DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 07/30/2026 has been entered.
Claims 2-4 and 6 are cancelled.
Claims 1 and 7 are amended.
Claims 1, 5 and 7-11 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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, 5, 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Simon (US 8,301,344 B2) as evidenced by any one of Buerkle (US 2020/0326721 A1), Wong (US 2020/0364616 A1), Grau(US 20210018590 A1), Thompson(US 11,017,479 B2), Cremer (US 10,902,043 B2), Govardhanam (US 20220398412 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Simon teaches an ultrasonic sensor system of a vehicle for determining an object property of an environmental object in an environment of the vehicle[ 2 Lines 25 -40 have ultrasonic sensors; Abstract and Claim 1 has object property of object and environment],
detecting ultrasonic reception signals with a plurality of ultrasonic transducers of the ultrasonic sensor system [Col 2 Lines 25-40 have ultrasonic sensors meaning there is ultrasonic object detection using ultrasonic signals; Col 4, Lines 50-55 have multiple sensors];
determining a plurality of signal characteristics from the ultrasonic reception signals [Abstract; Claim 1, Col5, Lines 5-25 and Col 6, Lines 1-10 have characteristics of objects];
determining a first detection situation of the environment object based on the ultrasonic reception signals, the first detection situation being one of a plurality of detection situations[Claim 1 has object properties, classification and model database for classifying detected objects based on properties; Col 5, Lines 5-25 have various situations meaning different classification models based on the object and detection situation and Col 6, Lines 1-10 have characteristics of objects; Col 2, Lines 45-55 and Col 4, Lines 40-45 also have various situations and scenarios], each respective detection situation of the plurality of detection situations being characterized by (i) a respective spatial region of a plurality of spatial regions around the vehicle, the environment of the vehicle being partitioned into the plurality of spatial regions and (ii) a speed of the environment object relative to the vehicle [Col 4, Lines 50- Col 5, Lines 20 have object detection by position and velocity and using same for classification meaning determining situation based on position and speed and position monitoring is effectively monitoring of a region, Background has various regions Col 6, Lines 15-30 has outer monitoring region meaning there are various regions];
selecting a first classification model from a plurality of classification models depending on the first detection situation, [Col 2 Lines 45-55 and Col 4 Lines 40-45 have various situations Claim 1 has selecting class from a plurality of classes based on filtering] each classification model of the plurality of classification models corresponding to a respective one of the plurality of detection situations [Col 1; Lines 20-25 have training classifier; Claim 1, Col 5, Lines 5-25 and Col 6, Lines 1-10 have characteristics of objects based on object characteristics and situation meaning the classifier has different situations and Col 2, Lines 45-55 and Col 4, Lines 40-45 also have various situations and scenarios ], each classification model being trained to evaluate a different respective subset of the plurality of signal characteristics extracted from the ultrasonic reception signals to provide a respective classification result and a respective quality specification [Col 1; Lines 20-25 have training classifier; Claim 1, Col5, Lines 5-25 and Col 6, Lines 1-10 have characteristics of objects based on object properties meaning different signal characteristics and classifying each based on the most likely outcome meaning probability which reads on quality specification],
determining first classification results and associated first quality specifications using the first classification model based on a first respective subset of the plurality of signal characteristics [Col 1; Lines 20-25 have training classifier; Claim 1, Col 5, Lines 5-25 and Col 6, Lines 1-10 have characteristics of objects and classification based on it and classifying each based on the most likely outcome meaning probability which reads on quality specification and results; Claim 1 has filtering meaning it’s a result]; and
in response to determining that the environment object has left the first detection situation and entered a second detection situation, based on the ultrasonic reception signals, (i) temporarily storing the first classification results and the first associated quality specifications last determined with the first classification model assigned to the first detection situation, [Col 5, Lines 55-65 has storage and Col 6, Lines 1-10 and Claim 1 has temporal filtering meaning storing result] (ii) selecting a second classification model from the plurality of classification models depending on the second detection situation, [Col 2 Lines 45-55 and Col 4 Lines 40-45 have various situations Claim 1 has selecting class from a plurality of classes based on filtering; Col 1; Lines 20-25 have training classifier; Claim 1, Col 5, Lines 5-25 and Col 6, Lines 1-10 have characteristics of objects based on object characteristics and situation meaning the classifier has different situations and Col 2, Lines 45-55 and Col 4, Lines 40-45 also have various situations and scenarios]and (iii) determining second classification results and second associated quality specifications using the second classification model based on a second respective subset of the plurality of signal characteristics, the second respective subset being different from the first respective subset[ 1; Lines 20-25 have training classifier; Claim 1, Col5, Lines 5-25 and Col 6, Lines 1-10 have characteristics of objects based on object properties meaning different signal characteristics and classifying each based on the most likely outcome meaning probability which reads on quality specification]; and
determining whether the environmental object can be traveled over by the vehicle based on the second classification results and the second associated quality specifications and based on the first classification results and the first associated quality specifications that were temporarily stored, [Claim 1 has object properties; Col 1, Lines 45-50 has object identification; See also Col 3, Lines 40-65 and Col 5, Lines 5-25 for identifying cars, pedestrians, guard rails, etc meaning it would be used to identify objects that can or cannot be driven over]
wherein whether the environment object can be traveled over by the vehicle is determined based on the first classification results and the first associated quality specifications in response to the first associated quality specifications indicating a higher quality than the second associated quality specifications. [Col 6, Lines 1-10 and Claim 1 has temporal filtering meaning storing results while it is valid; Claim 4 also has validity check; Claim 1 has object properties; Col 1, Lines 45-50 has object identification; See also Col 3, Lines 40-65 and Col 5, Lines 5-25 for identifying cars, pedestrians, guard rails, etc thus used to identify objects that can or cannot be driven over]
In the event the Simon does not explicitly disclose a plurality of classification models for various situations, the following references show that having multiple classification models would be obvious.
Buerkle[0037-0038, 0041-0043], Wong[Abstract, 0005-0008], Grau[0029-0035], Thompson [Col 16; Lines 55-65], Cremer [Fig 9, Col 2, Lines 25-35], Govardhanam [0018-0025, 0049, 0053]all have multiple classification models for various scenarios in order to better respond to changing situations.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have multiple classification models and classifications based of various characteristics, 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.
Regarding claim 5, Simon teaches Simon teaches in response to determining that the environment object has left the first detection situation [Col 4, Lines 40-45 have classification based on situations], resetting the plurality of signal characteristics which are based on historical profiles of the ultrasonic reception signals. [Col 6, Lines 1-10 and Claim 1 has temporal filtering meaning storing results].
Regarding claim 7, Simon teaches determining a plurality of classification results by evaluating each respective classification model in the plurality of classification models with the different subset of the plurality of signal characteristics to obtain respective classification result and respective associated quality specification [Col 6; Lines 1-10 and Claim 1 have temporal filtering and classification based on properties];
wherein the determining whether the environment object can be traveled over by the vehicle includes determining whether the environment object can be traveled over by the vehicle based on the respective classification results of which the respective associated quality specifications indicate a highest quality [Col 1; Lines 20-25 have training classifier; Claim 1, Col 5, Lines 5-25 and Col 6, Lines 1-10 have characteristics of objects based on object properties meaning different signal characteristics and classifying each based on the most likely outcome meaning probability which reads on quality specification; Col 6; Lines 1-10 and Claim 1 have temporal filtering and classification based on properties; Claim 1 has object properties; Col 1, Lines 45-50 has object identification; See also Col 3, Lines 40-65 and Col 5, Lines 5-25 for identifying cars, pedestrians, guard rails, etc thus used to identify objects that can or cannot be driven over].
Regarding claim 8, Simon teaches an apparatus for carrying out the method according claim 1. [Claim 5 has device in vehicle system meaning its and apparatus].
Regarding claim 9, Simon teaches a computer program product comprising commands which, when the program is run by a computer, cause said computer to execute the method according to claim 1. [Fig 1 and Col 5, Lines 25-40 have processor and memory meaning it's a computer]
Regarding claim 10, Simon teaches A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, comprising commands which, when executed by a computer, cause said computer to execute the method according to claim 1. [Fig 1 and Col 5, Lines 25-40 have processor and memory]
Regarding claim 11, Simon teaches wherein the determining of the first detection situation of the environment object includes determining the first detection situation of the environment object by localization with aid of the plurality of ultrasonic transducers. [Col 2, Lines 35-45, Col 4, Lines 50- 55, Col 5, Lines 5-10 and 35-40 has obtaining position and speed of object meaning it is localization].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant's arguments concerning selecting between different models based on the situation and based on the region around the vehicle and speed of object, it is pointed out that applicant is reading the prior art overly narrowly and in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references in dividually 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). Moreover as pointed out in Col 4, Lines 40-45 of Simon, the system considers evaluation of classification based on adapting to the situation. Applicant is basically claiming selection of models based on the situation which is not novel or non obvious. Said another way applicant is arguing that sensors that detect, identify or classify objects based on the signals received are non obvious.
Having different models for various situations is obvious as it allows the system to adapt to changing situations. This in combination with the secondary references which have various models for various situations reads on the claim limitation.
Regarding applicant's arguments concerning leaving the situation and entering a new one and the storing of data, it is pointed out that applicant is reading the prior art overly narrowly and in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references in dividually 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). Moreover as pointed out in Col 2, Lines 1-5 of Simon, the system considers changing situations such as lane change which means it is detecting changes in position and speed of objects. Applicant is basically claiming detecting changes in the environment and comparing and updating the situation, a limitation that is not novel or non obvious. Having the system continuously monitor means it is continuously updating the tracking of objects which reads on the claim. This in combination with the secondary references which have various models for various situations reads on the claim limitation.
Moreover having different spatial regions is something that is well understood in the art as not all sensors have a 360 degree view and sensors inherently have a certain range meaning there are different regions around the vehicles and sensors monitor them to know where the object is with respect to the vehicle. Said another way applicant is arguing that the fact that the sensor identifies an object coming from a particular direction and not another direction is non obvious.
Regarding the determining if an object can be traveled over by a vehicle, this appears to be an intended use and does not carry much patentable weight as 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).
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
/JAMES R HULKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights