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 final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/16/2026 has been entered.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 15 and 19 are amended.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17 and 19-20 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 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasan(WO 0245998 A2) in view of Boozer (US 4,845,682 A) and further evidenced by Schwab (US 20200264303 A1) or Gounalis (US 7358887 B2) or Garlepp (US 10539539 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Hasan teaches an ultrasonic transducer configured to repeatedly emit ultrasonic pulses during transmit periods which are interspersed with listening windows [Fig 4 has transducer #34; Page 9; Lines 30-35 has Fig 5 with timing diagram for pulses; Page 10; Lines 20- 30 has one or many pulses], wherein each sequential pair of the transmit periods is separated by a single listening window of the listening windows[Fig 5 and Page 9; Lines 30-35 has time between pulses meaning listening window], and wherein during a fixed portion of a listening window of the listening windows the ultrasonic transducer is configured to receive returned signals corresponding to an emitted ultrasonic pulse of the ultrasonic pulses which was transmitted during a transmit period of the transmit periods that immediately preceded the listening window[Page 8; Lines 25-40 has burst followed by receiving signal; Page 9, Lines 30-40 have varying times];
and a processor coupled with the ultrasonic transducer and configured to[Fig 4 has processor #62]:
randomize, by the processor, an overall length of each listening window of the listening windows[#112 and #180 in Fig 8; See also Page 9; Lines 30-35 for random interpulse; Page 8; Lines 20-25 has random delay by processor];….. and wherein during any randomly adjusted second period which is greater than zero in time length the ultrasonic transducer does nothing[Page 9, Lines 30-40 have varying times, Claim 11 teaches listening meaning any listening period would be a time greater than zero where the transducer does not transmit and is doing nothing]
direct, by the processor, filtering of returned signals received during a plurality of the randomized listening windows to achieve filtered returned signals[Abstract; Page 9 Lines 25 -30 has histogram using sliding window; Fig 9 is flowchart of filtering ultrasound. See also claim 1 for filtering; See also Page 11, Lines 20-35]; and
detect, by the processor using the filtered returned signals, a moving object in a field of view of the ultrasonic transducer. [Abstract; Claim 1 concern object detection based on filtered signals and a processor]
Hasan does not explicitly teach wherein each listening window of the listening windows comprises the fixed portion and a second portion which is adjusted plus or minus in time length by a random delay period, and wherein a minimum adjusted time length and a maximum adjusted time length of the second portion are defined by a sensing cycle rate of the ultrasonic transducer,;…
Boozer teaches that wherein each listening window of the listening windows comprises the fixed portion and a second portion which is adjusted plus or minus in time length by a random delay period, and wherein a minimum adjusted time length and a maximum adjusted time length of the second portion are defined by a sensing cycle rate of the ultrasonic transducer and wherein during any randomly adjusted second period which is greater than zero in time length the ultrasonic transducer does nothing [Col 5 Lines 50-65 has constant or varied repetition rate varied meaning with or without randomization; Col 6 Lines 1 -5 has minimum time being fixed meaning other randomization is varied; Additionally, any listening period would be a time greater than zero where the transducer does not transmit and is doing nothing]
Gounalis [Col 17, lines 40-45 has idle period], Garlepp[Col 25 Lines 10-15 has idle period] and Schwab [0104 has sleep or idle mode] all also have periods greater than zero in time length where the ultrasonic transducer does nothing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the ultrasonic device in Hasan in view of the change in randomization in Boozer in order to optimize listening window.
Additionally, it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 8, Hasan teaches an ultrasonic transducer configured to repeatedly emit ultrasonic pulses during transmit periods which are interspersed with listening windows[Fig 4 has transducer #34; Page 9; Lines 30-35 has Fig 5 with timing diagram for pulses; Page 10; Lines 20- 30 has one or many pulses], wherein each sequential pair of the transmit periods is separated by a single listening window of the listening windows[Fig 5 and Page 9; Lines 30-35 has time between pulses meaning listening window], and wherein during a fixed portion of a listening window of the listening windows the ultrasonic transducer is configured to receive returned signals corresponding to an emitted ultrasonic pulse of the ultrasonic pulses which was transmitted during a transmit period of the transmit periods which immediately preceded the listening window[Page 8; Lines 25-40 has burst followed by receiving signal; Page 9, Lines 30-40 have varying times];
and a sensor processor coupled with the ultrasonic transducer and configured to[Fig 4 has processor #62]:
randomize, by the sensor processor, an overall length of each listening window of the listening windows[#112 and #180 in Fig 8; See also Page 9; Lines 30-35 for random interpulse; Page 8; Lines 20-25 has random delay by processor]….. and wherein during any randomly adjusted second period which is greater than zero in time length the ultrasonic transducer does nothing[Page 9, Lines 30-40 have varying times, Claim 11 teaches listening meaning any listening period would be a time greater than zero where the transducer does not transmit and is doing nothing];
direct, by the sensor processor, filtering of returned signals received during a plurality of the randomized listening windows to achieve filtered returned signals[ Abstract; Page 9 Lines 25- 30 has histogram using sliding window; Fig 9 is flowchart of filtering ultrasound. See also claim 1 for filtering; See also Page 11, Lines 20-35]; and
detect, by the sensor processor using the filtered returned signals, a moving object in a field of view of the ultrasonic transducer. [Abstract; Claim 1 concern object detection based on filtered signals and a processor].
Hasan does not explicitly teach wherein each listening window of the listening windows comprises the fixed portion and a second portion which is adjusted plus or minus in time length by a random delay period, and wherein a minimum adjusted time length and a maximum adjusted time length of the second portion are defined by a sensing cycle rate of the ultrasonic transducer,;…
Boozer teaches that wherein each listening window of the listening windows comprises the fixed portion and a second portion which is adjusted plus or minus in time length by a random delay period, and wherein a minimum adjusted time length and a maximum adjusted time length of the second portion are defined by a sensing cycle rate of the ultrasonic transducer and wherein during any randomly adjusted second period which is greater than zero in time length the ultrasonic transducer does nothing [Col 5 Lines 50-65 has constant or varied repetition rate varied meaning with or without randomization; Col 6 Lines 1-5 has minimum time being fixed meaning other randomization is varied; Additionally any listening period would be a time greater than zero where the transducer does not transmit and is doing nothing]
Gounalis [Col 17, lines 40-45 has idle period], Garlepp[Col 25 Lines 10-15 has idle period] and Schwab [0104 has sleep or idle mode] all also have periods greater than zero in time length where the ultrasonic transducer does nothing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the ultrasonic device in Hasan in view of the change in randomization in Boozer in order to optimize listening window.
Additionally, it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 15, Hasan teaches controlling, by a processor[Fig 4 has processor #62], the ultrasonic transducer to repeatedly emit ultrasonic pulses during transmit periods which are interspersed with listening windows[Fig 4 has transducer #34; Page 9; Lines 30-35 has Fig 5 with timing diagram for pulses; Page 10; Lines 20-30 has one or many pulses], wherein each sequential pair of the transmit periods is separated by a single listening window of the listening windows[Page 5 and Page 9; Lines 30-35 has time between pulses meaning listening window], and wherein during a fixed portion of a listening window, of the listening windows, the ultrasonic transducer is configured to receive returned signals corresponding to an emitted ultrasonic pulse of the ultrasonic pulses which was transmitted during a transmit period of the transmit periods that immediately preceded the listening window[Page 8; Lines 25-40 has burst followed by receiving signal; Page 9, Lines 30-40 have varying times];
randomizing, by the processor, an overall length of each listening window of the listening windows[#112 and #180 in Fig 8; See also Page 9; Lines 30-35 for random interpulse; Page 8; Lines 20-25 has random delay by processor]….. and wherein during any randomly adjusted second period which is greater than zero in time length the ultrasonic transducer does nothing[Page 9, Lines 30-40 have varying times, Claim 11 teaches listening meaning any listening period would be a time greater than zero where the transducer does not transmit and is doing nothing];
filtering returned signals received during a plurality of the randomized listening windows to achieve filtered returned signals[Abstract; Page 9 Lines 25-30 has histogram using sliding window; Fig 9 is flowchart of filtering ultrasound. See also claim 1 for filtering; See also Page 11, Lines 20-35]; and
detecting, by the processor using the filtered returned signals, a moving object in a field of view of the ultrasonic transducer despite interference from one or more of the other ultrasonic transducers transmitting ultrasonically in the operating environment[Abstract; Claim 1 concern object detection based on filtered signals and a processor]
Hasan does not explicitly teach wherein each listening window of the listening windows comprises the fixed portion and a second portion which is adjusted plus or minus in time length by a random delay period, and wherein a minimum adjusted time length and a maximum adjusted time length of the second portion are defined by a sensing cycle rate of the ultrasonic transducer,;…
Boozer teaches that wherein each listening window of the listening windows comprises the fixed portion and a second portion which is adjusted plus or minus in time length by a random delay period, and wherein a minimum adjusted time length and a maximum adjusted time length of the second portion are defined by a sensing cycle rate of the ultrasonic transducer and wherein during any randomly adjusted second period which is greater than zero in time length the ultrasonic transducer does nothing [Col 5 Lines 50-65 has constant or varied repetition rate varied meaning with or without randomization; Col 6 Lines 1 -5 has minimum time being fixed meaning other randomization is varied; Additionally any listening period would be a time greater than zero where the transducer does not transmit and is doing nothing]
Gounalis [Col 17, lines 40-45 has idle period], Garlepp[Col 25 Lines 10-15 has idle period] and Schwab [0104 has sleep or idle mode] all also have periods greater than zero in time length where the ultrasonic transducer does nothing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the ultrasonic device in Hasan in view of the change in randomization in Boozer in order to optimize listening window.
Additionally, it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Hasan, as modified, teaches wherein the ultrasonic transducer has a frequency of operation of between 40kHz to 200kHz. [Page 8 Lines 25 to 40 and Page 11 Lines 25-30 have transducer frequency at 40kHz and 35-45kHz which reads on the claim].
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Hasan, as modified, broadly teaches wherein the ultrasonic transducer has a fixed sensing cycle rate in cycles per second which is unchanged over time by the randomization of each listening window of the listening windows, such that on average the same number of sensing cycles per second occur with or without the randomization of each listening window.[#112 and #180 in Fig 8; See also Page 9; Lines 30-35 for random interpulse; Page 8; Lines 20-25 has random delay by processor; Moreover due to the pseudo random delay the time between bursts has an average value that is unchanged, meaning it is understood that can have with or without random] wherein the ultrasonic transducer has a fixed sensing cycle rate in cycles per second which is unchanged over time by the randomization of each listening window of the listening windows, such that on average the same number of sensing cycles per second occur with or without the randomization of each listening window.[#112 and #180 in Fig 8; See also Page 9; Lines 30-35 for random interpulse; Page 8; Lines 20-25 has random delay by processor; Moreover due to the pseudo random delay the time between bursts has an average value that is unchanged meaning it is understood that can have with or without random]
Boozer teaches that wherein the ultrasonic transducer has a fixed sensing cycle rate in cycles per second which is unchanged over time by the randomization of each listening window of the listening windows, such that on average the same number of sensing cycles per second occur with or without the randomization of each listening window.[Col 5 Lines 50-60 has constant or varied repetition rate varied meaning with or without randomization]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the ultrasonic device in Hasan in view of the change in randomization in Boozer in order to optimize listening window.
Additionally, it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Hasan does not explicitly teach wherein a maximum range of the random delay period is plus or minus a value found by subtracting both a time length of an emitted pulse of the ultrasonic transducer and a second time length of the fixed portion of the listening window from a period associated with one cycle at the fixed sensing cycle rate of the ultrasonic transducer.
Boozer teaches that wherein a maximum range of the random delay period is plus or minus a value found by subtracting both a time length of an emitted pulse of the ultrasonic transducer and a second time length of the fixed portion of the listening window from a period associated with one cycle at the fixed sensing cycle rate of the ultrasonic transducer. [Col 5 Lines 50-65 has constant or varied repetition rate varied meaning with or without randomization; Col 6 Lines 1 -5 has minimum time being fixed meaning other randomization is varied]
Regarding claim 17, Hasan broadly teaches wherein the randomizing, by the processor, an overall length of each listening window of the listening windows comprises: randomizing each listening window of the listening windows such that a fixed sensing cycle rate in sensing cycles per second, of the ultrasonic transducer, is unchanged over time, such that on average the same number of sensing cycles per second occur with or without the randomization of each listening window. [#112 and #180 in Fig 8; See also Page 9; Lines 30-35 for random interpulse; Page 8; Lines 20-25 has random delay by processor; Moreover due to the pseudo random delay the time between bursts has an average value that is unchanged. It is understood that can have with or without random] wherein the ultrasonic transducer has a fixed sensing cycle rate in cycles per second which is unchanged over time by the randomization of each listening window of the listening windows, such that on average the same number of sensing cycles per second occur with or without the randomization of each listening window.[#112 and #180 in Fig 8; See also Page 9; Lines 30-35 for random interpulse; Page 8; Lines 20-25 has random delay by processor; Moreover due to the pseudo random delay the time between bursts has an average value that is unchanged, it is understood that can have with or without random]
Boozer teaches that wherein the randomizing, by the processor, an overall length of each listening window of the listening windows comprises: randomizing each listening window of the listening windows such that a fixed sensing cycle rate in sensing cycles per second, of the ultrasonic transducer, is unchanged over time, such that on average the same number of sensing cycles per second occur with or without the randomization of each listening window. [Col 5 Lines 50-60 has constant or varied repetition rate varied meaning with or without randomization]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the ultrasonic device in Hasan in view of the change in randomization in Boozer in order to optimize listening window.
Additionally, it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 6-7, 13-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasan(WO 0245998 A2) in view of Boozer (US 4,845,682 A) and further evidenced by Schwab (US 20200264303 A1) or Gounalis (US 7358887 B2) or Garlepp (US 10539539 B2) as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of Lal (US 10,641,650 B2).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Hasan broadly teaches wherein the directed filtering is selected from the types of filtering consisting of: low-pass filtering; median filtering; and random sample consensus filtering. [Abstract; Fig 9 is flowchart of filtering ultrasound and there is bandpass filter in #78 in Fig 4. See also claim 1 for filtering; See also Page 11, Lines 20-35.]
Lal teaches that wherein the directed filtering is selected from the types of filtering consisting of: low-pass filtering; median filtering; and random sample consensus filtering. [Claim 11 has median filter]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the ultrasonic device in Hasan with the median filtering in Lal in order to get the desired frequencies. Moreover the knowledge of obvious filtering methods would be known to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Hasan does not explicitly teach wherein the directed filtering comprises median filtering with an odd median filter size that is shorter than the receive window.
Lal teaches wherein the directed filtering comprises median filtering with an odd median filter size that is shorter than the receive window. [Claim 11 has median filter; Col 8 Lines 35-50 has short time windows. Fig 10 and Col 9 Lines 15-20 also teach shorter time windows]
Regarding claim 19, Hasan broadly teaches wherein the filtering returned signals received during a plurality of the listening windows to achieve filtered returned signals comprises: filtering the returned signals received during the plurality of the listening windows using at least one of: low-pass filtering; median filtering; and random sample consensus filtering. [Abstract; Fig 9 is flowchart of filtering ultrasound and there is bandpass filter in #78 in Fig 4. See also claim 1 for filtering; See also Page 11, Lines 20-35.]
Lal teaches wherein the filtering returned signals received during a plurality of the listening windows to achieve filtered returned signals comprises: filtering the returned signals received during the plurality of the listening windows using at least one of: low-pass filtering; median filtering; and random sample consensus filtering. [Claim 11 has median filter]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the ultrasonic device in Hasan with the median filtering in Lal in order to get the desired frequencies. Moreover the knowledge of obvious filtering methods would be known to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 20, Hasan does not explicitly teach wherein the filtering returned signals received during a plurality of the listening windows to achieve filtered returned signals comprises: filtering returned signals received during a plurality of the listening windows, by the processor, using an odd median filtering size that is shorter than the receive window.
Lal teaches wherein the filtering returned signals received during a plurality of the listening windows to achieve filtered returned signals comprises: filtering returned signals received during a plurality of the listening windows, by the processor, using an odd median filtering size that is shorter than the receive window. [Claim 11 has median filter; Col 8 Lines 35-50 has short time windows. Fig 10 and Col 9 Lines 15-20 also teach shorter time windows]
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasan(WO 0245998 A2) in view of Boozer (US 4,845,682 A) and further evidenced by Schwab (US 20200264303 A1) or Gounalis (US 7358887 B2) or Garlepp (US 10539539 B2) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Pandharipande(US 9,857,458 B2).
Regarding claim 16, Hasan does not explicitly teach further comprising: responsive to detection of the moving object, employing a state machine to determine an operating state of a device with respect to a user being either: absent from a vicinity of the device; within the vicinity of the device, or present at a device. [Though Abstract concerns object detection and a person could be considered an object]
Pandharipande teaches that further comprising: responsive to detection of the moving object, employing a state machine to determine an operating state of a device with respect to a user being either: absent from a vicinity of the device; within the vicinity of the device, or present at a device. [Col 1; Background section discusses use of ultrasonic sensors for presence detection of a person].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the use of the ultrasonic transducer Hasan with the user detection in Pandharipande in order to detect the presence of a user and act accordingly.
Moreover, 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicants’ arguments on pages 9-14, applicant is reading the prior art overly narrowly regarding the limitations of transmission and reception windows. As pointed out above in the present rejection and in claim 11 of Hasan the prior art recites transmitting and listening for an echo which happens periodically means there are windows for transmitting and listening which is what the claim requires. It is also necessarily a basic concept in the art of ultrasonics to transmit a pulse and listen for the echo. The fact that the prior art is receiving echos and has occasional transmissions means it reads on the claim limitation.
Regarding applicant’s arguments concerning Hasan in view of Boozer, 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).
Moreover Applicant's arguments 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
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