second outlet orifice is in one of the two chambers
Claim 1 reciting, inter alia:
the tube has a baffle extending across a cross section of the tube…
the baffle divides an interior of the tube into two chambers, and
the outlet orifice is in one of the two chambers
Claim 8 reciting, inter alia:
a wash system configured to direct water through the first outlet orifice and the second outlet orifice,
wherein the first tube has a central opening and the first lidar unit extends through and directly contacts the central opening
Claim 1 reciting, inter alia:
a wash system configured to direct water through the outlet orifice…
…a tube disposed around the sensor and having a central opening…
wherein the sensor extends through and directly contacts an inner surface of the central opening of the tube…
Claim 1. A system, comprising:
a mast;
a first LiDAR unit attached to the mast, wherein the first LiDAR unit comprises a first lens;
a second LiDAR unit attached to the mast, wherein the second LiDAR unit comprises a second lens;
a first tube disposed around the first LiDAR unit, wherein the first tube comprises a first outlet orifice directed towards the first lens, wherein the first outlet orifice is configured to provide an airflow about the first lens to prevent debris accumulation about the first lens and/or remove debris from the first lens; and
a second tube disposed around the second LiDAR unit, wherein the second tube comprises a second outlet orifice directed towards the second lens, wherein the second outlet orifice is configured to provide an airflow about the second lens to prevent debris accumulation about the second lens and/or remove debris from the second lens.
12. A system comprising:
a first lidar unit having a first lens,
a second lidar unit having a second lens;
a first tube with a first outlet orifice directed towards the first lens;
a second tube with a second outlet orifice directed towards the second lens…
…airflow exiting the first outlet orifice to prevent debris accumulation about the first lens and/or remove debris from the first lens…
…a mast;
wherein the first lidar unit and the second lidar unit are attached to the mast.
The specification discloses “the second outlet orifice is configured to provide an airflow vertically downward about the second lens to prevent debris accumulation about the second lens and/or remove debris from the second lens” (see col. 4 lines 62-65)
Claim 2 reciting, inter alia:
the first tube comprises an angled surface configured to correspond to a field of view of the first LiDAR unit, and
the second tube comprises an angled surface configured to correspond to a field of view of the second LiDAR unit
Claim 13 reciting, inter alia:
the first tube comprises an angled top surface configured to correspond to a field of view of the first lidar unit, and
the second tube comprises an angled bottom surface configured to correspond to a field of view of the second lidar unit
Claim 3 reciting, inter alia:
the first LiDAR unit, the first tube, and the first outlet orifice are substantially circular, and
the second LiDAR unit, the second tube, and the second outlet orifice are substantially circular
Claim 14 reciting, inter alia:
the first lidar unit, the first tube, and the first outlet orifice are substantially circular, and
the second lidar unit, the second tube, and the second outlet orifice are substantially circular
Claim 4 reciting, inter alia:
the first tube comprises a first baffle therein configured to distribute the airflow within the first tube to ensure sufficient pressure and velocity of the airflow exiting the first outlet orifice to prevent debris accumulation about the first lens and/or remove debris from the first lens, and
the second tube comprises a second baffle therein configured to distribute the airflow within the second tube to ensure sufficient pressure and velocity of the airflow exiting the second outlet orifice to prevent debris accumulation about the second lens and/or remove debris from the second lens
Claim 9 reciting, inter alia:
the first tube has a first baffle extending across a cross section of the first tube to distribute an airflow within the first tube to ensure sufficient pressure and velocity of the airflow exiting the first outlet orifice to prevent debris accumulation about the first lens and/or remove debris from the first lens
Claim 15 reciting, inter alia:
the second tube comprises a second baffle therein configured to distribute the airflow within the second tube to ensure sufficient pressure and velocity of the airflow exiting the second outlet orifice to prevent debris accumulation about the second lens and/or remove debris from the second lens
Claim 5 reciting, inter alia:
the first tube comprises a first inlet in communication with a supply of air, and
the second tube comprises a second inlet in communication with the supply of air
Claim 16 reciting, inter alia:
the first tube comprises a first inlet in communication with a supply of air, and
the second tube comprises a second inlet in communication with the supply of air and/or a different supply of air
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 recites: “the second tube is a unitary tube . . . .” This limitation is not disclosed in: (1) the specification of the present application; and (2) the specification of the prior-filed parent application 16/940,598. Both specification discloses that, although the first tube is unitary, the second tube comprises segments (see specification at ¶ 0050, Figs. 7-9), i.e., the second tube is not unitary. Therefore, Claim 9 contains new matter.
Claim 10 is rejected because it depends on Claim 9.
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 7 and 9-11 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 7 recites “the first tube is a ring and extends at least 30% around a diameter of the first tube” at lines 1-2. It’s unclear how a tube can be a ring that extends just 30% of its own diameter. In the specification, the recited 30% refers to the baffle, not the tube (see ¶ 0049). Clarification is requested.
Claim 7 recites “the second tube is a ring and extends at least 30% around a diameter of the second tube” at lines 3-4. It’s unclear how a tube can be a ring that extends just 30% of its own diameter. In the specification, the recited 30% refers to the baffle, not the tube (see ¶ 0049). Clarification is requested.
Claim 9 recites “a one inlet orifice” at line 3. It’s unclear what “a one” means. Clarification is requested.
Claim 9 recites “a one inlet orifice” at line 7. It’s unclear what “a one” means. Clarification is requested.
Claim 10 recites: “a space defined by the outer surface and the inner surface” at line 2. It’s unclear what this clause means because the specification does not use the terms “space,” “outer surface,” and “inner surface.” Also it’s unclear what space could be defined by the outer surface, whatever “outer surface” may be. Clarification is requested.
Claim 10 recites: “a space defined by the outer surface and the inner surface” at line 4. It’s unclear what this clause means because the specification does not use the terms “space,” “outer surface,” and “inner surface.” Also it’s unclear what space could be defined by the outer surface, whatever “outer surface” may be. Clarification is requested.
Claim 10 recite: “the inner surface” at line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recite: “the inner surface” at line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites: “the outer surface and the inner surface” at line 2. It’s unclear which tube these surfaces belong to. Clarification is requested.
Claim 10 recites: “the outer surface and the inner surface” at line 4. It’s unclear which tube these surfaces belong to. Clarification is requested.
Claim 11 recites: “the first baffle” at line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites: “the second baffle” at line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-5, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by RICE (US PGPUB 20180015908).
Regarding Claim 1, RICE teaches a system (see, e.g., abstract, claims 1-20, Figs. 3A-3H, ¶¶ 0044-56). RICE’s system comprises:
a mast (support structure 310, see Figs. 3A-3E, 3G, ¶ 0046);
a first LiDAR unit (first LiDAR sensor 390, see Figs. 3B, 3D-3G, ¶ 0047) attached to the mast (see id.), wherein the first LiDAR unit comprises a first lens (outer surface of first LiDAR sensor 390, see Figs. 3B, 3D-3G);
a second LiDAR unit (second LiDAR sensor 392, see Figs. 3B, 3D-3G, ¶ 0047) attached to the mast (see id.), wherein the second LiDAR unit comprises a second lens (outer surface of second LiDAR sensor 392, see Figs. 3B, 3D-3G).
PNG
media_image1.png
634
805
media_image1.png
Greyscale
RICE’s system comprises a first tube (a first raised lip structure 323 having a cavity 340 therein, see Figs. 3B-3F, ¶¶ 0047, 0051-52) disposed around the first LiDAR unit (see Figs. 3B-3F), wherein the first tube comprises a first outlet orifice (slit opening 370 of the first raised lip structure 323) directed towards the first lens (see Figs. 3E-3F, ¶¶ 0052, 0054).
The recited function(s) of “provide an airflow about the first lens to prevent debris accumulation about the first lens and/or remove debris from the first lens” are interpreted as intended use, because they are directed to how the apparatus is used without imposing any structural requirements. RICE’s first outlet orifice (slit opening 370 of the first raised lip structure 323) is structurally fully capable of performing the recited functions. RICE teaches that slit opening 370 ejects air towards the first LiDAR sensor 390 (see Figs. 3E-3F, ¶¶ 0052, 0054).
Applicant is reminded that a claimed apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure. See MPEP § 2114.II. ("Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does"). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.
RICE’s system comprises a second tube (a second raised lip structure 330 having a cavity 340 therein, see Figs. 3B-3F, ¶¶ 0047, 0053-54) disposed around the second LiDAR unit (see Figs. 3B-3F), wherein the second tube comprises a second outlet orifice (slit opening 370 of the second raised lip structure 330) directed towards the second lens (see Figs. 3E-3F, ¶¶ 0053-54).
The recited function(s) of “provide an airflow about the second lens to prevent debris accumulation about the second lens and/or remove debris from the second lens” are interpreted as intended use, because they are directed to how the apparatus is used without imposing any structural requirements. RICE’s second outlet orifice (slit opening 370 of the second raised lip structure 330) is structurally fully capable of performing the recited functions. RICE teaches that slit opening 370 ejects air towards the second LiDAR sensor 392 (see Figs. 3E-3F, ¶¶ 0053-54).
Applicant is reminded that a claimed apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure. See MPEP § 2114.II.
Regarding Claim 2, RICE teaches the system of claim 1. RICE teaches:
wherein the first tube (a first raised lip structure 323 having a cavity 340 therein) comprises an angled surface (surface of first lip structure 324, see Figs. 3D-3F, ¶¶ 0051-52) configured to correspond to a field of view of the first LiDAR unit (see id.);
wherein the second tube (a second raised lip structure 330 having a cavity 340 therein) comprises an angled surface (surface of second lip structure 329, see Figs. 3D-3F, ¶ 0053) configured to correspond to a field of view of the second LiDAR unit (see id.).
Regarding Claim 3, RICE teaches the system of claim 1. RICE teaches: wherein the first LiDAR unit, the first tube, and the first outlet orifice are substantially circular (see Figs. 3A, 3C-3F, ¶ 0048), and wherein the second LiDAR unit, the second tube, and the second outlet orifice are substantially circular (see Figs. 3A, 3C-3F, ¶ 0048).
Regarding Claim 4, RICE teaches the system of claim 1.
RICE teaches that the first tube comprises a first baffle therein (see annotated Fig. 3F below; see also structure 325 in Figs. 3D-3E), which is structurally fully capable of performing the recited function(s) of “distribute the airflow within the first tube to ensure sufficient pressure and velocity of the airflow exiting the first outlet orifice to prevent debris accumulation about the first lens and/or remove debris from the first lens.” See MPEP § 2114.II. Because the baffle reduces the cross section of outlet 370, an “air knife” effect is produced (see ¶¶ 0052-53) for cleaning the first LiDAR.
PNG
media_image2.png
395
687
media_image2.png
Greyscale
RICE teaches that the second tube comprises a second baffle therein (the same set of structural and functional features exist for cleaning the second LiDAR sensor 392, see Figs. 3D-3F), which is structurally fully capable of performing the recited function(s) of “distribute the airflow within the second tube to ensure sufficient pressure and velocity of the airflow exiting the second outlet orifice to prevent debris accumulation about the second lens and/or remove debris from the second lens.” See MPEP § 2114.II. Because the baffle reduces the cross section of outlet 370, an “air knife” effect is produced (see ¶¶ 0052-53) for cleaning the second LiDAR.
Regarding Claim 5, RICE teaches the system of claim 1. RICE teaches: wherein the first tube comprises a first inlet (one of the openings in extension portion 314, see Figs. 3C-3F, ¶¶ 0048, 0049-50) in communication with a supply of air (see Figs. 1 & 3F, ¶ 0024, LiDAR cleaning device is in communication with air compressor 110 and accumulator 120; see ¶¶ 0045-46, the LiDAR cleaning system shown in Figs. 3A-3H is part of sensor cleaning system 100 shown in Fig. 1), and wherein the second tube comprises a second inlet (another one of the openings in extension portion 314, see Figs. 3C-3F, ¶¶ 0048, 0049-50) in communication with the supply of air (in communication with air compressor 110 and accumulator 120).
Regarding Claim 7, RICE teaches the system of claim 1. RICE teaches: wherein the first tube (a first raised lip structure 323 having a cavity 340 therein) is a ring and extends at least 30% around a diameter of the first tube (see Figs. 3A-3G), and wherein the second tube (a second raised lip structure 330 having a cavity 340 therein) is a ring and extends at least 30% around a diameter of the second tube (see Figs. 3A-3G).
Regarding Claim 11, RICE teaches the system of claim 1.
RICE teaches a first baffle (see annotated Fig. 3F below; see also structure 325 in Figs. 3D-3E) for the first tube, and a second baffle for the second tube (the same set of structural and functional features exist for cleaning the second LiDAR sensor 392, see Figs. 3D-3F).
PNG
media_image3.png
393
579
media_image3.png
Greyscale
RICE teaches: the first baffle has a first end connected to an inner surface of the first tube (see annotated Fig. 3D below) and a second end connected to the inner surface of the first tube (see id.); the second baffle has a first end connected to an inner surface of the second tube and a second end connected to the inner surface of the second tube (the same set of structural and functional features exist for cleaning the second LiDAR sensor 392, see Figs. 3D-3F).
PNG
media_image4.png
478
568
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 1-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SEVAK et al. (US PGPUB 20190314865), in view of RICE.
Regarding Claim 1, SEVAK teaches a system (see abstract, Figs. 1-7), comprising:
a mast (bracket 62, see Figs. 1-2, ¶ 0033);
a first LiDAR (sensor 66, which is a LiDAR, ¶ 0034) unit attached to the mast (on bracket 62, see Figs. 1-2, ¶ 0034), wherein the first LiDAR unit comprises a first lens (sensor window 70, see Figs. 2 & 4, ¶ 0035);
SEVAK’s system comprises a first tube (tube 32) disposed around the first LiDAR unit (see Figs. 2 & 4, ¶ 0044), wherein the first tube comprises a first outlet orifice (slot 46) directed towards the first lens (see Figs. 2 & 4, ¶ 0048).
As explained above, the recited function(s) of “provide an airflow about the first lens to prevent debris accumulation about the first lens and/or remove debris from the first lens” is interpreted as intended use, because it’s directed to how the apparatus is used without imposing any structural limitation. See MPEP § 2114.II.
SEVAK’s the first outlet orifice (slot 46) is structurally fully capable of performing the recited function(s). SEVAK teaches that a gas exiting from slot 46 can “blow debris off the sensor window 70 as well as possibly block debris from landing on the sensor window 70” (¶ 0050), wherein the gas may be air (see ¶ 0037).
SEVAK explicitly states that “the mounting bracket 62 may support multiple first sensors 66, e.g., multiple LIDAR devices” (¶ 0034). In other words, SEVAK teaches or suggests a second LiDAR unit (i.e., another sensor 66) attached to the mast (bracket 62), wherein the second LiDAR unit comprises a second lens (window 70).
SEVAK does not explicitly teach: “a second tube disposed around the second LiDAR unit, wherein the second tube comprises a second outlet orifice directed towards the second lens, wherein the second outlet orifice is configured to provide an airflow about the second lens to prevent debris accumulation about the second lens and/or remove debris from the second lens.”
But it’s already known in the prior art to have both a first tube disposed around a first LiDAR unit (to clean the first LiDAR unit) and a second tube disposed around a second LiDAR unit (to clean the second LiDAR unit). See RICE at Figs. 3A-3F.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify SEVAK to incorporate a second tube disposed around the second LiDAR unit (wherein the second tube comprises a second outlet orifice directed towards the second lens), with reasonable expectation of cleaning the second LiDAR (i.e., SEVAK’s second LiDAR sensor 66).
First, duplication of parts is considered obvious. See MPEP § 2144.04.VI.B. SEVAK already teaches a first LiDAR unit—which has a first tube disposed around it for cleaning—and a second LiDAR unit. Incorporating a second tube, i.e., a duplicate of the first tube, would yield the predictable result of cleaning the second LiDAR unit.
Second, because SEVAK already teaches a second LiDAR unit and already discloses that a given LiDAR’s sensor lens can get dirty (see SEVAK at ¶¶ 0001, 0050), this means the second LiDAR unit would also require cleaning of its sensor lens. In other words, the need for cleaning also applies to the second LiDAR unit, just like it applies to the first LiDAR unit.
Third, it’s already known in the prior art for a first LiDAR unit and a second LiDAR unit to be attached to a mast, wherein each LiDAR unit has its own tube for cleaning (see RICE). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, A. The incorporated second tube, i.e., a duplicate of the first tube, would serve the same cleaning function as before, thereby yielding predictable results.
In the resulting combination of SEVAK and RICE: the system would comprise “a second tube disposed around the second LiDAR unit, wherein the second tube comprises a second outlet orifice directed towards the second lens,” and the second outlet orifice is structurally fully capable of “provid[ing] an airflow about the second lens to prevent debris accumulation about the second lens and/or remove debris from the second lens.” See MPEP § 2114.II.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of SEVAK and RICE teaches the system of Claim 1. The combination teaches wherein the first tube (SEVAK’s tube 32) comprises an angled surface configured to correspond to a field of view of the first LiDAR unit (see SEVAK at Figs. 5-6), and wherein the second tube (duplicate tube 32 of SEVAK) comprises an angled surface configured to correspond to a field of view of the second LiDAR unit (as a duplicate, the second tube has the same structural and functional features as the first tube).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of SEVAK and RICE teaches the system of Claim 1. The combination teaches wherein the first LiDAR unit (SEVAK’s sensor 66), the first tube (SEVAK’s tube 32), and the first outlet orifice (SEVAK’s slot 46) are substantially circular (see SEVAK at Figs. 2 & 4), and wherein the second LiDAR unit (another sensor 66), the second tube (another tube 32), and the second outlet orifice (another slot 46) are substantially circular (these are duplicates so they have the same features).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of SEVAK and RICE teaches the system of Claim 1. The combination teaches wherein the first tube (SEVAK’s tube 32) comprises a first baffle therein (see annotated Figs. 5-6 below). The first baffle is structurally fully capable of performing the recited function(s) of “distribute the airflow within the first tube to ensure sufficient pressure and velocity of the airflow exiting the first outlet orifice to prevent debris accumulation about the first lens and/or remove debris from the first lens.” See MPEP § 2114.II. SEVAK explicitly states that the cross section of chamber 34—which has a side formed by the baffle—may be varied to ensure a substantially constant flow rate or pressure of the gas (see SEVAK at ¶ 0047), wherein the gas acts to remove debris and block debris (see id. at ¶ 0050).
PNG
media_image5.png
369
857
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The combination teaches the second tube (duplicate tube 32 of SEVAK) comprises a second baffle therein (as a duplicate, the second tube has the same structural and functional features as the first tube). The second baffle is structurally fully capable of performing the recited function(s) of “distribute the airflow within the second tube to ensure sufficient pressure and velocity of the airflow exiting the second outlet orifice to prevent debris accumulation about the second lens and/or remove debris from the second lens,” for the same reasons provided above.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of SEVAK and RICE teaches the system of Claim 1. The combination teaches wherein the first tube (first tube 32 of SEVAK) comprises a first inlet (SEVAK’s inlet end 38, see SEVAK at Figs. 3-4, ¶¶ 0027, 0036, 0045) in communication with a supply of air (SEVAK’s compressed gas source 42, see id.). The combination also teaches wherein the second tube (duplicate tube 32 of SEVAK) comprises a second inlet in communication with the supply of air (as a duplicate, the second tube has the same structural and functional features as the first tube).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of SEVAK and RICE teaches the system of Claim 4. The combination teaches wherein the first baffle (see annotated Figs. 5-6 of SEVAK above) extends across a cross section of the first tube (see id.), divides an interior of the first tube into two chambers (chambers 34 and 36 of SEVAK), wherein the first outlet orifice (slot 46 of SEVAK) is in one of the two chambers (chamber 34 of SEVAK, see id.).
The combination also teaches “wherein the second baffle extends across a cross section of the second tube, divides an interior of the second tube into two chambers, and wherein the second outlet orifice is in one of the two chambers” (as a duplicate, the second tube has the same structural and functional features as the first tube).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of SEVAK and RICE teaches the system of Claim 1. The combination teaches wherein the first tube (SEVAK’s tube 32) is a ring and extends at least 30% around a diameter of the first tube (see SEVAK at Figs. 2, 4, 7, ¶¶ 0027, 0044), and wherein the second tube (duplicate tube 32 of SEVAK) is a ring and extends at least 30% around a diameter of the second tube (as a duplicate, the second tube has the same structural and functional features as the first tube).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of SEVAK and RICE teaches the system of Claim 1. The combination teaches wherein the first baffle (see annotated Figs. 5-6 of SEVAK above) has a first end connected to an inner surface of the first tube and a second end connected to the inner surface of the first tube (see SEVAK at Figs. 4-7, ¶ 0047, chamber 34 and/or chamber 38 may extend from inlet end 38 to terminal end 40, which means the baffle separating the two chambers also may extend from inlet end 38 to terminal end 40. The combination teaches wherein the second baffle has a first end connected to an inner surface of the second tube and a second end connected to the inner surface of the second tube (as a duplicate, the second tube has the same structural and functional features as the first tube).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RICE, as applied to Claim 1, in further view of KIRSHNAN et al. (US PGPUB 20180354468).
Regarding Claim 8, RICE teaches the system of claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
634
805
media_image1.png
Greyscale
RICE teaches wherein the first tube has a central opening (see annotated Fig. 3A of RICE above) and the first lidar unit (LiDAR 390) extends through and directly contacts the central opening (see, e.g., Figs. 3B, 3D, 3E).
RICE teaches a wash system (see Fig. 1, ¶ 0024, fluid reservoir 150, pump 160).
RICE does not explicitly teach that the wash system is “configured to direct water through the first outlet orifice and the second outlet orifice.”
But it’s already known in the art to supply both water and air to the same outlet orifice. For example, KRISHNAN teaches a system for cleaning LiDAR (see Figs. 3-7, ¶ 0037), the system comprising a circular tube (passage 84) disposed around the LiDAR (see Figs. 3-7, ¶¶ 0046, 0061); wherein the tube receives both water and air (a first fluid is supplied via passage L1, see Fig. 3, ¶¶ 0033-34, 0045, the first fluid is a liquid such as water, see ¶ 0032; a second fluid is supplied via passage L4, see Fig. 3, ¶¶ 0036, 0045, the second fluid is a gas such as air, see ¶ 0036); wherein the tube has an outlet orifice (outlet 88) that dispenses both water and air (see Figs. 3-7, ¶ 0046, both first and second fluids supplied to outlet 88). KRISHNAN also teaches a wash system (e.g., reservoir 30 with pumps, see Fig. 2, ¶ 0032) for supplying the first fluid (which may be water, see ¶ 0032) to the tube’s outlet orifice.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify RICE to connect the wash system to the first tube and the second tube such that water is supplied to the first outlet orifice and the second outlet orifice, with reasonable expectation of cleaning the LiDAR units. First, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that, by using the same tube and outlet orifice to supply both water and air towards the LiDAR unit, the cleaning system can be simplified. Second, RICE already teaches a first tube having a first outlet orifice for supplying air to the first LiDAR unit 390 and a second tube having a second outlet orifice for supplying air to the second LiDAR unit 392 (as explained above), and it’s already known in the art to use the same tube and outlet orifice to supply both water and air towards the LiDAR unit (see KRISHNAN). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined them by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A. The wash system as modified would still serve the same function as before (e.g., supplying water to the LiDAR unit), thereby yielding predictable results.
In the resulting combination of RICE and KRISHNAN: RICE’s wash system (e.g., fluid reservoir 150, pump 160 of RICE) would be connected to the first tube and the second tube, so as to direct water through the first outlet orifice (for cleaning RICE’s first LiDAR unit 390) and the second outlet orifice (for cleaning RICE’s second LiDAR unit 392).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of RICE and KRISHNAN teaches the system of Claim 8. The combination teaches wherein the first tube is a unitary tube that is slid over the first lens (see RICE at Figs. 3B, 3D-3G), and the second tube is a unitary tube that is slid over the second lens (as explained above, the second tube is a duplicate of the first tube).
The combination teaches the first tube has a one inlet orifice (an opening in RICE’s extension portion 314, see RICE at Figs. 3C-3D, ¶ 0049) through which an air and the water from the wash system enter (as explained above, each tube can receive air and water) and the inlet orifice is disposed at an outer surface of the first tube (see RICE at Fig. 3D), and the second tube has a one inlet orifice through which an air and the water from the wash system enter and the inlet orifice is disposed at an outer surface of the second tube (the same structural and functional features apply to the second tube).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of RICE and KRISHNAN teaches the system of Claim 9. The combination teaches the first tube is configured to circulate the air and the water (as explained above) through a space defined by the outer surface and the inner surface of the first tube (see RICE at Figs. 3E-3F), and the second tube is configured to circulate the air and the water through a space defined by the outer surface and the inner surface of the second tube (the same structural and functional features apply to the second tube).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of SEVAK and RICE, as applied to Claim 1, in further view of KIRSHNAN et al. (US PGPUB 20180354468).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of SEVAK and RICE teaches the system of claim 1. The combination teaches wherein the first tube has a central opening (see SEVAK at Figs. 4 & 7, ¶ 0044) and the first lidar unit (SEVAK’s sensor 66) extends through the central opening (see SEVAK at Figs. 2 & 4). The combination also teaches a wash system (see SEVAK at Fig. 3, ¶ 0039, liquid system 76 of SEVAK), which may provide water (see ¶ 0039).
The combination does not explicitly teach that:
the first lidar unit “directly contacts” the central opening;
the wash system is “configured to direct water through the first outlet orifice and the second outlet orifice.”
RICE teaches a first tube having a central opening (see annotated Fig. 3A of RICE above) and the first lidar unit (LiDAR 390) extends through and directly contacts the central opening (see, e.g., Figs. 3B, 3D, 3E).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of SEVAK and RICE such that the first LiDAR unit (SEVAK’s sensor 66) directly contacts the central opening. It’s already known in the art for a LiDAR unit to directly contact the central opening of a tube disposed around the LiDAR unit (see RICE). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
KRISHNAN teaches a system for cleaning LiDAR (see Figs. 3-7, ¶ 0037), the system comprising a circular tube (passage 84) disposed around the LiDAR (see Figs. 3-7, ¶¶ 0046, 0061); wherein the tube receives both water and air (a first fluid is supplied via passage L1, see Fig. 3, ¶¶ 0033-34, 0045, the first fluid is a liquid such as water, see ¶ 0032; a second fluid is supplied via passage L4, see Fig. 3, ¶¶ 0036, 0045, the second fluid is a gas such as air, see ¶ 0036); wherein the tube has an outlet orifice (outlet 88) that dispenses both water and air (see Figs. 3-7, ¶ 0046, both first and second fluids supplied to outlet 88). KRISHNAN also teaches a wash system (e.g., reservoir 30 with pumps, see Fig. 2, ¶ 0032) for supplying the first fluid (which may be water, see ¶ 0032) to the tube’s outlet orifice.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of SEVAK and RICE to connect the wash system (SEVAK’s liquid system 76) to the first tube and the second tube such that water is supplied to the first outlet orifice and the second outlet orifice, with reasonable expectation of cleaning the LiDAR units. First, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that, by using the same tube and outlet orifice to supply both water and air towards the LiDAR unit, the cleaning system can be simplified. Second, the combination of SEVAK and RICE already teaches a first tube having a first outlet orifice for supplying air to the first LiDAR unit and a second tube having a second outlet orifice for supplying air to the second LiDAR unit (as explained above), and it’s already known in the art to use the same tube and outlet orifice to supply both water and air towards the LiDAR unit (see KRISHNAN). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could’ve combined them by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A. The wash system as modified would still serve the same function as before (e.g., supplying water to the LiDAR unit), thereby yielding predictable results.
In the resulting combination of SEVAK, RICE, and KRISHNAN: SEVAK’s wash system (e.g., liquid system 76) would be connected to the first tube and the second tube, so as to direct water through the first outlet orifice (for cleaning the first LiDAR unit) and the second outlet orifice (for cleaning the second LiDAR unit).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of SEVAK, RICE, and KRISHNAN teaches the system of Claim 8. The combination teaches: the first tube (SEVAK’s tube 32) is a unitary tube that is slid over the first lens (see SEVAK at Figs. 2 & 4), the second tube (duplicate tube 32) is a unitary tube that is slid over the second lens (the same structural and functional features apply to the second tube).
The combination teaches: the first tube has a one inlet orifice (SEVAK’s inlet 38) through which an air and the water from the wash system enter (as explained above) and the inlet orifice is disposed at an outer surface of the first tube (see SEVAK at Figs. 4 & 7); the second tube has a one inlet orifice through which an air and the water from the wash system enter and the inlet orifice is disposed at an outer surface of the second tube (the same structural and functional features apply to the second tube).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of SEVAK, RICE, and KRISHNAN teaches the system of Claim 9. The combination teaches: wherein the first tube (SEVAK’s tube 32) is configured to circulate the air and the water (as explained above) through a space defined by the outer surface and the inner surface of the first tube (see SEVAK at Figs. 5-6); and wherein the second tube (duplicate tube 32) is configured to circulate the air and the water through a space defined by the outer surface and the inner surface of the second tube (the same structural and functional features apply to the second tube).
Relevant Prior Art
The following prior art—made of record and not relied upon—are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
LEIDEFELDT (US PGPUB 20220362788) teaches a system for cleaning LiDAR, the system comprising a circular tube disposed around the LiDAR (see Figs. 2 & 5), the tube having an outlet for dispensing both liquid and gas towards the LiDAR (see Figs. 2 & 4A-4B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:00-17:00 Eastern.
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, KAJ OLSEN can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/R.Z.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714