Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This is in response to applicant's amendment which was filed on 3/2/2026 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended. No claims have been cancelled. No claims have been added. Claims 1-20 are still pending in this application, with claims 1, and 15-16 being independent.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim limitation “of any of claim 2” appears to be a typo. Examiner suggest amending to “The vehicle sensor device of claim 2.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baumgartel (US 2018/0329058) hereinafter as Baum.
Regarding claim 15, Baum teaches A vehicle sensor device comprising: an ultrasonic sensor (Baum figures 3-4, ¶0023, “The ultrasound distance sensor 4 is arranged on a housing part 5 and comprises a signal processing means 6, a piezo element 7 and a membrane 8 in the outer contour of the outer shell of the vehicle. The ultrasound distance sensor 4 together with its housing 5 is retained by the mounting part 3 on the inside of the outer shell of the vehicle”); a microphone having a housing ( Baum figures 3-4, housing 5, shell 2, mounting part 3) and arranged behind the ultrasonic sensor (Baum figures 3-4, impact sound sensor 1 is behind piezo element 7); and an acoustic channel to the microphone arranged between the microphone and the ultrasonic sensor (Baum figures 3-4, space between sensors 1 and 7), the housing including a supporting element, wherein the ultrasonic sensor and the microphone are arranged in the supporting element ( Baum figures 3-4, sensors 1 and 7 in housing 5).
Regarding claim 16, Baum teaches A vehicle sensor device comprising: an ultrasonic sensor (Baum figures 3-4, ¶0023, “The ultrasound distance sensor 4 is arranged on a housing part 5 and comprises a signal processing means 6, a piezo element 7 and a membrane 8 in the outer contour of the outer shell of the vehicle. The ultrasound distance sensor 4 together with its housing 5 is retained by the mounting part 3 on the inside of the outer shell of the vehicle”); a microphone arranged behind the ultrasonic sensor (Baum figures 3-4, impact sound sensor 1 is next to piezo element 7); and an acoustic channel to the microphone arranged between the microphone and the ultrasonic sensor (Baum figures 3-4, space between sensors 1 and 7), a supporting element forming at least part of a bumper of a vehicle (Baum ¶0027, “he ultrasound distance sensors are arranged in the front bumper 14, the rear bumper 15 and the mudguards 16”), wherein the ultrasonic sensor and the microphone are arranged in the supporting element (Baum ¶0027, “he ultrasound distance sensors are arranged in the front bumper 14, the rear bumper 15 and the mudguards 16” and figures 3-4).
Regarding claim 17, Baum teaches wherein the ultrasonic sensor has a front side and a back side, wherein a front side of the microphone faces the back side of the ultrasonic sensor (Baum figure 4).
Regarding claim 18, Baum teaches wherein the acoustic channel defines a gap between the front side of the microphone and a backside of the ultrasonic sensor (Baum figure 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgartel (US 2018/0329058) hereinafter as Baum in view of Moore (US 2018/0350391).
Regarding claim 1, Baum teaches A vehicle sensor device comprising: an ultrasonic sensor (Baum figures 3-4, ¶0023, “The ultrasound distance sensor 4 is arranged on a housing part 5 and comprises a signal processing means 6, a piezo element 7 and a membrane 8 in the outer contour of the outer shell of the vehicle. The ultrasound distance sensor 4 together with its housing 5 is retained by the mounting part 3 on the inside of the outer shell of the vehicle”); a microphone arranged adjacent to the ultrasonic sensor (Baum figures 3-4, impact sound sensor 1 is next to piezo element 7); and an acoustic channel (Baum figures 3-4, space between sensors 1 and 7), the acoustic channel having a cylindrical profile (Baum figures 3-4 and ¶0025 “cylindrically shaped housing part 5”), wherein the ultrasonic sensor is arranged within the acoustic channel (Baum figure 4, ultrasound distance sensor 4 is within housing 5), however does not explicitly teach the acoustic channel fluidly coupled to an exterior opening of a vehicle to the acoustic port of the microphone to convey air conducted sound waves from outside of the vehicle to the acoustic port.
Moore teaches the acoustic channel fluidly coupled to an exterior opening of a vehicle to the acoustic port of the microphone to convey air conducted sound waves from outside of the vehicle to the acoustic port (Moore ¶0034, “The at least one microphone (102) is outward facing meaning it detects sound waves in the external environment of the vehicle (10), and converts them into an analog signal for processing by the system (100). The microphone may be physically located anywhere on or in a vehicle, provided it is directly exposed externally, or is provided a channel by which external sounds can reach the microphone.” See also ¶0035, “The housings may include other sensing devices such as cameras, radar, lidar and ultrasonic sensors, or other devices on the exterior of the vehicle (10) such as side-mirrors, antennas, headlights, taillights, bumpers or flashing lights. While the microphones (102) may be physically integrated with other sensors in the same housing”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Moore to improve the known vehicle sensor device of Baum to achieve the predictable result of controlling vehicular dynamics without human input (Moore ¶0029).
Regarding claim 2, Baum in view of Moore teaches wherein the ultrasonic sensor and the microphone are attached to a supporting element (Baum figure 3-4, sensors 1 and 7 supported by walls of housing 5).
Regarding claim 4, Baum in view of Moore teaches wherein the acoustic channel extends between the supporting element and a front side of the microphone facing a backside of the ultrasonic sensor (Baum figure 4).
Regarding claim 5, Baum in view of Moore teaches wherein the acoustic channel defines a gap between the ultrasonic sensor and the supporting element (Baum figure 4).
Regarding claim 6, Baum in view of Moore teaches wherein the ultrasonic sensor is located inside an opening of the supporting element (Baum figure 4, sensor 7 is in the cavity formed by housing 5).
Regarding claim 11, Baum in view of Moore teaches wherein the vehicle sensor device is attachable to a vehicle (Baum ¶0023, “an impact sound sensor 1 arranged between the outer shell 2 of a motor vehicle”).
Claim(s) 3, 8-10, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgartel (US 2018/0329058) hereinafter as Baum in view of Moore (US 2018/0350391) in further view of Unruh (US 2021/0377652).
Regarding claim 3, Baum in view of Moore teaches wherein the supporting element is at least a part of a housing of the microphone (Baum figures 3-4, the housing 5 houses microphone 1), however does not explicitly teach a housing of the microphone.
Unruh teaches a housing of the microphone (Unruh figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Unruh to improve the known vehicle sensor of Baum in view of Moore to achieve the predictable result of improved durability of the sensor.
Regarding claim 8, Baum in view of Moore in further view of Unruh teaches wherein the microphone comprises a housing (Baum figures 3-4, the housing 5 houses microphone 1 and Unruh figure 1).
Regarding claim 9, Baum in view of Moore in further view of Unruh teaches wherein the housing comprises one of a conically and cylindrically shaped cavity forming the acoustic port (Baum ¶0009, “cylindrically shaped”).
Regarding claim 10, Baum in view of Moore in further view of Unruh teaches wherein the housing is located at the supporting element, and faces an opening defined by the supporting element (Baum figures 3-4, housing 5 and outer shell 2 ¶0023, “The ultrasound distance sensor 4 together with its housing 5 is retained by the mounting part 3 on the inside of the outer shell 2 of the motor vehicle” and Unruh figure 1).
Regarding claim 12, Baum in view of Moore in further view of Unruh teaches wherein the ultrasonic sensor has a front side and a back side, wherein a front side of the microphone faces the back side of the ultrasonic sensor (Baum figure 3-4 and Unruh figure 1).
Regarding claim 13, Baum in view of Moore in further view of Unruh teaches wherein the microphone comprises an acoustic port and wherein the acoustic port faces the back side of the ultrasonic sensor (Baum figures 3-4, and ¶0013 and Unruh figure 1).
Regarding claim 14, Baum in view of Moore in further view of Unruh teaches wherein the microphone comprises an acoustic port and wherein the acoustic port is located adjacent to the ultrasonic sensor (Baum figures 3-4, and ¶0013 and Unruh figure 1).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgartel (US 2018/0329058) hereinafter as Baum in view of Moore (US 2018/0350391) in further view of Blumenstein (DE 102020114771 ).
Regarding claim 7, Baum in view of Moore does not explicitly teach wherein the opening of the supporting element is conically shaped and/or wherein an inner diameter of the opening decreases towards the microphone, in particular along the acoustic channel.
Blumenstein teaches wherein the opening of the supporting element is conically shaped and/or wherein an inner diameter of the opening decreases towards the microphone, in particular along the acoustic channel (Blumenstein figure 1, microphone 3 is in the lower conical housing which has a smaller diameter than the upper portion of the housing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Blumenstein to improve the known sensor device of Baum in view of Moore to achieve the predictable result of adjusting the frequency response in said acoustic channel.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baum in view of Unruh (US 2021/0377652).
Regarding claim 19, Baum teaches wherein the microphone comprises an acoustic port and wherein the acoustic port faces the back side of the ultrasonic sensor (Baum figures 3-4, ¶0013) but does not explicitly teach wherein the microphone comprises an acoustic port and wherein the acoustic port faces the back side of the ultrasonic sensor.
Unruh teaches wherein the microphone comprises an acoustic port and wherein the acoustic port faces the back side of the ultrasonic sensor (Unruh figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Unruh to improve the known vehicle sensor of Baum to achieve the predictable result of improved durability of the sensor.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgartel (US 2018/0329058) hereinafter as Baum in view of Moore (US 2018/0350391) in further view of Unruh (US 2021/0377652) in further view of Blumenstein (DE 102020114771 ).
Regarding claim 20, Baum in view of Moore in further view of Unruh does not explicitly teach wherein the support element defines an opening, the ultrasonic sensor arranged inside the opening and wherein an inner diameter of the opening decreases towards the microphone, in particular along the acoustic channel.
Blumenstein teaches wherein the support element defines an opening, the ultrasonic sensor arranged inside the opening and wherein an inner diameter of the opening decreases towards the microphone, in particular along the acoustic channel (Blumenstein figure 1, microphone 3 is in the lower conical housing which has a smaller diameter than the upper portion of the housing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Blumenstein to improve the known sensor device of Baum in view of Moore in further view of Unruh to achieve the predictable result of adjusting the frequency response in said acoustic channel.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new ground of rejection.
Applicant argues on page 6 that claims 15-16 are not taught by cited reference Baum because “an impact sensor 1” cannot be equated with the claimed ultrasonic sensor and that Baum fails to teach “an acoustic channel to the microphone arranged between the microphone and the ultrasonic sensor.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, Examiner did not equate the impact sensor 1 to be the ultrasonic sensor. Examiner mapped an ultrasonic sensor (Baum figures 3-4, ¶0023, “The ultrasound distance sensor 4 is arranged on a housing part 5 and comprises a signal processing means 6, a piezo element 7 and a membrane 8 in the outer contour of the outer shell of the vehicle. The ultrasound distance sensor 4 together with its housing 5 is retained by the mounting part 3 on the inside of the outer shell of the vehicle”). Secondly, Baum clearly teaches an acoustic channel to the microphone arranged between the microphone and the ultrasonic sensor (Baum figures 3-4, space between sensors 1 and 7, wherein impact sound sensor 1 would be considered the microphone and the ultrasound distance sensor 4 would be considered the ultrasonic sensor). Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive and the claims stand rejected.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NORMAN YU whose telephone number is (571)270-7436. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 11am-7pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ahmad Matar can be reached on 571-272-7488. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Va. 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300, for formal communications intended for entry and for
informal or draft communications, please label “PROPOSED” or “DRAFT”.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Arlington, VA 22314
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NORMAN YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights