Final Rejection
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
The amendment filed 06/30/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-10 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the objection to claim 5. Accordingly, the objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claim 1, 5-6 and 9. Accordingly, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-4, filed 11/11/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-10 under U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference(s) as detailed below and furthermore applicants’ amendments, see claims filled 06/30/2025, necessitated a new grounds of rejection and therefore this action is considered final.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roka (DE 102018205048 A1, all citations provided from machine transition attached) in view of Wang (US 11092688 B1), Kim (KR 20160066763 A, all citations provided from machine transition attached) and Wollny (EP 3226028 A1, all citations provided from machine transition attached)
Regarding claim 1, Roka teaches a method for checking the positioning of an ultrasonic sensor (1-12) on a vehicle (100), wherein the ultrasonic sensor (1-12) is installed on the vehicle (100), said method comprising: the steps localizing a object in the detection region (120) of the ultrasonic sensor (1-12). (Abstract, Page.2, Last 3 sentences-Page.3, line 8, Page.7, lines 15-24, Claim 1, Fig.1)
Roka also teaches emitting at least one first ultrasonic pulse (pulse-echo principle) with a first ultrasonic frequency by means of the ultrasonic sensor (1-12). (Page.7, lines 15-24, Claim 1, Fig.1)
Roka also teaches receiving at least one first echo signal (ultrasound echoes 122) at the first ultrasonic frequency by means of the ultrasonic sensor (1-12). (Page.7, lines 15-24, Claim 1, Fig.1)
Roka also teaches emitting at least one second ultrasonic pulse (pulse-echo principle) with a second ultrasonic frequency by means of the ultrasonic sensor (1-12). (Page.7, lines 15-24, Page.8, lines 13-19, Figs.1-3) Roka teaches multiple ultrasonic sensors (1-12) emitting and receiving ultrasonic pulses (Figs.1-3).
Roka also teaches receiving at least one second echo signal (ultrasound echoes 122) at the second ultrasonic frequency by means of the ultrasonic sensor (1-12). (Page.7, lines 15-24, Page.8, lines 13-19, Figs.1-3)
Roka also teaches outputting an error (error, confidence level) in the positioning of the ultrasonic sensor (1-12) based on determining that a comparison (302) of echo amplitudes in the object in the at least one first and second echo signal deviates from the comparison (302) for a positioning of the ultrasonic sensor (1-12) by at least one specified threshold value. (Page.7, lines 41-49, Page.8, lines 1-8, Figs.2-3)
Roka does not explicitly teach wherein the ultrasonic sensor is installed in a mounting bracket on the vehicle and emitting at least one second ultrasonic pulse with a second ultrasonic frequency different from the first ultrasonic frequency and localizing a reference object and a correct positioning of the ultrasonic sensor and ascertaining a ratio of echo amplitudes of the reference object in the at least one first and second echo signal and determining that the ratio of echo amplitudes in the reference object in the at least one first and second echo signal deviates from the ratio for a correct operating mode of the ultrasonic sensor by at least one specified threshold value.
Wang teaches emitting at least one second ultrasonic pulse with a second ultrasonic frequency different from the first ultrasonic frequency. (Col.7, lines 29-36, Col.13, lines 58-63, Claim 19)
Wang also teaches wherein the ultrasonic sensor (114) is installed in a mounting bracket (ultrasonic sensors that are lateral-side-mounted on a vehicle) on the vehicle (102) and localizing a reference object (120). (Col.5, line 63-Col.6, line 7, Col.4, lines 24-41, Col.9, lines 30-36, Claims 8, 10-11, Fig.1)
Kim teaches a correct positioning (The control unit 200 controls the position adjusting unit 400) of the ultrasonic sensor (300). (Page.4, lines 35-36)
Wollny teaches ascertaining a ratio (first amplitude ratio) of echo amplitudes of the reference object (the first ultrasonic signal reflected by the object and the second ultrasonic signal reflected by the object are received by means of the ultrasonic sensor) in the at least one first and second echo signal. (Page.3, Paragraph 1, Claim 1)
Wollny also teaches determining that the ratio of echo amplitudes (amplitude ratio) in the reference object (8) in the at least one first and second echo signal deviates from the ratio for a correct operating mode of the ultrasonic sensor by at least one specified threshold value. (Page.5, Paragraph 4)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Roka to incorporate emitting at least one second ultrasonic pulse with a second ultrasonic frequency different from the first ultrasonic frequency and wherein the ultrasonic sensor is installed in a mounting bracket on the vehicle and localizing a reference object as taught by Wang in order to utilize lateral object detection and mapping in vehicle-parking-assist functions and address latency issues associated with temporal intersections and can be determined without the vehicle moving and further modify Roka to incorporate a correct positioning of the ultrasonic sensor as taught by Kim in order to solve an error, that is, to compensate the object detection error of the ultrasonic sensor and further modify Roka to incorporate ascertaining a ratio of echo amplitudes of the reference object in the at least one first and second echo signal and determining that the ratio of echo amplitudes in the reference object in the at least one first and second echo signal deviates from the ratio for a correct operating mode of the ultrasonic sensor by at least one specified threshold value as taught by Wollny in order to be able to precisely determine the position of the object and the relative position between the motor vehicle and the object and allow for a reliable determination of the airborne sound attenuation.
Regarding claim 2, Roka teaches wherein the localizing of a object in the detection region of the ultrasonic sensor comprises detecting a position of the object in the detection region of the ultrasonic sensor based on echo signals received using a plurality of ultrasonic sensors. (Abstract, Page.7, lines 15-24, Claim 1, Fig.1)
Roka does not explicitly teach the localizing of a reference object in the detection region.
Wang teaches the localizing of a reference object (120) in the detection region (118). (Col.4, lines 15-41, Col.9, lines 30-36, Claims 8, 10-11, Fig.1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Roka to incorporate the localizing of a reference object in the detection region in order to utilize lateral object detection and mapping in vehicle-parking-assist functions and address latency issues associated with temporal intersections and can be determined without the vehicle moving.
Regarding claim 3, Roka teaches wherein the localizing of a object in the detection region of the ultrasonic sensor comprises emitting at least one ultrasonic pulse by means of the ultrasonic sensor having a detection region and receiving at least one corresponding echo signal by means of the ultrasonic sensor, wherein the object is localized by finding an echo of the object contained in the at least one received echo signal in the detection region of the ultrasonic sensor. (Abstract, Page.7, lines 15-24, Claim 1, Fig.1)
Roka does not explicitly teach the localizing of a reference object in the detection region and emitting at least one focused ultrasonic pulse by means of the ultrasonic sensor having a narrow detection region.
Wang teaches the localizing of a reference object in the detection region and emitting at least one focused ultrasonic pulse by means of the ultrasonic sensor (114) having a narrow detection region (left and right side of 118). (Col.4, lines 15-41, Col.9, lines 30-36, Col.6, lines 36-46, Claims 8, 10-11, Fig.1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Roka to incorporate the localizing of a reference object in the detection region and emitting at least one focused ultrasonic pulse by means of the ultrasonic sensor having a narrow detection region in order to utilize lateral object detection and mapping in vehicle-parking-assist functions and address latency issues associated with temporal intersections and can be determined without the vehicle moving.
Regarding claim 4, Roka teaches wherein the localizing of a object in the detection region of the ultrasonic sensor comprises detecting a position of the object in the detection region of the ultrasonic sensor based on a detection of the surroundings. (Abstract, Page.7, lines 15-24, Claim 1, Fig.1)
Roka does not explicitly teach the localizing of a reference object in the detection region of the ultrasonic sensor and using at least one environment sensor from an optical camera, a LiDAR-based environment sensor and a radar sensor.
Wang teaches the localizing of a reference object in the detection region of the ultrasonic sensor and using at least one environment sensor from an optical camera, a LiDAR-based environment sensor and a radar sensor (The ultrasonic sensors 210 can be any suitable sensor, including ultrasonic sensors or other sensors (e.g., radar, infrared)). (Col.5, lines 37-41, Col.4, lines 15-41, Col.9, lines 30-36, Claims 8, 10-11, Fig.1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Roka to incorporate the localizing of a reference object in the detection region of the ultrasonic sensor and using at least one environment sensor from an optical camera, a LiDAR-based environment sensor and a radar sensor in order to provide range information to an object and utilize lateral object detection and mapping in vehicle-parking-assist functions.
Regarding claim 5, Roka does not explicitly teach positioning the reference object in a central region of the detection region of the ultrasonic sensor at an angle of 0° relative to a central axis of the mounting bracket of the ultrasonic sensor.
Wang teaches positioning the reference object (120) in a central region of the detection region (118) of the ultrasonic sensor (114) at an angle of 0° relative to a central axis of the mounting bracket of the ultrasonic sensor. (Col.1, lines 19-22, Fig.1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Roka to incorporate positioning the reference object in a central region of the detection region of the ultrasonic sensor at an angle of 0° relative to a central axis of the mounting bracket of the ultrasonic sensor in order to determine the azimuth.
Regarding claim 6, Roka does not explicitly teach wherein the first ultrasonic frequency is in a frequency range below a nominal frequency of the ultrasonic sensor, and the second ultrasonic frequency is above the first ultrasonic frequency, and above the nominal frequency.
Wang teaches wherein the first ultrasonic frequency is in a frequency range below a nominal frequency of the ultrasonic sensor (114), and the second ultrasonic frequency is above the first ultrasonic frequency, and above the nominal frequency. (Col.7, lines 27-36, Example 10, Claims 1, 19)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Roka to incorporate wherein the first ultrasonic frequency is in a frequency range below a nominal frequency of the ultrasonic sensor, and the second ultrasonic frequency is above the first ultrasonic frequency, and above the nominal frequency in order to send pulses at the same time without interference with one another by using individually-modulated waves.
Regarding claim 7, Roka teaches repeatedly emitting the at least one first ultrasonic pulse and/or the at least one second ultrasonic pulse; and repeatedly receiving the at least one first echo signal and/or the at least one second echo signal (method for monitoring the function of ultrasound sensors is preferably carried out repeatedly in order to be able to continuously monitor the function of the corresponding ultrasound sensor), and ascertaining the ratio of echo amplitudes of the object in the at least one first and second echo signal comprises ascertaining the ratio of the echo amplitudes of the object based on a plurality of first and second echo signals. (Page.4, lines 8-13, Page.7, lines 15-24, 41-49, Claim 1, Figs.1-3)
Roka does not explicitly teach using a reference object.
Wang teaches using a reference object. (Col.4, lines 15-41, Col.9, lines 30-36, Claims 8, 10-11, Fig.1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Roka to incorporate using a reference object in order to utilize lateral object detection and mapping in vehicle-parking-assist functions and address latency issues associated with temporal intersections and can be determined without the vehicle moving.
Regarding claim 8, Roka teaches determining a position of the object in the detection region (120) of the ultrasonic sensor (1-12). (Page.7, lines 11-24, Claim 1, Fig.1)
Roka also teaches wherein the outputting the error in the positioning of the ultrasonic sensor (1-12) comprises outputting the error in the positioning of the ultrasonic sensor (1-12) based on the determining that the comparison (302) of echo amplitudes in the object in the at least one first and second echo signal deviates by at least one specified threshold value from the comparison (302) for a positioning of the ultrasonic sensor (1-12), which is dependent on the position of the object in the detection region (120) of the ultrasonic sensor (1-12). (Page.7, lines 41-49, Page.8, lines 1-8, Page.3, lines 45-48, Page.4, lines 26-28, Figs.2-3)
Roka does not explicitly teach using a reference object and a correct positioning of the ultrasonic sensor and determining that the ratio of echo amplitudes in the object in the at least one first and second echo signal deviates by at least one specified threshold value from the ratio for a positioning of the ultrasonic sensor.
Wang teaches using a reference object. (Col.4, lines 15-41, Col.9, lines 30-36, Claims 8, 10-11, Fig.1)
Kim teaches a correct positioning (The control unit 200 controls the position adjusting unit 400) of the ultrasonic sensor (300). (Page.4, lines 35-36)
Wollny teaches determining that the ratio of echo amplitudes in the object in the at least one first and second echo signal deviates by at least one specified threshold value from the ratio for an operating mode of the ultrasonic sensor. (Page.3, Paragraph 1, Page.5, Paragraph 4, Claim 1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Roka to incorporate using a reference object as taught by Wang in order to utilize lateral object detection and mapping in vehicle-parking-assist functions and address latency issues associated with temporal intersections and can be determined without the vehicle moving and further modify Roka to incorporate a correct positioning of the ultrasonic sensor as taught by Kim in order to solve an error, that is, to compensate the object detection error of the ultrasonic sensor and further modify Roka to incorporate determining that the ratio of echo amplitudes in the object in the at least one first and second echo signal deviates by at least one specified threshold value from the ratio for an operating mode of the ultrasonic sensor as taught by Wollny in order to be able to precisely determine the position of the object and the relative position between the motor vehicle and the object and allow for a reliable determination of the airborne sound attenuation.
Regarding claim 9, Roka teaches determining a position of the object in the detection region (120) of the ultrasonic sensor (1-12). (Page.7, lines 11-24, Claim 1, Fig.1)
Roka also teaches wherein the outputting the error in the positioning of the ultrasonic sensor (1-12) comprises outputting the error in the positioning of the ultrasonic sensor (1-12) based on the determining that the comparison (302) of echo amplitudes in the object in the at least one first and second echo signal deviates from the comparison for a positioning of the ultrasonic sensor by at least one predetermined threshold value, which is dependent on the position of the object in the detection region of the ultrasonic sensor. (Page.7, lines 41-49, Page.8, lines 1-8, Figs.2-3, Page.3, lines 45-48, Page.4, lines 26-28, Figs.2-3)
Roka does not explicitly teach using a reference object and a correct positioning of the ultrasonic sensor and determining that the ratio of echo amplitudes in the object in the at least one first and second echo signal deviates by at least one predetermined threshold value.
Wang teaches using a reference object. (Col.4, lines 15-41, Col.9, lines 30-36, Claims 8, 10-11, Fig.1)
Kim teaches a correct positioning (The control unit 200 controls the position adjusting unit 400) of the ultrasonic sensor (300). (Page.4, lines 35-36)
Wollny teaches determining that the ratio of echo amplitudes in the object in the at least one first and second echo signal deviates by at least one predetermined threshold value. (Page.3, Paragraph 1, Page.5, Paragraph 4, Claim 1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Roka to incorporate using a reference object as taught by Wang in order to utilize lateral object detection and mapping in vehicle-parking-assist functions and address latency issues associated with temporal intersections and can be determined without the vehicle moving and further modify Roka to incorporate a correct positioning of the ultrasonic sensor as taught by Kim in order to solve an error, that is, to compensate the object detection error of the ultrasonic sensor and further modify Roka to incorporate determining that the ratio of echo amplitudes in the object in the at least one first and second echo signal deviates by at least one predetermined threshold value as taught by Wollny in order to be able to precisely determine the position of the object and the relative position between the motor vehicle and the object and allow for a reliable determination of the airborne sound attenuation.
Regarding claim 10, Roka teaches an assembly (Fig.1) comprising: at least one ultrasonic sensor (1-12). (Abstract, Page.2, Last 3 sentences-Page.3, line 8, Page.7, lines 15-24, Claim 1, Fig.1)
Roka also teaches a control unit (104, 204), which is connected via a data link (206) to the at least one ultrasonic sensor (1-12), wherein the at least one ultrasonic sensor (1-12) is installed on the vehicle. (Page.7, lines 14-24, 29-32, Claims 9, Fig.1)
Roka also teaches the control unit is configured to localize a object in the detection region of the at least one ultrasonic sensor. (Page.2, Last 3 sentences-Page.3, line 8, Page.7, lines 15-24, Claim 1, Fig.1)
Roka also teaches to emit at least one first ultrasonic pulse (pulse-echo principle) with a first ultrasonic frequency by means of the at least one ultrasonic sensor (1-12). (Page.7, lines 15-24, Claim 1, Fig.1)
Roka also teaches to receive at least one first echo signal (ultrasound echoes 122) at the first ultrasonic frequency by means of the at least one ultrasonic sensor (1-12). (Page.7, lines 15-24, Claim 1, Fig.1)
Roka also teaches to emit at least one second ultrasonic pulse (pulse-echo principle) with a second ultrasonic frequency by means of the at least one ultrasonic sensor (1-12). (Page.7, lines 15-24, Page.8, lines 13-19, Figs.1-3) Roka teaches multiple ultrasonic sensors (1-12) emitting and receiving ultrasonic pulses (Figs.1-3).
Roka also teaches to receive at least one second echo signal (ultrasound echoes 122) at the second ultrasonic frequency by means of the at least one ultrasonic sensor (1-12). (Page.7, lines 15-24, Page.8, lines 13-19, Figs.1-3)
Roka also teaches to output an error (error, confidence level) in the positioning of the ultrasonic sensor (1-12) based on determining that a comparison (302 of echo amplitudes in the object in the at least one first and second echo signal deviates from the comparison (302) for a positioning of the at least one ultrasonic sensor (1-12) by at least one specified threshold value. (Page.7, lines 41-49, Page.8, lines 1-8, Figs.2-3)
Roka does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one ultrasonic sensor is installed in a mounting bracket on the vehicle and emit at least one second ultrasonic pulse with a second ultrasonic frequency different from the first ultrasonic frequency and localizing a reference object and a correct positioning of the ultrasonic sensor and to ascertain a ratio of echo amplitudes of the reference object in the at least one first and second echo signal and determining that the ratio of echo amplitudes in the reference object in the at least one first and second echo signal deviates from the ratio for a correct operating mode of the ultrasonic sensor by at least one specified threshold value.
Wang teaches to emit at least one second ultrasonic pulse with a second ultrasonic frequency different from the first ultrasonic frequency. (Col.7, lines 29-36, Col.13, lines 58-63, Claim 19)
Wang also teaches wherein the at least one ultrasonic sensor (114) is installed in a mounting bracket (ultrasonic sensors that are lateral-side-mounted on a vehicle) on the vehicle (102) and localizing a reference object (120). (Col.5, line 63-Col.6, line 7, Col.4, lines 24-41, Col.9, lines 30-36, Claims 8, 10-11, Fig.1)
Kim teaches a correct positioning (The control unit 200 controls the position adjusting unit 400) of the ultrasonic sensor (300). (Page.4, lines 35-36)
Wollny teaches to ascertain a ratio (first amplitude ratio) of echo amplitudes of the reference object (the first ultrasonic signal reflected by the object and the second ultrasonic signal reflected by the object are received by means of the ultrasonic sensor) in the at least one first and second echo signal. (Page.3, Paragraph 1, Claim 1)
Wollny also teaches determining that the ratio of echo amplitudes (amplitude ratio) in the reference object (8) in the at least one first and second echo signal deviates from the ratio for a correct operating mode of the ultrasonic sensor by at least one specified threshold value. (Page.5, Paragraph 4)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Roka to incorporate to emit at least one second ultrasonic pulse with a second ultrasonic frequency different from the first ultrasonic frequency and wherein the at least one ultrasonic sensor is installed in a mounting bracket on the vehicle and localizing a reference object as taught by Wang in order to utilize lateral object detection and mapping in vehicle-parking-assist functions and address latency issues associated with temporal intersections and can be determined without the vehicle moving and further modify Roka to incorporate a correct positioning of the ultrasonic sensor as taught by Kim in order to solve an error, that is, to compensate the object detection error of the ultrasonic sensor and further modify Roka to incorporate to ascertain a ratio of echo amplitudes of the reference object in the at least one first and second echo signal and determining that the ratio of echo amplitudes in the reference object in the at least one first and second echo signal deviates from the ratio for a correct operating mode of the ultrasonic sensor by at least one specified threshold value as taught by Wollny in order to be able to precisely determine the position of the object and the relative position between the motor vehicle and the object and allow for a reliable determination of the airborne sound attenuation.
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 ABDALLAH ABULABAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00am-3:00pm EST.
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.
/ABDALLAH ABULABAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights