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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20220196843 A1 (LI; Meijie et al.)
PNG
media_image1.png
610
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
514
540
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Per claims 1, 8, and 13, Li teaches a device for enhancing the light transmittance of glass [see paragraph 0012: “The present invention proposes a solution for reducing the fraction of a radiation emitted by a LiDAR, which is reflected on the inner surface of a transparent pane having a predefined slope”], in a vehicle [see paragraph 0013] comprising: a lidar arranged inside a vehicle [2, see paragraph 0030: “FIG. 3: shows various embodiments of an interior of an automotive vehicle provided with an assembly of a LiDAR device according to one embodiment of the present invention” wherein the LiDaR inherently comprises of a light transmitter and light receiver], and a wedge-shaped prism configured to be tightly fitted to the inside surface of the vehicle glass [3 and on the same side as the LiDaR, see figure 3], wherein the thicker end of the wedge-shaped prism is arranged at the lower side of the inside surface of the vehicle glass [see figure 3], and the emergent light of the lidar is emitted and returned through the wedge-shaped prism and the vehicle glass [see IR], wherein the wedge-shaped prism has the same or similar refractive index as the vehicle glass [see paragraph 0089: “[0089] The anti-reflection unit (3) has a refractive index, n3. Preferably, the refractive index n3 of the anti-reflection unit is close to, more preferably equal to the refractive index n1 of the pane (1). In particular, n3 can be comprised within ±10% of n1 (i.e., n3=n1 (1±5%), preferably n3=n1.”], wherein if the refractive indices of the vehicle glass and the wedge-shaped prism are different, a transition layer is provided therebetween to improve the matching between the refractive indices of the wedge-shaped prism and the vehicle glass [see paragraph 0100: “standard anti-reflection coatings are normally optimized for normal incidence (i.e., incident angle φ=0), which are normally not suitable for use in a pane having a tilting angle α1>10° and generally of the order of 50 to 70° (or more) for automotive front windscreens or rear windows. With a preferred incident angle φ=0° between the incident axis (i0) and the surface (32), a standard anti-reflection coating can efficiently be applied onto the surface (32) of the anti-reflection unit (3). For example, an anti-reflection layer may include one of a low refractive index porous silica, or a laminate of several layers of dielectric material alternating layers having low and high refractive indices and terminating in a layer having a low refractive index, or mixtures thereof.” and see paragraph 0101: “The interface must be such as to disrupt as little as possible the trajectory of a radiation between the anti-reflection unit and the transparent pane.”], the light transmitter is disposed at a position to transmit light through the wedge-shaped prism and the glass [see figure 3], the light receiver is disposed at a position to receive return light through the glass and the wedge-shaped prism [inherent as the LiDaR is position on the inside of the vehicle with the wedge and glass in between the outside and the LiDaR], and the transition layer is configured to have optical characteristics that reduce a degree of mismatching between refractive indices of the wedge-shaped prism and the glass [see paragraphs 0100-0101].
Per claims 4 and 9, Li teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the wedge-shaped prism is arranged on the inside surface of the vehicle glass by means of gluing [see paragraph 0101: “The anti-reflection unit can be coupled to the transparent pane by mechanical fastening means, by adhesive means, or by autoclaving or any suitable means.”]
Per claims 6 and 11, Li teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the surface of the wedge-shaped prism is coated with an antireflection film [31].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5, 7, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220196843 A1 (LI; Meijie et al.)
Per claims 5 and 10, Li teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the included angle between the wedge-shaped prism and the upper side of the inside surface of the vehicle glass is greater than zero and lower than 30 degrees [see paragraph 0113: “a tilting angle of at least 10° with the vertical, preferably of at least 50°”]. Li lacks the explicit claimed range. However, the courts have held overlapping ranges to be a least obvious. Reduced optical noise would have been an expected benefit. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per claims 7 and 12, Li teaches the device according to claim 1, but lacks the wedge-shaped prism is configured such that an incident angle of the emergent light entering the wedge- shaped prism is different from a Brewster angle, thereby avoiding or reducing energy loss caused by polarization of the emergent light. However, Li teaches at paragraph 0101 that “The anti-reflection unit (3) is coupled to the transparent pane (1) by forming an interface between the interfacial surface (31) and the inner surface (1i). The interface must be such as to disrupt as little as possible the trajectory of a radiation between the anti-reflection unit and the transparent pane. The anti-reflection unit can be coupled to the transparent pane by mechanical fastening means, by adhesive means, or by autoclaving or any suitable means.” Base on stated goal that to disrupt as little as possible the trajectory of a radiation between the anti-reflection unit and the transparent pane, official notice is taken that it would have been a matter of routine skill in the art to configure the wedge-shaped prism is configured such that an incident angle of the emergent light entering the wedge- shaped prism is different from a Brewster angle, thereby avoiding or reducing energy loss caused by polarization of the emergent light to disrupt as little as possible light output. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Li teaches at paragraph 0101 teaches that the antireflection layer (applicant’s transition layer) is configured “to disrupt as little as possible the trajectory of a radiation between the anti-reflection unit and the transparent pane.” As such, to achieve the stated goal, the antireflection layer would have been configured to reduce a degree of mismatching between the refractive indices of the wedge-shaped prism and the vehicle glass.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A DUDEK whose telephone number is (571)272-2290. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30 MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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.
/JAMES A DUDEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights