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 .
This is the first office action on the merits and is responsive to the papers filed 12/26/2024. Claims 20-38 are currently pending and examined below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted by Applicant is in compliance with the provision of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Claim Objections
Claims 26 and 29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 26, “the window monitoring unit (150)” should be – the window monitoring unit (50)—; “the rotating mirror (112)” should be –the rotating mirror (12) —
Claim 29, line 3 “the first opto-electronic component (16)” should be –the first opto-electronic components (18.1,.. .,18.22) —
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0084], “window monitoring unit 160” should be 150
In paragraph [0084], “light hitting the lightguide 220” should be 120
In paragraph [0086], “window monitoring unit 160” should be 150
In paragraph [0089], “second coupling structure 122a” should be first coupling structure 122a
In paragraph [0090], receiver 116 can be positioned within “housing 144” should be housing 140
Appropriate correction is required.
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 24 and 26 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 24,” the coupling structure” in line 2 lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 26,” the first coupling structure (126a)” in line 3 lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 26 is 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 26 recites “an additional lightguide (124) to guide the light to a second opto-electronic component (116).” However, independent claim 20 already recites “at least one second opto-electronic component (16).” It is unclear whether the recited “a second opto-electronic component (116)” refers to the previously introduced second opto-electronic component of claim 20 or introduces an additional, distinct opto-electronic component.
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 20-38 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 25-33, 35-44 of copending Application No. 18/878,708 in view of Thomas et al. (DE 19706612 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, a comparison of limitations is shown with reference to claims 25 and 36 of application 18/878,708 (differences are shown in bold).
Instant application 18/879,238
Application 18/878,708
Claim 20 A sensor (10), comprising
Claim 25 An optical sensor (10), comprising:
a housing (40), wherein the housing (40) comprises a window (42a, 42b) that extends over an angular detection range (alpha) and through which a scanning-light (SE, SR) can pass,
a scanning unit (14);
a transparent window (20) that has a lateral extension (WE) and a height extension (HE) through which a scanning-light can pass; and
a scanning unit (60) placed inside the housing (40) to scan the angular detection range (alpha) by emitting and receiving the scanning-light (SE, SR), wherein the scanning unit (60) comprises a rotating mirror (12) to deflect emitting and receiving the scanning-light (SE, SR),
a window monitoring unit (50) to monitor the transparency of the window (20),
wherein: the transparent window (20) has at least one inclined window element (52, 56) that has an external element surface (54, 58);
a window monitoring unit (50) to detect pollution on the window (42a, 42b), where the window monitoring unit (50) comprises at least a first opto-electronic component (18.1,...,18.22) and a second opto-electronic component (16) between which a test-light path (T.1, T.2, T.3....) is established by sending test-light from the first opto-electronic component (18.X) to the second opto-electronic component (16) or vice-versa,
the window monitoring unit (50) includes:
a test-light emitter unit (30) that emits test-light at a plurality of separate emitting positions (EP.X) along the lateral extension (WE) of the window (20) at a first end of the window (20) seen in height extension (HE);
wherein the test-light path (T.X) passes through the window (42a, 42b), and furthermore, the window monitoring unit (50) comprises an optical component through which the test-light can be redirected,
a test-light receiver unit (40) that receives test-light along a plurality of separate receiving positions (RP.Y) along the width extension (WE) of the window (20) at the end of the window (20) opposite to the test-light emitting positions (EP.X) regarding the height direction; and
a determination unit (100) to determine the change of transparency of the window (20) in such way that the test light transmitted along a plurality of light paths (P.X.Y) is analyzed;
the first opto-electronic component (18.1,...,18.22) and the second opto-electronic component (16) are attached to the housing (40),
the test-light emitter unit (30) and the test-light receiver unit (40) are configured such that the test-light penetrates the external element surface (54, 58);
each light path (P.X.Y) is defined as a straight line between a pair of an emitting position (EP.X) and a receiving position (RP.Y)
the determination unit (100) comprises: a control unit (120) that interacts with the test-light emitter unit (30) and the test-light receiver unit (40) to acquire the intensity (I(P.X.Y)) of a test-light beam assigned to a light path (P.X.Y);
the opto-electronic components (18.1,...,18.22; 16) and the optical component are arranged in a way that a plurality of test-light paths (T.X) can be generated along the angular detection range (alpha) of the scanning unit (60) characterized in that the optical component is a lightguide (20) that guides the test-light between the at least one first opto-electronic component (18.1,...,18.22) and the at least one second opto-electronic component (16), and
a set of evaluated light paths (LPS) comprises a plurality of light paths (P.X.Y) of which,
at least a first light path (P.1.2) is defined such that it has a first offset between its receiving position (RP.2) and its paired emitting position (EP.1); and
at least a second light path (P.2.1) is defined such that it has a second offset between its receiving position (RP.1) and its paired emitting position (EP.2), where the second offset differs to the first offset by a defined lateral offset distance and/or in a lateral offset direction;
the lightguide (20) is attached to the rotating mirror (12) in a way that it rotates together with the rotating mirror (12), so that test-light paths (T.X) of different angular positions end at the at least one same second opto-electronic component (16).
the scanning unit comprises a rotating mirror;
the test-light receiver unit (217) comprises a test light-receiver (216);
the test-light emitting unit comprises a test-light emitter; and
at least one of the test-light receiver unit (217) and the test-light emitting unit comprise a lightguide (220),
wherein:
the lightguide (220) is attached to the rotating mirror (212) of the scanning unit (260); and
the lightguide (220) guides the test-light between the test-light receiver unit (217) at a plurality of receiving positions and the test-light emitting unit at a plurality of emitting positions.
Claim 36 The optical sensor of claim 25, wherein: the test light receiver unit (217) comprises a single light receiver (216) that is an end point to a plurality of light-paths established by a plurality of emitting positions.
Regarding claim 20, copending claim 25 recites an optical sensor comprising a scanning unit, a transparent window through which scanning light can pass, and a window monitoring unit including a test-light emitter unit, a test-light receiver unit, and a determination unit for analyzing test light transmitted along plural light paths. Copending claim 25 further recites that the scanning unit comprises a rotating mirror, that at least one of the test-light receiver unit and the test-light emitting unit comprises a lightguide, that the lightguide is attached to the rotating mirror, and that the lightguide guides test-light between the test-light receiver unit at a plurality of receiving positions and the test-light emitting unit at a plurality of emitting positions. Copending claim 36 further recites that the test-light receiver unit comprises a single light receiver that is an endpoint to a plurality of light paths established by a plurality of emitting positions. These limitations correspond to the rotating mirror, rotating lightguide, plurality of test-light paths, and common second opto-electronic component recited in instant claim 20.
Copending claims 25 and 36 do not recite that the first and second opto-electronic components are attached to the housing.
However, Thomas teaches an optoelectronic device 1 having housing 2, exit window 6, and a rotating deflection unit 5 that scans angular range Ω ([0012]). Thomas further teaches rotating mirror 15 mounted on rotating base 16 ([0026]- [0027]), and second transmitting element 13 and second receiving element 18 that form a reflective light sensor for checking contamination of exit window 6 ([0024], [0028]). Thomas specifically teaches that the reflective light sensor is fixedly arranged on an attachment mounted to the bottom of housing 2 ([0029]). Thomas further teaches tube element 21 for guiding test transmitting light beams 14 and test receiving light rays 17, with deflecting mirrors 22 and 23 guiding the beams through exit window 6 and back to receiving element 18 ([0031]- [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotating-lightguide and common-receiver arrangement recited in copending claims 25 and 36 such that the opto-electronic transmitting and receiving components are fixed to the housing, as taught by Thomas. Thomas teaches that the reflective light sensor used for monitoring contamination of the exit window is fixedly arranged on an attachment mounted to housing 2, while the test-light guide structure rotates with the rotating deflection unit. Such a modification would maintain the emitter and receiver at fixed positions relative to the monitored window while allowing the lightguide to rotate with the rotating mirror to establish test-light paths at different angular positions. This would provide a stationary optical interface for the opto-electronic components while preserving the rotating test-light scanning arrangement.
Claims 21 and 28
Claims 21 and 28 are not patentably distinct from claims 25, 36, and 38 of copending Application No. 18/878,708 in view of Thomas and Kramer.
Reference claim 36 recites a single light receiver that is an endpoint to a plurality of light paths established by a plurality of emitting positions. Reference claim 38 further recites a plurality of separate test-light emitters distributed along the scanning angle. These limitations correspond to the plurality of first opto-electronic components and single second opto-electronic component of claim 21 and the plurality of emitters distributed over the angular detection range recited in claim 28.
Kramer teaches a plurality of test-light transmitters 50a–50f distributed in the circumferential direction and multiple test-light paths guided to a common receiver 56a. Therefore, the additional limitations of claims 21 and 28 do not render the claims patentably distinct.
Claims 22 and 25
Claims 22 and 25 are not patentably distinct from claims 25 and 36 of copending Application No. 18/878,708 in view of Thomas.
Reference claim 25 recites a lightguide attached to the rotating mirror and configured to guide test light between the test-light receiver unit and test-light emitting unit at plural receiving and emitting positions. Thomas further teaches tube element 21 having deflecting mirror 22 arranged on the axis of rotation D, which couples/decouples test light between the rotating lightguide path and the receiver-side path. Thomas also teaches an alternative arrangement in which the receiving element is arranged on the axis of rotation D.
Accordingly, the additional coupling structure and axial alignment limitations of claims 22 and 25 are obvious variations of the lightguide/receiver arrangement of the reference claims in view of Thomas.
Claim 23
Claim 23 is not patentably distinct from claims 25 and 36 of copending Application No. 18/878,708 in view of Thomas.
Claim 23 merely specifies that the lightguide is a fibre, prism, or channel. Reference claim 25 already recites a lightguide attached to the rotating mirror. Thomas teaches tube element 21 for guiding test-light beams, which corresponds to a channel-type lightguide. Therefore, claim 23 does not add a patentably distinct limitation.
Claim 24
Claim 24 is not patentably distinct from claims 25 and 36 of copending Application No. 18/878,708 in view of Thomas and Eibert.
Claim 24 specifies that the lightguide is a prism and that the coupling structure is established by an inclined surface. Reference claim 25 already recites the rotating lightguide arrangement. Eibert teaches a rotating wedge prism having an inclined optical surface for redirecting light. It would have been obvious to implement the rotating lightguide/coupling structure as a prism having an inclined optical surface. Therefore, claim 24 does not render the claimed invention patentably distinct.
Claim 26
Claim 26 is not patentably distinct from claims 25 and 36 of copending Application No. 18/878,708 in view of Thomas and Zeiger.
Claim 26 adds an additional lightguide to guide light to a second opto-electronic component, with a coupling structure positioned in alignment with the axis of rotation. Zeiger teaches first and second lightguides and an optical receiver coupled to a lightguide end positioned substantially at the rotational axis. It would have been obvious to implement the lightguide/receiver arrangement of the reference claims with an additional axial lightguide as taught by Zeiger. Therefore, claim 26 is not patentably distinct.
Claim 27
Claim 27 is not patentably distinct from claims 25 and 36 of copending Application No. 18/878,708 in view of Thomas.
Reference claim 36 recites a single light receiver. Claim 27 merely specifies that the second opto-electronic component is a light receiver, especially a photodiode. Thomas teaches that receiving element 18 is a photodiode. Therefore, claim 27 does not add a patentably distinct limitation.
Claim 29
Claim 29 is not patentably distinct from claims 25 and 36 of copending Application No. 18/878,708 in view of Thomas and Zuluaga.
Claim 29 adds a circular mirror at about the height of the lightguide for deflecting test light between the opto-electronic component and the lightguide. The reference claims already recite the rotating lightguide and plural test-light path arrangement. Zuluaga teaches an annular mirror for redirecting light between a rotating optical assembly and a stationary optical component. It would have been obvious to use such an annular/circular mirror as an optical coupling element in the rotating-lightguide arrangement. Therefore, claim 29 is not patentably distinct.
Claim 30
Claim 30 is not patentably distinct from claims 25, 36, and 38 of copending Application No. 18/878,708 in view of Thomas, Kramer, and Miedema.
Claim 30 adds a shielding having conical cavities around a plurality of first opto-electronic components. Reference claim 38 recites plural separate test-light emitters. Kramer teaches plural test-light transmitters. Miedema teaches an opaque lens/cover structure having plural conical or frustoconical optical structures associated with LEDs. It would have been obvious to provide the plural emitters with individual conical optical cavities to control and direct emitted test light. Therefore, claim 30 is not patentably distinct.
Claims 31- 33
Claims 31- 33 are not patentably distinct from claims 25, 31, and 36 of copending Application No. 18/878,708 in view of Thomas and Clavelle.
Reference claim 31 recites two window elements arranged sequentially in the height direction and inclined relative to one another. Thomas teaches exit window 6 having two partial surfaces converging at an angle α and forming a V-shaped cross-section. Thomas further teaches that test-light beams pass through exit window 6 and that the test-light beam diameter and mirrors are dimensioned so the entire depth of the exit window is covered.
Claim 32 adds optical separation to reduce crosstalk. Clavelle teaches an opaque region separating transmitting and receiving window portions to optically isolate transmitted light from received light. Claim 33 adds that the test-light passes through both window elements, which is suggested by Thomas’s test-light path through the two part V-shaped exit window and the teaching that the entire depth of the exit window is covered.
Therefore, claims 31- 33 do not render the claimed invention patentably distinct.
Claims 34-35
Claims 34 and 35 are not patentably distinct from claims 25, 36, and 42–43 of copending Application No. 18/878,708 in view of Thomas and Ansems.
The reference claims recite the rotating lightguide and window-monitoring arrangement. Claim 34 adds a lens between the first opto-electronic component and the lightguide, embodied as a converging lens having its focal point close to the first opto-electronic component. Claim 35 further recites a ringlike lens shape extending over at least part of the angular detection range.
Thomas teaches lens 20 in the test-light path between transmitting element 13 and tube element 21. Ansems teaches a ring-shaped collimating/Fresnel lens structure with a focal relationship to circumferentially arranged lighting elements. It would have been obvious to use Ansems’s ringlike converging/collimating lens structure in the window-monitoring arrangement to improve coupling of test light into the lightguide. Therefore, claims 34 and 35 are not patentably distinct.
Claims 36-37
Claims 36 and 37 are not patentably distinct from claims 25, 28, 29, and 36 of copending Application No. 18/878,708 in view of Thomas and Kramer.
Reference claim 25 recites a set of evaluated light paths including first and second light paths having different offsets. Reference claim 28 recites crossing light paths, including first and second light paths with offset emitting and receiving positions in opposite directions. Reference claim 36 recites a single light receiver serving as an endpoint to a plurality of light paths established by a plurality of emitting positions.
Instant claim 36 the offset in terms of the angular position of the rotating lightguide and the active first opto-electronic component. This is an obvious variation of the offset/crossing-path arrangement of the reference claims when implemented in the rotating angular sensor environment taught by Thomas and Kramer. Kramer teaches synchronization of test-light transmitter activation with rotational position so that the corresponding test-light path is complete only at the correct orientation of the deflection unit.
Claim 37 further recites acquiring intensities of a plurality of crossing light paths to evaluate an optical mesh of light paths. Reference claim 28 recites crossing light paths, and Kramer teaches plural test-light paths whose received signals are evaluated to determine transmissivity of the front screen. Therefore, claims 36 and 37 are not patentably distinct.
Claim 38
Claim 38 is not patentably distinct from claims 25, 28, 29, 31, 36, and 38 of copending Application No. 18/878,708 in view of Thomas, Kramer, and Lombrozo.
Claim 38 recites a method for determining transparency of the window, including synchronization of the angular position of the lightguide with activation of the opto-electronic component to establish an optical mesh, evaluation of the optical mesh based on measured intensities, and determining whether the transparency change is on the first window element and/or second window element.
The reference claims recite the underlying optical sensor, inclined window elements, evaluated light paths, different offsets, crossing light paths, rotating mirror, rotating lightguide, and multiple light paths to a common receiver. Thomas teaches recording received test-light intensity for each angular position and evaluating the received signal using a threshold to determine contamination. Kramer teaches synchronized activation of test-light transmitters with rotational position and multiple test-light paths to a common receiver. Lombrozo teaches comparing data corresponding to first and second sensor windows or sub-portions of a single window to determine which window portion has an optical interferent.
It would have been obvious to apply Lombrozo’s first/second window comparison to the Thomas/Kramer rotating window-monitoring arrangement to determine whether the transparency change is on the first or second window element. Therefore, claim 38 is not patentably distinct.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 20, 22-23, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thomas et al. (DE 19706612 A1, “Thomas”).
Regarding claim 20, Thomas teaches a sensor (10), comprising a housing (40) (Thomas: optoelectronic device 1 having housing 2, [0012].),
wherein the housing (40) comprises a window (42a, 42b) that extends over an angular detection range (alpha) (Exit window 6 extends along the housing and defines angular range Ω; Thomas discloses Ω of 90°–270°, exemplary 180°, [0012]- [0014].) and through which a scanning-light (SE, SR) can pass (Beams 4 penetrate exit window 6 while sweeping the monitoring area, [0012].),
a scanning unit (60) (Fig. 1, [0015], deflection unit 5) placed inside the housing (40) to scan the angular detection range (alpha) by emitting and receiving the scanning-light (SE, SR) (Fig. 1, [0012], [0021]- [0023], deflection unit 5 is placed inside the housing 2 to scan the angular detection range (Ω) by emitting and receiving the scanning-light (4, 12). See also, claim 8),
wherein the scanning unit (60) comprises a rotating mirror (12) (Deflection unit 5 has rotating mirror 15, mounted on rotating base 16, [0026]- [0027]) to deflect emitting and receiving the scanning-light (SE, SR) (See Thomas claim 8), and
a window monitoring unit (50) (Fig. 1, [0024], [0028] second transmitting element 13, second receiving element 18) to detect pollution on the window (42a, 42b), where the window monitoring unit (50) comprises at least a first opto-electronic component (18.1,.. .,18.22) and a second opto-electronic component (16) between (Fig.1, Test transmitter 13 and test receiver 18; transmitter is LED and receiver is photodiode, [0028].) which a test-light path (T.1, T.2, T.3....) (Fig. 1, [0031]; Test transmitting light 14 leaves emitter 13 and returned test receiving light 17 reaches receiver 18 through the test optical path.) is established by sending test-light from the first opto-electronic component (18.X) to the second opto-electronic component (16) or vice-versa,
wherein the test-light path (T.X) passes through the window (42a, 42b) ([0036]: test beam 14 passes through window 6, reflects at mirror 24, passes through window 6 again, and returns to receiver 18.), and furthermore, the window monitoring unit (50) comprises an optical component through which the test-light can be redirected (Tube/channel 21 contains mirrors 22/23 that redirect the guided test beam between axial and horizontal portions, [0031]- [0034].),
the first opto-electronic component (18.1,.. .,18.22) and the second opto-electronic component (16) are attached to the housing (40) (Reflective test sensor is fixed and supported on an attachment mounted to the bottom of housing 2, [0028]- [0029]),
the opto-electronic components (18.1,...,18.22; 16) and the optical component are arranged in a way that a plurality of test-light paths (T.X) can be generated along the angular detection range (alpha) of the scanning unit (60) (Rotation scans the entire exit window, and received light is recorded for each angular position of Ω, [0039].) characterized in that the optical component is a lightguide (20) that guides the test-light between the at least one first opto-electronic component (18.1,...,18.22) and the at least one second opto-electronic component (16) (Fig. 1, Tube 21 guides beams 14/17.See at least [0031]), and
the lightguide (20) is attached to the rotating mirror (12) in a way that it rotates together with the rotating mirror (12) (Tube 21 is attached inside rotating base 16; mirror 15 is also mounted on rotating base 16 (Fig. 1; [0026]-[0028], [0031], tube 21 is attached to mirror 15 via deflection unit 5). Thomas claim 14 states tube 21 rotates with deflection unit 5.), so that test-light paths (T.X) of different angular positions end at the at least one same second opto-electronic component (16) (Same test receiver 18 records returned test light for each angular position as tube 21 rotates. [0036], [0039].).
Regarding claim 22, Thomas teaches the sensor according to claim 20, wherein the lightguide (20) comprises a second coupling structure (22b) at the center of rotation of the rotating mirror (12) to couple or decouple light of different light-paths to the second opto-electronic component (16) (Fig. 1, [0034], mirror 22 is inside tube/channel 21 and on rotation axis D).
Regarding claim 23, Thomas teaches the sensor according to claim 20, wherein the lightguide (20) is a fibre or a prism or channel (Fig. 1, [0031]; “tube 21” is “a channel”).
Regarding claim 27, Thomas teaches the sensor according to claim 20, wherein the second opto-electronic component (16) is a light-receiver, especially a photodiode ([0028]: receiver 18 is formed by a photodiode.).
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.
Claims 25, 31, 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas.
Regarding claim 25, Thomas fails to explicitly teach the sensor according to claim 22, wherein the second opto-electronic component (16) is positioned in alignment with the axis of rotation (R) of the rotating mirror (12).
Thomas teaches the sensor according to claim 22. Thomas does not explicitly disclose in the Fig. 1 embodiment that second receiving element 18 is positioned in alignment with the axis of rotation D. However, Thomas teaches an alternative arrangement wherein further deflecting means guide the test light to a second receiving element arranged on the axis of rotation D, the axially positioned receiving element replacing second receiving element 18 and beam splitter mirror 19 (Thomas [0038]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thomas accordingly because Thomas itself identifies the axially positioned receiver as an alternative optical arrangement, thereby providing a direct test light path to the receiver while eliminating beam splitter mirror 19.
Regarding claim 31, Thomas teaches the sensor according to claim 20, wherein the window comprises two window elements (42a, 42b) that are tilted relative to each other (Thomas teaches exit window 6 having two partial surfaces which converge at angle α in the range of 120° to 175°, forming a V-shaped cross-section ([0014]; claim 10; Fig. 1). Thomas further teaches that exit window 6 extends along the outer surface of cylindrical housing 2 over angular range Ω and that deflection unit 5 rotates about axis D (Thomas, [0012]- [0015]. Thus, the two partial surfaces of exit window 6 correspond to the claimed two window elements tilted relative to one another.)
Thomas fails to explicitly teach where the two window elements (42a, 42b) are placed above one another in an axial view as seen along the rotation axis (R) of the rotating mirror (12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the two inclined partial surfaces of the V-shaped exit window in the claimed above one another axial view relationship, because Thomas already teaches a cylindrical sensor housing having a rotating deflection unit and a two part inclined exit window extending over the angular detection range. Such an arrangement would predictably provide two inclined window portions through which the scanning light can pass while maintaining the V-shaped window geometry taught by Thomas.
Regarding claim 33, Thomas teaches the sensor according to claim 31, wherein the window monitoring unit (50) is embodied in a way that the test-light passes through both window elements (42a, 42b) (As discussed above, Thomas teaches that exit window 6 has two partial surfaces which converge at an angle α and form a V-shaped cross-section ([0014]; claim 10). Thomas further teaches that test transmitting light beams 14 are emitted by second transmitting element 13 and are used for checking contamination of exit window 6. Thomas states in claim 1 that, for checking contamination of exit window 6, test transmitting light beams 14 are emitted by second transmitting element 13, are deflected by deflecting means rotating with deflection unit 5, pass through exit window 6 at least once in a vertical direction, and are then fed to second receiving element 18 for evaluation as a measure of soiling of exit window 6.).
Claims 21 and 28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Joachim Kramer (US 20130250302 A1, “Kramer”).
Regarding claim 21, Thomas fails to explicitly teach the sensor according to claim 20, wherein the window monitoring unit (50) comprises a plurality of first opto-electronic components (18.1,...,18.22) and a single second opto-electronic component (16) to establish a plurality of test-light paths (T.X).
However, Kramer teaches a window monitoring unit comprising a plurality of first opto electronic components (test light transmitters 50a–50f) establishing a plurality of respective test-light paths 54a–54f (Kramer [0066]- [0068], Figs. 4- 8). Kramer specifically teaches that multiple test-light paths 54a–54c terminate at the same test-light receiver 56a, such that one common receiver is sufficient for the plurality of test-light paths ([0070], Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the window-monitoring unit of Thomas to include Kramer’s plurality of test-light transmitters arranged to establish respective test-light paths terminating at a common test-light receiver, because Kramer teaches that such an arrangement permits the window to be tested at multiple positions while reducing the number of receiving components required. The modification would predictably provide Thomas's window-monitoring system with increased spatial coverage of the exit window while maintaining a compact and component-efficient receiving arrangement.
Regarding claim 28, Thomas fails to explicitly teach the sensor according to claim 25, wherein there is a plurality of first opto-electronic components (18.X) being emitters, namely LEDs distributed over the angular detection range parallel to the contour of the window (42a, 42b).
Thomas teaches a second transmitting element 13 comprising a light-emitting diode (LED) that emits test-light beams 14 for monitoring contamination of exit window 6 (Thomas, [0024] and [0028]; Fig. 1). Thomas does not explicitly teach a plurality of test-light-emitting LEDs distributed over the angular detection range parallel to the contour of the window”.
Kramer teaches a plurality of test light transmitters 50a–50f for monitoring the light transmissivity of front screen 42 (Kramer, [0066]; Fig. 4). Kramer further explains that the transmitters may be distributed over a larger angular section to reduce or eliminate a scanning dead zone (Kramer, [0066]; Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the window monitoring arrangement of Thomas to include a plurality of test-light-emitting LEDs distributed circumferentially along the exit window, as taught by Kramer, because such an arrangement would provide test-light illumination at multiple angular positions along the window, thereby facilitating monitoring of window transmissivity over the angular detection range and reducing unmonitored regions of the window (Kramer, [0066]–[0068]; Fig. 4).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Eibert et al. (US 5109459 A, “Eibert”).
Regarding claim 24, Thomas fails to explicitly teach the sensor according to claim 23, wherein the lightguide (20) is a prism and the coupling structure is established by an inclined surface.
Eibert discloses a rotating optical element provided “not as a mirror but as a wedge prism 23,” wherein light from fiber optic 10 is directed through optic 51 onto wedge prism 23, and rotation of wedge prism 23 about axis 1x causes the prism to deflect the light beam through lens 52 toward the circular fiber array (Eibert, col. 5, ll. 12-21; Fig. 4). Eibert further recites a rotating light-deflecting means comprising a wedge prism (claim 8; claim 20). As shown in Fig. 4, wedge prism 23 includes an inclined optical surface through which the light is coupled and redirected.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotating light guiding arrangement of Thomas to employ the wedge prism light deflecting structure taught by Eibert because Eibert teaches the wedge prism as an alternative to a rotating mirror for redirecting light between optical paths (Eibert, col. 5, ll. 12-21). Such modification would have constituted the substitution of one known optical deflection element for another performing the same light guiding function, with the predictable result of providing a compact prism based lightguide having an inclined optical coupling surface.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Zeiger et al. (US 20120057818 A1, “Zeiger”).
Regarding claim 26, The sensor according to claim 22, wherein the window monitoring unit (150) comprises an additional lightguide (124) to guide the light to a second opto-electronic component (116) where the first coupling structure (126a) is positioned in alignment with the axis of rotation (R) of the rotating mirror (112).
Thomas, in view of Zeiger, teaches the sensor according to claim 22. Thomas further teaches an alternative arrangement comprising further deflecting means guided in a further tube element for guiding test light to a second receiving element preferably arranged on the axis of rotation D (Thomas [0038]). Thomas does not teach the additional guiding structure as an additional light guide having a first coupling structure aligned with the rotational axis.
Zeiger teaches a first lightguide 140 and an additional second lightguide 160, wherein the second lightguide 160 includes a first lightguide end 164 substantially at the axis of rotation 170, and wherein optical receiver 155 is optically coupled to second lightguide 160 at first lightguide end 164 (Zeiger [0021], Fig. 1). Thus, second lightguide 160 corresponds to the claimed additional lightguide, optical receiver 155 corresponds to the claimed second opto-electronic component, and first lightguide end 164 corresponds to the claimed first coupling structure positioned in alignment with the axis of rotation. Zeiger further teaches that the lightguides may be positioned at centerline 170 and employ angled coupling portions for redirecting light toward the receiver ([0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the window monitoring arrangement of Thomas to employ Zeiger's additional lightguide having an optical coupling end aligned with the rotation axis, because Zeiger teaches that such a lightguide arrangement provides optical communication between relatively rotating structures while directing the light to a receiver located at the rotational center. The modification would predictably permit the receiver to be positioned separately from the rotating optical structure while maintaining optical coupling through the rotational axis.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Zuluaga et al. (US 20030228085 A1, “Zuluaga”).
Regarding claim 29, Thomas fails to explicitly teach the sensor according to claim 20, wherein the window monitoring unit (50) comprises a circular mirror (30) at about the height of the lightguide (20), where the circular mirror (30) deflects the test-light between the first opto-electronic component (16) and the lightguide (20).
Thomas teaches test-light transmitting element 13, test-light receiving element 18, and rotating tube element 21 having deflecting mirrors 22 and 23 for guiding test-light beams 14 through exit window 6. Thomas further teaches mirror 24, fixed to housing 2 and extending over the angular range Ω of exit window 6, for reflecting the test light toward receiving element 18 ([0028] and [0031]- [0036]; Fig. 1).
Thomas, however, does not explicitly teach a circular mirror at about the height of the lightguide, wherein the circular mirror deflects the test light between the first opto-electronic component and the lightguide.
Zuluaga teaches an annular mirror 84 disposed adjacent to rotating housing 42, wherein annular mirror 84 intercepts light beam 68 emerging from eccentric aperture 82 as housing 42 rotates about axis 50 and deflects the light toward stationary detector 66 (Zuluaga, [0042]- [0044]; Fig. 6). Zuluaga further teaches that the geometry of annular mirror 84 is selected to encompass the circular path traced by light beam 68 during rotation of housing 42 (Zuluaga, [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the window monitoring arrangement of Thomas to employ Zuluaga's annular mirror as an optical coupling element between a stationary test-light transmitting component and a rotating lightguide, with the annular mirror positioned at approximately the height of the lightguide, because Zuluaga teaches that an annular mirror can intercept and redirect light between a rotating optical assembly and a stationary optical component throughout rotation of the assembly (Zuluaga, [0042]–[0044]; Fig. 6). Such modification would provide a circumferential optical coupling interface for directing test light toward the rotating lightguide at different angular positions.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Kramer and Gregory A. Miedema (US 9634206 B1, “Miedema”)
Regarding claim 30, Thomas, in view of Kramer, fails to explicitly teach but Miedema teaches the sensor according to claim 28, wherein said window monitoring unit (50) comprises a shielding (28) that surrounds a plurality of first opto-electronic components (18.1,...,18.22) (Miedema teaches a compact LED light unit 20 comprising a plurality of LEDs 22 and a common lens or cover 26 having a plurality of optical structures 24, wherein the LEDs 22 are optically aligned with respective optical structures 24 (Miedema, col. 3, ll. 43- 53; Figs. 3A-5A).More particularly, Miedema teaches that lens 26 comprises an opaque plastic member formed as an integral, unitary component, wherein LEDs 22 are axially aligned with the respective inner openings 23 of optical structures 24 (Miedema, col. 4, ll. 7-11; Figs. 3A-5A).
Miedema further teaches that lens 26 includes a rear pocket 37 receiving circuit board assembly 32, thereby positioning the LEDs relative to the respective optical structures (Miedema, col. 4, ll. 34-43; Figs. 2–3A).)
where the shielding (28) comprises a conical cavity (32) around each of the plurality of the first opto-electronic components (18.1,...,18.22) (Miedema teaches that optical structures 24 are formed in lens 26 and have generally conical or frustoconical configurations with curved inner walls (Miedema, col. 3, ll. 62-65; col. 4, l. 1; Fig. 5A).Miedema further teaches that each optical structure 24 comprises an inner opening 23 and an exterior opening 25, wherein inner opening 23 has a smaller diameter than exterior opening 25, and LEDs 22 are axially aligned with the respective inner openings 23 (Miedema, col. 4, ll. 4-9; Fig. 5A). Miedema additionally teaches that LEDs 22 are arranged in five concentric rings, with the LEDs positioned at the respective inner openings 23 of optical structures 24 (Miedema, col. 4, ll. 12-18; Figs. 3A-4).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the window monitoring arrangement of Thomas in view of Kramer to provide a common opaque shielding structure comprising a plurality of conical cavities, each aligned with a respective test light emitting LED, as taught by Miedema, because Miedema teaches that the optical structures are configured to direct light emitted by the respective LEDs at desired angles (Miedema, col. 3, ll. 43-50; col. 4, ll. 1-11; Figs. 3A-5A). Such modification would predictably provide individually defined optical openings for the plurality of test light emitters of Kramer, thereby controlling the angular distribution of the emitted test light and facilitating its direction along the respective test light paths through the monitored window of Thomas.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Adam T. Clavelle (US 20180014781 A1, “Clavelle”).
Regarding claim 32, Thomas fails to explicitly teach the sensor according to claim 31, wherein the two window elements (42a, 42b) are optically separated to reduce crosstalk between the emitted scanning-light (SE) and the received scanning-light (SR).
Thomas teaches an exit window 6 having two inclined partial surfaces converging toward the interior of housing 2 and forming a V-shaped cross-section (Thomas, [0014]; Fig. 1). Thomas further teaches that emitted scanning light beams 4 pass through the central region of exit window 6, whereas received scanning-light beams 12 pass through peripheral regions of exit window 6 (Thomas, [0021]-[0023]; Fig. 1).Thomas, however, does not explicitly teach that the two window elements are optically separated to reduce crosstalk between the emitted scanning-light and the received scanning-light.
Clavelle teaches a photosensor window 122a comprising a first transparent region 125a for transmitting light from photoemitter 220 and a second transparent region 130a for receiving light at photodetector 225, wherein an opaque region 135a is disposed between the first and second transparent regions to optically isolate the transmitted light from the received light (Clavelle, [0036], [0040]-[0041]; Figs. 2B and 3). Clavelle further teaches that opaque region 135a prevents light emitted by photoemitter 220 from passing directly through photosensor window 122a to photodetector 225, thereby reducing unwanted light leakage that would otherwise degrade the received signal quality (Clavelle, [0041]; Fig. 2B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the exit window of Thomas to include an opaque optical isolation region between the portions associated with the emitted scanning-light and the received scanning-light, as taught by Clavelle, because such an arrangement would reduce direct optical leakage from the transmitting path into the receiving path, thereby reducing crosstalk and improving the quality of the received scanning-light signal used for object detection.
Claims 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Ansems et al. (US 2021/0062996 A1, “Ansems”).
Regarding claim 34, Thomas teaches the sensor according to claim 20, wherein there is at least one lens between the at least one first opto-electronic component (18.X, 118.X, 218.X).
Thomas teaches a window monitoring unit comprising test light transmitting element 13, corresponding to the claimed first opto electronic component, and tube element 21, corresponding to the claimed lightguide. Thomas further teaches lens 20 positioned in the optical path between test light transmitting element 13 and tube element 21, wherein test-light beams 14 emitted by transmitting element 13 pass through partially transparent mirror 19 and strike lens 20 before being guided through tube element 21 (Thomas, [0028], [0030]- [0031]; Fig. 1).
Thomas fails to explicitly teach the lightguide (20, 120, 220) where the lens (36) is embodied as a converging lens having its focal point close to the first opto-electronic component (18.X, 118.X, 218.X).
Thomas teaches lens 20 positioned in the test light path between transmitting element 13 and tube element 21. However, Thomas does not explicitly disclose that lens 20 is configured as a converging lens having its focal point close to transmitting element 13.
Ansems teaches an optical element 210, preferably a Fresnel lens, comprising a collimating structure 232 configured to collimate light emitted by solid-state lighting elements 112, 114, 116, 118, 122, 124, 126, 126, and 128 (Ansems, [0071]-[0072]; Fig. 2). More particularly, Ansems teaches that the focal point of optical element 210 is located near the radial position of the solid-state lighting elements, wherein the optical element is arranged such that its focus is on the nearest side of the lighting-element arrangement (Ansems, [0073]; Fig. 2).Ansems further teaches that light emitted by the solid state lighting elements enters optical element 210 through light entry surface 212, is collimated by the optical element, and exits through light-exit surface 214 (Ansems, [0078]; Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify lens 20 of Thomas to employ a converging optical configuration having its focal point close to test light transmitting element 13, as taught by Ansems, because Ansems teaches that arranging the optical element with its focus near the light emitting element provides collimation of the emitted light (Ansems, [0008]-[0009] and [0073]; Fig. 2). Such modification would predictably reduce the divergence of test light beams 14 emitted by transmitting element 13, thereby facilitating efficient guidance of the test light through tube element 21 of Thomas.
Regarding claim 35, Thomas, in view of Ansems, teaches the sensor according to claim 34, wherein in circumferential direction, the lens (36) has a ringlike shape of circle or a sector of a circle and stretches over at least a part of the angular detection range (alpha).
Ansems teaches an optical element 210 comprising a ring-shaped collimating structure 232 configured to collimate light emitted by a plurality of solid-state lighting elements arranged in a ring-shaped geometry 100 (Ansems, [0005]- [0009]; Figs. 1B and 2). Ansems further teaches that optical element 210 is preferably a Fresnel lens having a ring-shaped collimating structure 232, wherein the optical element and lighting elements are aligned along coinciding central axes of symmetry 130 and 230. The cross-section of the lighting device is periodic in the circumferential direction around the central axis (Ansems, [0070]- [0073]; Figs. 1B and 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the lens arrangement of Thomas to employ a ring-shaped collimating lens extending circumferentially over at least a portion of the angular detection range, as taught by Ansems, because Ansems teaches that a ring-shaped collimating structure provides collimation of light emitted from circumferentially distributed light sources (Ansems, [0008]- [0009] and [0071]- [0073]; Figs. 1B and 2). Such modification would predictably provide a circumferentially extending optical structure for collimating test light at different angular positions, thereby facilitating optical coupling of the test light into the rotating lightguide during scanning.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Kramer and Lombrozo et al. (US 20180217242 A1 “Lombrozo”).
Regarding claim 38, Thomas teaches a method to determine the transparency of a window of the sensor as described in claim 20 (Thomas monitors contamination/transmission of exit window 6. Test light 14 scans the window, and the received amount is evaluated as a measure of contamination. Thomas records the received test light for each angular position and compares it with a threshold. [0008]- [0009], [0039]-[0042]. See also, the rejection of claim 20),
where the sensor (10, 200) comprises a window having a first window element (42a, 242 a), a second window element (42b, 242b) (Thomas teaches window 6 having two partial surfaces converging relative to one another to form a V-shaped cross section, Fig. 1; [0014].), and
an evaluation unit (250) (Thomas teaches a central evaluation unit/microcontroller receiving angular position information, and that contamination evaluation takes place in the central evaluation unit. [0016], [0040].),
Thomas fails to explicitly teach
wherein the angular position of the lightguide (20, 220) and the activation of the first opto-electronic component (18.x, 118.X, 218.X) and/or the second opto-electronic (16, 116, 216) component are synchronized in a way that an optical mesh of test-light paths is established and
the optical mesh is evaluated based on the measured intensities related to the test-light paths (T.X), and
a change of transparency of the window is determined to be on the first window element (42a, 242 a) and / or the second window element (42b, 242b).
Kramer teaches
wherein the angular position of the lightguide (20, 220) and the activation of the first opto-electronic component (18.x, 118.X, 218.X) and/or the second opto-electronic (16, 116, 216) component are synchronized (Kramer teaches that the evaluation unit activates the test light transmitter “synchronized with the rotation,” such that the matching transmitter is active when the deflection unit has the correct orientation and a complete test light path exists. Kramer [0019]. Kramer [0068] again states that the activity of transmitters 50a-f can be synchronized with rotational movement of deflection unit 20.) in a way that an optical mesh of test-light paths is established (Kramer teaches six test-light transmitters 50a-f circumferentially distributed around front screen 42, corresponding reflectors 52a-f, and a plurality of test light paths 54a-f. [0066]-[0068]. Kramer further teaches the reflectors with differing angular offsets, plural test light paths, and testing the front screen at more intersection points than the number of receivers. [0022]. Under BRI, this spatially distributed plurality of window monitoring paths reasonably corresponds to the claimed optical mesh.) and
the optical mesh is evaluated based on the measured intensities related to the test-light paths (T.X) (Thomas teaches recording, for each angular position of the rotating test-light arrangement, the amount of received test light and evaluating the resulting received signal in the central evaluation unit to determine contamination/transparency of the window (Thomas [0039]-[0040]). Kramer further teaches a plurality of individually identifiable test-light paths 54a-c/54a-f, wherein test light associated with each respective path is received at test light receiver 56a and the signal generated by the received test light is evaluated by evaluation unit 36 to determine transmissivity of the front screen (Kramer [0068]-[0070]). Accordingly, the combination teaches evaluating the plurality of test-light paths forming the optical mesh based on the respective measured received-light intensities/signals associated with those paths.),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to synchronize activation of the test light components of Thomas with the angular position of its rotating optical member and to provide a plurality of circumferentially distributed test light paths as taught by Kramer. Kramer teaches that such synchronization ensures that the corresponding test-light transmitter is activated when the rotating deflection unit is correctly oriented to establish a complete test-light path. Kramer further teaches using plural test-light paths distributed over the front screen so that additional locations of the window can be tested while using a common receiver. The modification would therefore predictably increase the spatial coverage of Thomas's window transparency monitoring while ensuring reliable establishment of the respective test light paths.
Thomas as modified by Kramer still fails to explicitly teach a change of transparency of the window is determined to be on the first window element (42a, 242 a) and / or the second window element (42b, 242b).
Thomas teaches that rotation of the deflection unit scans the entire exit window 6 with test-light beams 14 and that, for each angular position, the amount of received test light 17 is recorded. Thomas further teaches comparing the received signal with a threshold, wherein a signal below the threshold indicates contamination of the exit window sufficient to impair detection reliability ([0039]- [0040]). Thomas further explains that, when the window is not contaminated, the test light is hardly attenuated, whereas when the received signal falls below the threshold, a contamination indication is generated ([0041]-[0042]). Thomas also teaches identifying the angular range in which the contamination is present, thereby localizing the impaired portion of the window ([0043]).
Thomas, however, does not determine whether the detected transparency impairment is associated specifically with the first or second window element. Lombrozo teaches comparing sensor data corresponding to a first sensor window and a second sensor window and based on the comparison, determining that an optical interferent is located on a surface of at least one of the first or second sensor windows ([0005]- [0006], [0050], [0053]; claim 1). Lombrozo further teaches that the first and second sensor windows may comprise different portions of a single window ([0006], [0060]; claim 10). Lombrozo also explains that optical interferents such as dust, dirt, mud, water, or other debris can attenuate or reduce the intensity of light passing through the affected window portion ([0003]- [0004], [0041]- [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thomas to determine whether the detected transparency impairment is associated with a first or second window portion, as taught by Lombrozo, in order to identify which window portion is responsible for the detected reduction in optical transmission, thereby distinguishing data affected by contamination from data obtained through an unaffected window portion and improving the reliability of the sensor output.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 36 and 37 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. However, claims 36 and 37 remain subject to the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection set forth above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The prior art of record, including Thomas and Kramer, teaches rotating optical structures, test-light paths, and monitoring the transparency of a sensor window at different angular positions. However, the prior art of record, individually or in combination, does not teach or suggest an evaluation unit configured to acquire test light along first and second test-light paths having respective first and second angular offsets between the angular position of the rotating lightguide and an active first optoelectronic component, wherein the second offset differs from the first offset by a defined angular offset distance and/or angular offset direction, as recited in claim 36.
Claim 37 is allowable for the same reasons and because it further recites acquiring intensities of a plurality of crossing light paths to evaluate an optical mesh of light paths.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Haberer et al. (US 20100007870 A1), teaches Apparatus for the Recognition of The Presence of An Object in Space
Satzky et al. (US 20100245849 A1), teaches Optical sensor operating on the transit time principle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEMPSON NOEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-3376. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30-5:30.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached on (571) 270-3603. 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.
/JEMPSON NOEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
