DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 2-8, 10-12 and 15-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 and 11-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,320,916. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claims have been broadened in scope and are therefore anticipated by the patented claims.
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.
Claim(s) 2-7, 10-14 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2020/0141716 to Droz et al., in further view of US Publication 2021/0061185 to Wheeler et al.
In regards to claims 2-4, 7, 10-14 and 17, Droz discloses and shows in Figures 1, 2a, 4a, 4c and 4d, a system comprising:
an assembly (110, 112, 116) (par. 50, 56-57, 59; wherein the rotating platform 110, the stationary platform 112 and the rotary link 116 are utilized to support the LiDAR device and housing);
at least one light detection and ranging (LiDAR) device (120, 130) coupled to the base, wherein the at least one LiDAR system is configured to transmit and receive light having one or more wavelengths (par. 49, 61, 66); and
a housing (150) encompassing the at least one LiDAR system, wherein the housing is statically coupled to the base, wherein the housing comprises a dome (Figures 4a, 4c, 4d) (par. 74),
[claim 3] wherein the dome comprises a wall (448, 449) that is transparent to the one or more wavelengths, and wherein the wall comprises a high impact polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) material (par. 50, 74, 95-96; wherein the “housing may take on any shape, form and material”; and may include an optical window 448 which “may be formed from a glass substrate (e.g. optical glass, polymethyl methacrylate, etc.”);
[claim 4] wherein the wall has a substantially uniform thickness (par. 74, 96; wherein the “housing may take on any shape, form and material”);
[claim 7] wherein the one or more wavelengths are infrared wavelengths (par. 49, 61, 74, 96);
[claim 10] wherein the dome is made of an injection molded high impact PMMA material (par. 74, 96)
[claim 11] wherein the dome further comprises a circular dome rim (212, 312, 410) and a dome crown, and wherein the circular dome rim is positioned on the dome opposite the dome crown (Figures 2a, 3a, 4a-d) (par. 74-75, 96; wherein the “housing may take on any shape, form and material”);
[claim 12] wherein the rim is statically coupled to the assembly (Figures 4a, 4c, 4d) (par. 74-75);
[claim 13] wherein a height of the housing is less than a diameter of the housing across the rim (par. 74, 96; wherein the “housing may take on any shape, form and material”) (Figures 2a, 3a, 4a-d);
[claim 14] wherein the housing is an ellipsoidal shape (par. 74; wherein the “housing may take on any shape, form and material”) (Figures 2a, 3a, 4a-d);
[claim 17] wherein the at least one LiDAR system is rotatably coupled to the base (par. 50, 56, 59, 93).
Droz differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the system further comprising:
[claim 1] a conductive coating, wherein the conductive coating is coupled to a surface of the housing, and wherein the conductive coating is electrically connected to the assembly.
However, Wheeler teaches and shows a vehicle transducer, having a module housing that includes a conductive layer, having an EMF shielding layer (118) coupled to a housing (108) and configured to electronically isolate a plurality of electronics from radio frequency electromagnetic radiation (par. 28-29). Further, it is well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art that electronic components need to be grounded, in order to prevent short-circuits and malfunctions.
Further, as discussed above Droz explicitly discloses that the “housing 150 may take on any shape, form and material”, and conductive coatings are well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Droz, to include a conductive coating as discussed above for the advantage of obtaining a desired or optimal dome configuration to protect electronic components from radiation interference, short-circuits and malfunctions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claims 5-6, Droz differs from the limitations in that it does not explicitly disclose the system, [claim 5] wherein the dome is dyed such that the wall blocks visible light; [claim 6] wherein the at least the portion of the housing is transparent to IR light.
However, as discussed above Droz explicitly discloses that the “housing 150 may take on any shape, form and material” (par. 74); and wherein the housing “may include a material that is at least partially non-transparent, which may allow for blocking of at least some signals from entering the interior space of the housing, and thus help mitigate thermal and noise effects of ambient signals on one or more components of the system” (par. 74). Further, the optical window (448, 449) “selectively transmits wavelengths of the emitted light (460)”, which may be IR light (par. 96).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Droz to include the dome characteristics discussed above for the advantage of obtaining a desired or optimal dome configuration which helps mitigate thermal and noise ambient signals, with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claim 18, Droz differs from the limitations in that it does not explicitly disclose the system: [claim 18] wherein the dome is a five control point cubic spline configured to minimize deflection and defocus over a field of view.
However, as discussed above Droz explicitly discloses that the “housing 150 may take on any shape, form and material” (par. 74).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Droz to include the dome shape discussed above for the advantage of obtaining a desired or optimal dome shape which would enclose and isolate all of the internal components of the system, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Droz, in further view of Wheeler, and in view of US Publication 2023/0010461 to Hart et al.
In regards to claims 8-9, Droz differs from the limitations in that it does not explicitly disclose the system further comprising:
[claim 8] wherein at least the portion of the housing further comprises an anti-abrasion coating;
[claim 9] wherein the anti-abrasion coating has a Rockwell hardness of at least HB.
However, as discussed above Droz explicitly discloses that the “housing 150 may take on any shape, form and material”.
Further, Hart discloses and shows cover articles for protecting devices and electronic components (par. 4), wherein a plurality of layers are utilized to obtain an anti-reflective and anti-abrasive material, which has a desired hardness level (par. 44, 46-49, 53). Further, materials with a Rockwell hardness of at least HB are well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Droz to include the anti-abrasion coating with a hardness discussed above for the advantage of providing a cover for sensitive electronic components that is resistant to damage and abrasion, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Droz, in further view of Wheeler, and in view of US Publication 2021/0293933 to Schmidt et al.
In regards to claim 16, Droz differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the system,
[claim 16] wherein the base further comprises a plurality of bus bars electrically connected to the conductive coating on the dome.
However, Schmidt teaches and shows an integrated LiDAR system, having a module housing that includes a heating layer, which may be a conductive transparent layer, and a plurality of busbars (par. 27-28).
Further, as discussed above Droz explicitly discloses that the “housing 150 may take on any shape, form and material”, and bus bars and conductive coatings are well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Droz and Wheeler, to include the plurality of bus bars discussed above for the advantage of utilizing well-known electrical elements to easily connect and ground a conductive housing, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Droz, in further view of Wheeler, and in view of US Publication 2020/0275759 to Chevalier.
In regards to claims 15, Droz differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the system:
[claim 15] further comprising a locking mechanism.
However, Chevalier teaches and shows in Figures 1 and 4-7, a PMMA container that utilizes threads (applicant’s locking mechanism) to secure a lid (par. 19, 32, 36-37). Further, threaded or snap-together plastic containers and housings are well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Droz to include the threaded housing discussed above for the advantage of utilizing a well-known PMMA coupling method, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Droz et al., in further view of Wheeler et al., in view of US Publication 2022/0229158 to Ye et al.
In regards to claim 19, Droz differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the system, [claim 19] further comprising at least one center baffle, wherein the at least one center baffle is configured to attenuate internal reflections.
However, Ye teaches and shows in Figures 17-19, a LIDAR system and housing that includes a center baffle (670) for the advantage of minimizing internal reflections and isolating elements of the LIDAR system; wherein the emitted laser beam is isolated from the reflected laser; and wherein the baffle helps avoid laser interference within the housing (par. 85-87).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Droz to include the center baffle discussed above for the advantage of minimizing internal reflections and isolating various components and laser beams, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20-21 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8am to 4pm.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached on 571-270-5789. 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.
JONATHAN M. HANSEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2877
/JONATHAN M HANSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights