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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/11/2025 has been entered.
The amendment filed xxx xxx 202x has been entered.
Claim 16 is new.
Claims 1 is amended.
Claims 1-16 are pending.
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 1-8 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hallek(EP 2090898 A1) in view of Bariant (US 20190056495 A1) and Haque (US 20060254360 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hallek teaches A method for determining soiling of a first ultrasonic sensor of an ultrasonic sensor apparatus of an assistance system of a motor vehicle the method comprising[Fig 2 has sensor #1; Abstract, 0001-0003 has sensor testing and evaluation of environmental effects, ie soiling, ice and snow]:
transmitting, by the first ultrasonic sensor, a first ultrasonic signal into surroundings of the motor vehicle[#3 in Fig 2 and 0021 has transmission by sensor #1]
receiving, by the first ultrasonic sensor, the first ultrasonic signal reflected by the surroundings [#3 in Fig 2 and 0021 has transmission by sensor #1],
transmitting, by a second ultrasonic sensor of the ultrasonic sensor apparatus, a second ultrasonic signal, ….. into the surroundings essentially simultaneously with the first ultrasonic signal, [#6 in Fig 5 and 0021 and 0022 has transmission by sensor #5 and well as simultaneous transmission],
wherein the first ultrasonic sensor is configured to receive the second ultrasonic signal reflected by the surroundings[0006, 0007, and 0010 also have receiver being other ultrasonic sensor which reads on the claim];…..
determining the soiling of the first ultrasonic sensor by the electronic computing device, based on a result of the comparing[0023 has data comparison to determine if sensor is dirty].
and determining the soiling of the first ultrasonic sensor based on whether the first received ultrasonic signal matches the second received ultrasonic signal.[0023 has data comparison of sensors to determine soiling meaning it compares whether signals match or not and determines if there is soiling or not]
Hallek does not explicitly teach a second ultrasonic signal different from the first ultrasonic and comparing, using an electronic computing device of the ultrasonic sensor apparatus, the first received ultrasonic signal with the second received ultrasonic signal.
Bariant teaches that a second ultrasonic signal different from the first ultrasonic signal [Abstract, 0016, Claim 1 has sensors with different signals]
and comparing using an electronic computing device of the ultrasonic sensor apparatus the first received ultrasonic signal with the second received ultrasonic signal [0019, 0035-0036 has electronic control device with 0035 saying it receives and evaluates the signals from the sensors].
Haque teaches comparing, using an electronic computing device of the ultrasonic sensor apparatus, the first received ultrasonic signal with the second received ultrasonic signal[0011, 0016, 0071-0074 has comparison of received signals with each other]
determining the ….. of the first ultrasonic sensor by the electronic computing device, based determining the on a result of the comparing[0016, 0071-0074 has comparison of received signals with each other to determine if obstacle exists]
and determining the …..of the first ultrasonic sensor based on whether the first received ultrasonic signal matches the second received ultrasonic signal[0016, 0071-0074 has comparison of received signals with each other to determine if obstacle exists]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the ultrasonic sensor method in Hallek in view of different signals and electronic device in Bariant and the comparison of received signals with each other in Haque in order to have different signals to distinguish between the sensor sources and to determine which sensor has an obstacle/blockage in front of it as the comparison of signals to detect objects is a basic concept in the art of ultrasonic object detection.
Moreover with regards to use as detection of soiling or obstacles it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 2, Regarding claim 2, Hallek as modified, teaches that generating, by the electronic computing device, a first reception curve based on the first received ultrasonic signal, and a second reception curve, based on the second received ultrasonic signal, and comparing, using the electronic computing, device, the first reception curve with the second reception curve [Figs 3, 4, 5, 6 have reception curves being compared to detect conditions; 0021, 0022 have comparison; See also 0012, 0015-0017]
Haque also teaches that generating, by the electronic computing device, a first reception curve based on the first received ultrasonic signal, and a second reception curve, based on the second received ultrasonic signal, and comparing, using the electronic computing, device, the first reception curve with the second reception curve [0011, 0016, 0071-0074 has comparison of received signals with each other to determine if obstacle exists]
Regarding claim 3, Hallek as modified, teaches that wherein no soiling of the first ultrasonic sensor is determined if the first received ultrasonic signal differs from the second received ultrasonic signal [Figs 3, 4, 5, 6 have reception curves being compared to detect conditions; 0021, 0022 have comparison and 0024-0025 have detection of dirt based on comparison]
Regarding claim 4, Hallek as modified, teaches that wherein soiling of the first ultrasonic sensor is determined if the first received ultrasonic signal matches the second received ultrasonic signal. [Figs 3, 4,5, 6 have reception curves being compared to detect conditions; 0021, 0022 have comparison and 0024-0025 have detection of dirt based on comparison]
Regarding claim 5, Hallek does not explicitly teach that wherein the first ultrasonic signal is transmitted in a different frequency band than the second ultrasonic signal.
Bariant teaches that wherein the first ultrasonic signal is transmitted in a different frequency band than the second ultrasonic signal. [Abstract, 0016, Claim 1 has sensors with different signals; Title, Abstract and 0001 have frequency modulation in signal]
Haque also teaches that wherein the first ultrasonic signal is transmitted in a different frequency band than the second ultrasonic signal. [Claims 9, 10 have different transceivers having different frequencies]
Regarding claim 6, Hallek does not explicitly teach that wherein the first ultrasonic signal is transmitted with a different phase modulation than the second ultrasonic signal.
Bariant teaches that wherein the first ultrasonic signal is transmitted with a different phase modulation than the second ultrasonic signal. [Abstract, 0016, Claim 1 has sensors with different signals; 0003 has phase modulation in signal]
Regarding claim 7, Hallek does not explicitly teach that wherein the first ultrasonic signal is transmitted with a different frequency modulation than the second ultrasonic signal.
Bariant teaches that wherein the first ultrasonic signal is transmitted with a different frequency modulation than the second ultrasonic signal. [Abstract, 0016, Claim 1 has sensors with different signals; Title, Abstract and 0001 have frequency modulation in signal]
Haque also that wherein the first ultrasonic signal is transmitted with a different frequency modulation than the second ultrasonic signal. [Claims 9, 10 have different transceivers having different frequencies]
Regarding claim 8, Hallek does not explicitly teach that wherein the first ultrasonic signal is transmitted with a frequency modulation for which the frequency increases over time (t) and the second ultrasonic signal is transmitted with a frequency modulation for which the frequency decreases over time (t), or the first ultrasonic signal is transmitted with a frequency modulation for which the frequency decreases over time (t) and the second ultrasonic signal is transmitted with a frequency modulation for which the frequency increases over time (t).
Bariant teaches that wherein the first ultrasonic signal is transmitted with a frequency modulation for which the frequency increases over time (t),[0012, 0036-0037 has frequency increasing with time] and the second ultrasonic signal is transmitted with a frequency modulation for which the frequency decreases over time (t)[0012 and 0036 has frequency decrease with time], or the first ultrasonic signal is transmitted with a frequency modulation for which the frequency decreases over time (t)[0012, 0036-0037 has frequency increasing with time and it is arbitrary which is first and second and increasing or decreasing], and the second ultrasonic signal is transmitted with a frequency modulation for which the frequency increases over time (t). [0012 and 0036 has frequency decrease with time and it is arbitrary which is first and second and increasing or decreasing]
Regarding claim 10, Hallek does not explicitly teach that wherein a correlation filter of the first ultrasonic sensor is used to extract the first ultrasonic signal and the second ultrasonic signal from one another.
Bariant teaches that wherein a correlation filter of the first ultrasonic sensor is used to extract the first ultrasonic signal and the second ultrasonic signal from one another. [0016 -0017 has cross correlation and measurement and distinguishing between signals]
Regarding claim 11, Hallek as modified, teaches that wherein the determination of the soiling is carried out before a start of a journey. [Intended use and state of art has vehicle use for environment information meaning useful data when vehicle is started; 0017 has use in garage meaning it would be before a journey]
Regarding claim 12, Hallek as modified, teaches that a computer program product having program code means that are stored in a computer-readable storage medium in order to carry out the method as claimed in claim 1 when the computer program product is executed on a processor of an electronic computing device. [0012 and claim has electronic control meaning computer]
Regarding claim 13, Hallek as modified, teaches that a computer-readable storage medium having a computer program product as claimed in claim 12. [0012 and claim has electronic control meaning compute]
Regarding claim 14, Hallek as modified, teaches that an ultrasonic sensor apparatus for a motor vehicle, the ultrasonic sensor apparatus comprising at least one first ultrasonic sensor[ Fig 2 has sensor #1], a second ultrasonic sensor[Fig 2 has sensor #5;] and an electronic computing device[0012 and claim has electronic control meaning computer], wherein the ultrasonic sensor apparatus is configured to carry out the method as claimed in claim 1. [Abstract, 0001-0003 has sensor testing and evaluation of environmental effects, ie soiling, ice and snow]
Regarding claim 15, Hallek as modified, teaches that an assistance system comprising the ultrasonic sensor apparatus as claimed in claim 14. [0013 and claims have parking assistance]
Regarding claim 16, Hallek, as modified, teaches wherein determining the soiling is based on whether the first reception curve and the second reception curve are same[0023 has data comparison of sensors to determine soiling meaning it compares whether signals match or not and determines if there is soiling or not].
Haque also teaches wherein determining the soiling is based on whether the first reception curve and the second reception curve are same.[0016, 0071-0074 has comparison of received signals with each other to determine if obstacle exists]
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hallek (EP2090898 A1) in view of Bariant (US 20190056495 A1) and Haque (US 20060254360 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hallek II(US 20160299227 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Regarding claim 9, Hallek I does not explicitly teach wherein a sensor noise of the first ultrasonic sensor is taken into account when determining the soiling.
Hallek II teaches that wherein a sensor noise of the first ultrasonic sensor is taken into account when determining the soiling[0019, 0041 and claim 6 have filtering and accounting for noise in the signal]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the ultrasonic sensor method in Hallek I with the filtering and accounting for noise in the signal in Hallek II to account for noise when processing a signal.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicants arguments with regards to determining soiling on page 7-9 of the remarks, Applicant is reading the prior art overly narrowly. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here Hallek in view of Brian and Haque have comparison of received signals to detect obstacles such as blockage or objects and determining which sensor has an obstacle or blockage in front of it using the comparison of signals to detect objects is a basic concept in the art of ultrasonic object detection.
Moreover with regards to use as detection of soiling or obstacles it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Additionally Hallek already has detection of dirt ie, soiling.
Regarding applicants arguments on reception curves the applicant is reading the prior art overly narrowly as the prior art of Hallek and Haque has comparison of received signals meaning there is a comparison of a reception curve.
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
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
/JAMES R HULKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645