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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed on June 17, 2026 have been fully considered.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okada (JP 2019-163988 in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Okada discloses a sensor device (laser radar, Fig. 1, abstract, para 0015) comprising: an optical device (20, 62, 30, 41) having a field of view which enlarges as advancing toward one direction from a predetermined position (P1, Fig. 1, para 0020-0024, 0028, 0032, field of view would enlarge as advances away from P1 horizontally); and a housing (13) which comprises a transmission unit (80) crossing an entirety of the field of view (Fig. 1, Fig. 1 shows the transmission unit crossing the reflected light L1, L2 at the outer edges in the vertical direction and because the transmission unit (80, 180) wraps around the sides for the entirety of the field of the view in the horizontal direction, it crosses an entirety of the field of view) and accommodates the optical device (para 0028), wherein the transmission unit includes a first side (top, Fig. 4), and a second side located (bottom, Fig. 4) on an opposite side to the first side, wherein a width of the transmission unit on a side with the second side is narrower than a width of the transmission unit on a side with the first side (Fig. 4 shows the bottom narrower, each flat plate 84 is narrower at the bottom and wider at the top), and wherein the second side of the transmission unit is located closer to the predetermined position in the one direction than the first side of the transmission unit (Fig. 1, the transmission unit 80 is angled so that the bottom or the second side is closer to the predetermined position, P1), wherein at least one of a front surface of the transmission unit and a rear surface of the transmission unit is curved (Fig. 4, para 0030-0036).
Regarding claim 2, Okada discloses wherein the housing includes a frame (13) surrounding the transmission unit, and wherein a portion of the frame stretching along the first side of the transmission unit protrudes toward the one direction more than a portion of the frame stretching along the second side of the transmission unit (Fig. 1 shows area above the first side or the top side of the transmission unit 80 protruding towards the one direction more than the second side or the bottom side).
Regarding claim 3, Okada discloses wherein the transmission unit is a lens (180, Fig. 2, para 0031, laser beam L1 is subjected to lens action by the transmission member 180) in which at least one of a front surface of the transmission unit and a rear surface of the transmission unit is curved (Fig. 2, para 0031, semi-cylindrical shape).
Regarding claim 4, Okada discloses wherein at least a portion of the first side of the transmission unit is curved, and wherein at least a portion of the second side of the transmission unit is curved (Fig. 2-4).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada in view of Bakish (2022/0171026).
Regarding claim 6, Okada discloses the claimed invention as discussed above. Okada also discloses wherein the transmission unit further includes a third side (left side) crossing the first side and the second side and a fourth side (right side) located on an opposite side to the third side (Fig. 4). However, Okada does not disclose the shape of a crossing portion of the field of view. Bakishi discloses a LIDAR system having a field of view having shape shown in Fig. 2A which is similar to the shape of the transmission unit (80, 180) of Okada in Fig. 2-4. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide field of the view in the shape of Bakishi to the transmission unit of Okada to that wherein at least a part of the first side is substantially parallel to a first edge of a crossing portion of the field of view and the transmission unit, wherein at least a part of the second side is substantially parallel to a second edge of the crossing portion, the second edge being located on an opposite side to the first edge, wherein at least a part of the third side is substantially parallel to a third edge of the crossing portion, the third edge crossing the first edge and the second edge, and wherein at least a part of the fourth side is substantially parallel to a fourth edge of the crossing portion, the fourth edge being located on an opposite side to the third edge in order to maximize optical efficiency.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada in view of Murotani et al. (Murotani) (JP 2021-4956, translation provided with Office Action, page number refers to the translation).
Regarding claim 7, Okada discloses the claimed invention as discussed above. However, Okada does not disclose how the transmission unit is installed on the housing. However, Okada does not disclose wherein the transmission unit is installed on the housing with a double-sided tape. The examiner takes an official notice that it is well known in the art to use magnets, screws, adhesive such as double-sided tape to install or attach an element of a sensor or an optical device. Murotani discloses an image forming apparatus (Fig. 1 and 2, pages 2 and 3) and light transmitting members 211y, 211m, 211c, and 211k attached to the lid member 210 to allow laser light to pass through and attached by adhesive, double-sided tape (page 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a doubles-sided tape to install the transmission unit on the housing as taught by Murotani since it is commonly used and selecting known method using known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that since Okada discloses the transmission unit 80 consisting of multiple flat plates 84, no single plate in Okada crosses the entirety of the field of view. Applicant also argues that since the transmission part of Okada in Fig. 4 is formed of multiple flat plates 84, it cannot be considered a curved surface. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the claim language does not distinguish a transmission unit consisting of multiple flat plates from one consisting of a single curved element. The transmission unit 80 of Okada may consist of multiple flat plates and no single flat plate crosses the entirety of the field of view but the transmission unit 80 as a whole does cross the entirety of the field of view.
Second, Fig. 4 of Okada shows that the transmission unit 80 is curved. Applicant even states in the response that the structure formed is “semi-cylindrical as a whole”, which clearly suggests “curved”. Okada also discloses in para 0036 that the plates 84 can be curved.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER B KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2120. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Toan Ton can be reached at (571) 272-2303. 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.
/PETER B KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882 August 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights