DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 07/09/2025 has been entered.
Claims 2-5 and 9-11 are cancelled.
Claims 1 and 8 are amended.
Claims 1 and 6-8 are pending.
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 1, and 6-8 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 8 the claims concerns a difference between the first distance and the second difference. This does not make any sense as there does not appear to be any second difference previously appearing in the claims. Moreover it is unclear if applicant meant difference between first distance and second distance based on the remarks submitted. Or if there is a difference between the distance and something else. For purpose of compact prosecution examiner is assuming applicant intended claim to mean difference between first distance and second. This appears to be consistent with applicant’s arguments on page 6-7 of the remarks.
Claims 1 and 6 recites the limitation "the second difference" in claim 1 and claim 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no previous reference to second difference.
The term “predetermined value" or "set value” in claims 1 and 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “predetermined value" "set value” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This limitation does not allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand the metes and bounds of the claim limitation as any arbitrary chosen value or threshold will read on the claim. Moreover the claim is unclear if the set value and the predetermined value are the same arbitrarily chosen value.
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.
Claims 1, 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyama (US 2022/0113404 Al) in view of Sugae (US 11150343 B2), Kanayama (US 20100249590 A1) and Pearce (US 20150124242 A1) and Urata (US 9701016 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Koyama teaches a first waveform transceiver configured to transmit and receive ultrasound in a first center frequency band[Fig 1; Abstract, Claim 1, 0142-0148, 0223- 0224, 0260-0263 has drive signal send first transmission wave and waveform based on frequency];
a....transceiver configured to transmit and receive ultrasound in a second center frequency band higher than and separate from the first center frequency band[Fig 1; Abstract, Claim 1, 0142- 0148, 0223-0224,0260-0263 has drive signal send second transmission wave and wave form based on frequency; 0142-0148, 0223-0224, 0260-0263, Claim 9, has second frequency higher than first];
a processor configured to sequentially transmit and receive ultrasonic waves through the first and second waveform transceivers[Fig 1 has processor to transmit and receive], calculate first and second distances based on a result of transmission and reception of the first and second waveform transceivers, respectively [0044 has distance calculated from object based on reflection], ....and to calculate a final distance to an obstacle by determining whether to detect the obstacle through the calculated first and second distances[0044 has distance calculated from object based on reflection];
and an output unit configured to output the final distance to the obstacle calculated by the processor [0044 has distance calculated from object based on reflection].....
calculate the first distance based on a result of transmission and reception of the first waveform transceiver[0044 has distance calculated from object based on reflection];
calculate the second distance based on a result of transmission and reception of the second waveform transceiver compensated for by the attenuation compensator[0044 has distance calculated from object based on reflection];…..
Koyama does not explicitly teach a second waveform transducer separate from the first waveform transducer [though it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a second waveform transducer since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.],..... by compensating for signal attenuation due to a difference in center frequency,... wherein the processor calculates the final distance by averaging the calculated first and second distances..... compensate for attenuation of the ultrasound transmitted and received through the second waveform transceiver….. calculate a difference between the first distance and the second difference; compare the difference to a set value; and determine that the obstacle is detected when the calculated difference is less than a predetermined value. [Though Koyama, at 0071 has use of thresholds and it would have also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use thresholds, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.]
Sugae teaches a first waveform transceiver[#201 in fig 1 and Col 8; Lines 5-20; Col 11, Lines 10-15 has two transceivers #201 and #202] configured to transmit[Frequency B1 and B2] and receive[Frequency B1 and B2] ultrasound in a first center frequency band [Fig 1, Abstract Claim 1; Col 8, Lines 5-20 has transceiver using frequency band B1 as well as multiple transducers;];
a second waveform transceiver[#202 in fig 1 and Col 11, Lines 10-15 has two transceivers #201 and #202] separate from the first waveform transducer configured to transmit[Frequency B1 and B2] and receive[Frequency B1 and B2] ultrasound in a second center frequency band higher and separate from than the first center frequency band[Fig 1, Abstract; Claim 1; Col 8, Lines 5-20 has transceiver using frequency band B2 which is higher than B1 as well as multiple transducers; Col 11, Lines 10-40 also has multiple transducers and different frequencies; Col 10, Lines 1 -5 also has different frequencies for different transducers ];
..... calculate first and second distances based on a result of transmission and reception of the first and second waveform transceivers[Claim 6 has distance based on transmission and reception], respectively, ..... and to calculate a final distance by determining whether to detect an obstacle through the calculated first and second distances[#430, #930a, #930b, #930c in Figs 4,9 to determine distance];
and an output unit configured to output the final distance calculated by the processor [#430, #9 30a, #930b, #930c in Figs 4,9 to determine distance meaning an output is reached].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified ultrasonic sensor in Koyama with the second transceiver in Sugae to transmit the waveforms from separate transceivers in order to have each transceiver have its own frequency signature to distinguish between them.
Kanayama teaches that a first waveform transceiver configured to transmit and receive ultrasound in a first center frequency band[Abstract, Claim 1 has transmission of first center frequency f1];
a second waveform transceiver separate from the first waveform transceiver configured to transmit and receive ultrasound in a second center frequency band higher than and separate from the first center frequency band[Abstract, Claim 1 has transmission of first center frequency f2 which is higher than f1 as stated at 0054 and fig 4b, 6];
a processor configured to sequentially transmit and receive ultrasonic waves through the first and second waveform transceivers[Fig 1 has processor to transmit and receive waves and Abstract, Claim 1 have them being sent twice meaning sequentially], ..... by compensating for signal attenuation due to a difference in center frequency[Abstract, Claim 1, #S4 in Fig 2 has attenuation between two frequencies], and to calculate a final distance to an obstacle by determining whether to detect the obstacle through the calculated first and second distances[Claim 1,0014-0015 has object based on first and second echo];
and an output unit configured to output the final distance calculated by the processor.[#S5 in Fig 2]......
compensate for attenuation of the ultrasound transmitted and received through the second waveform transceiver[ Abstract, Claim 1, #S4 in Fig 2 has attenuation between two frequencies];
calculate the first distance based on a result of transmission and reception of the first waveform transceiver[Claim 1, 0014-0015 has object based on first and second echo];
calculate the second distance based on a result of transmission and reception of the second waveform transceiver compensated for by the attenuation compensator[Claim 1, 0014-0015 has object based on first and second echo];
It would have also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to compensate for attenuation with a coefficient based on the difference in center frequency, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Pearce teaches wherein the processor calculates the final distance by averaging the calculated first and second distances. [0072 has averaging of distances]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified ultrasonic sensor in Koyama distance averaging in Pearce to calculate the final distance based on an average of the distances.
It would have also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use averaging, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Urata teaches calculate a difference between the first distance and the second difference[Col 12 Lines 10-30 have distance measurement comparison between two readings and comparison/difference to threshold/set value/predetermined value]; compare the difference to a set value[Col 12 Lines 10-30 have distance measurement comparison between two readings and comparison/difference to threshold/set value/predetermined value]; and determine that the obstacle is detected when the calculated difference is less than a predetermined value[Col 12 Lines 10-30 have distance measurement comparison/difference between two readings and comparison to threshold/set value/predetermined value].
It would have also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to compare distances to a set threshold, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 8, Koyama teaches transmitting and receiving, by a processor, ultrasound in a first center frequency band through a first waveform transceiver[Fig 1; Abstract, Claim 1, 0142-0148, 0223-0224, 0260-0263 has drive signal send first transmission wave and waveform based on frequency ],
calculating, by the processor, a first distance based on a result of transmission and reception through the first waveform transceiver[0044 has distance calculated from object based on reflection];
transmitting and receiving, by the processor, ultrasound in a second center frequency band higher than and separate from the first center frequency band through a ..... waveform transceiver[Fig 1; Abstract, Claim 1, 0142-0148, 0223-0224, 0260-0263 has drive signal send second transmission wave and waveform based on frequency; 0142-0148, 0223-0224, 0260-0263, Claim 9, has second frequency higher than first]; .....
calculating, by the processor, a second distance based on a result of transmission and reception with the compensation for signal attenuation[0044 has distance calculated from object based on reflection];
determining, by the processor, whether to detect an obstacle based on a difference value between the first distance and the second distance[0044 has distance calculated from object based on reflection]; and calculating and outputting, by the processor, a final distance to the obstacle based on determining whether to detect the obstacle[0044 has distance calculated from object based on reflection]....
calculate the first distance based on a result of transmission and reception of the first waveform transceiver[0044 has distance calculated from object based on reflection];
calculate the second distance based on a result of transmission and reception of the second waveform transceiver compensated for by the attenuation compensator[0044 has distance calculated from object based on reflection];
and determine whether to detect the obstacle based on a difference between the first distance and the second distance calculated by a distance calculator.[0044 has distance calculated from object based on reflection].
Koyama does not explicitly teach a second waveform transducer separate from the first waveform transceiver[though it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a second waveform transducer since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.],..... compensating, by the processor, for signal attenuation due to a difference in center frequency based on a result of transmission and reception through the second waveform transceiver, ..... wherein the processor calculates the final distance by averaging the calculated first and second distances ..... and wherein the processor compensates for the attenuation through a variable amplification factor to which an attenuation coefficient corresponding to the difference incenter frequency is applied.
Sugae teaches transmitting and receiving, by a processor, ultrasound in a first center frequency band through a first waveform transceiver[Fig 1, Abstract; Claim 1; Col 8, Lines 5 -20 has transceiver using frequency band B1],
calculating, by the processor, a first distance based on a result of transmission and reception through the first waveform transceiver[#430, #930a, #930b, #930c in Figs 4,9 to determine distance];
transmitting and receiving, by the processor, ultrasound in a second center frequency band higher than and separate from the first center frequency band through a second waveform transceiver separate from the first waveform transceiver [Fig 1, Abstract; Claim 1; Col 8, Lines 5- 20 has transceiver using frequency band B2 which is higher than B1 as well as multiple transducers; Col 11, Lines 10-40 also has multiple transducers and different frequencies; Col 10, Lines 1-5 also has different frequencies for different transducers]; .....
calculating, by the processor, a second distance based on a result of transmission and reception with the compensation for signal attenuation[#430, #9 30a, #930b, #930c in Figs 4,9 to determine distance];
determining, by the processor, whether to detect an obstacle based on a difference value between the first distance and the second distance[#430, #930a, #930b, #930c in Figs 4,9 to determine distance meaning an output is reached];
and calculating and outputting, by the processor, a final distance based on determining whether to detect an obstacle[#430, #9 30a, #93 Ob, #930c in Figs 4,9 to determine distance meaning an output is reached].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified ultrasonic sensor in Koyama with the second transceiver in Sugae to transmit the waveforms from separate transceivers in order to have each transceiver have its own frequency signature to distinguish between them.
Kanayama teaches that transmitting and receiving, by a processor, ultrasound in a first center frequency band through a first waveform transceiver[Abstract, Claim 1 has transmission of first center frequency f1],
calculating, by the processor, a first distance based on a result of transmission and reception through the first waveform transceiver[Claim 1, 0014-0015 has object based on first and second echo];
transmitting and receiving, by the processor, ultrasound in a second center frequency band higher than and separate from the first center frequency band through a ..... waveform transceiver[Abstract, Claim 1 has transmission of first center frequency f2 which is higher than f1 as stated at 0054 and fig 4b, 6];
compensating, by the processor, for signal attenuation due to a difference in center frequency based on a result of transmission and reception through the ...... waveform transceiver[Abstract, Claim 1, #84 in Fig 2 has attenuation between two frequencies];
calculating, by the processor, a second distance based on a result of transmission and reception with the compensation for signal attenuation[Claim 1, 0014-0015 has object based on first and second echo];
determining, by the processor, whether to detect an obstacle based on a difference value between the first distance and the second distance[Claim 1, 0014-0015 has object based on first and second echo];
and calculating and outputting, by the processor, a final distance to the obstacle based on determining whether to detect the obstacle[#S5 in Fig 2].....
compensate for attenuation of the ultrasound transmitted and received through the second waveform transceiver[ Abstract, Claim 1, #S4 in Fig 2 has attenuation between two frequencies];
calculate the first distance based on a result of transmission and reception of the first waveform transceiver[Claim 1, 0014-0015 has object based on first and second echo];
calculate the second distance based on a result of transmission and reception of the second waveform transceiver compensated for by the attenuation compensator[Claim 1, 0014-0015 has object based on first and second echo];
Pearce teaches wherein the processor calculates the final distance by averaging the calculated first and second distances. [0072 has averaging of distances]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified ultrasonic sensor in Koyama distance averaging in Pearce to calculate the final distance based on an average of the distances.
It would have also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use averaging, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Urata teaches calculate a difference between the first distance and the second difference[Col 12 Lines 10-30 have distance measurement comparison between two readings and comparison/difference to threshold/set value/predetermined value]; compare the difference to a set value[Col 12 Lines 10-30 have distance measurement comparison between two readings and comparison/difference to threshold/set value/predetermined value]; and determine that the obstacle is detected when the calculated difference is less than a predetermined value[Col 12 Lines 10-30 have distance measurement comparison/difference between two readings and comparison to threshold/set value/predetermined value].
It would have also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to compare distances to a set threshold, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 6, Koyama does not explicitly teach wherein the first waveform transceiver comprises a bandpass filter adapted to filter a first center frequency. [though 0154 has the microphone having characteristics similar to a band-pass filter]
Kanayama teaches wherein the first waveform transceiver comprises a bandpass filter adapted to filter a first center frequency. [0051 ,0064 has bandpass filter for f1]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified ultrasonic sensor in Koyama with the band-pass filtering in Kanayama to filter for the desired frequency.
Regarding claim 7, Koyama does not explicitly teach wherein the second waveform transceiver comprises a bandpass filter adapted to filter a second center frequency. [though 0154 has the microphone having characteristics similar to a band-pass filter]
Kanayama teaches wherein the first waveform transceiver comprises a bandpass filter adapted to filter a first center frequency. [0051 ,0064 has bandpass filter for f2]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified ultrasonic sensor in Koyama with the band-pass filtering in Kanayama to filter for the desired frequency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/09/20253 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the specific combination of the references being used in the current rejection.
Applicant's remaining arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Rejections are maintained – and no allowable subject matter can be identified at this time.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 VIKAS NMN ATMAKURI whose telephone number is (571)272-5080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at (571)272-6970. 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.
/VIKAS ATMAKURI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights