Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Final Rejection
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 03/27/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-12 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claim 10. Accordingly, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant' s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 6, 11 and all subsequent dependent claims have been considered but are moot in view of the references cited in the most current rejection.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura (US 20170227640 A1) in view of Li (US 20180190310 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nomura teaches a control device comprising: an acquisition circuit (13), which, in operation acquires a wave width (pulse width) of a first wave existing between a transmission of an ultrasonic wave (reflection wave) by an ultrasonic sensor (1) and a reverberation end time. (Paragraphs 105, 107, 109, Fig.1)
Nomura also teaches a determination circuit (2), which, in operation, determines that a resonance has occurred in the ultrasonic sensor with respect to the wave width of the first wave (reflection wave falls below the intensity threshold TH.sub.A). (Paragraphs 36, 43, Claim 6, Figs.1, 4-5)
Nomura does not explicitly teach to determine that a resonance has occurred in the ultrasonic sensor when the wave width of the first wave is smaller than a wave width threshold and to determine the first wave is reflected from an object when the wave width of the first wave is not smaller than the wave width threshold.
Li teaches to determine that a resonance has occurred in the ultrasonic sensor when the wave width of the first wave is smaller than a wave width threshold (the beam width of the acoustic wave generated by the multi-microphone array is smaller than a first width threshold, that is, the beam width is narrow when the reverberation is severe). (Paragraphs 31, 44, Claims 5, 12)
Li also teaches to determine the first wave is reflected from an object when the wave width of the first wave is not smaller than the wave width threshold. (Paragraphs 3, 33, 44, Claims 5, 12) Li teaches the narrower the beam width the more severe the reverberation and when the acoustic wave generated by the multi-microphone array is greater than the first width threshold but smaller than the second width threshold, that is, the beam width is mediate when the reverberation is mediate.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Nomura to incorporate to determine that a resonance has occurred in the ultrasonic sensor when the wave width of the first wave is smaller than a wave width threshold and to determine the first wave is reflected from an object when the wave width of the first wave is not smaller than the wave width threshold as taught by Li in order to reduce the interference caused by a reverberation and avoid the degrade of the performance of an acoustic receiving system and avoid noticeably lowering the performance of a voice recognition system due to reverberation.
Regarding claim 2, Nomura teaches wherein the ultrasonic sensor is provided in front of, behind, or on a side surface of a vehicle. (Paragraph 32, Fig.1)
Regarding claim 3, Nomura teaches wherein the wave width threshold is a value of a reverberation end time. (Paragraphs 36-37, Figs.2, 4-5) Nomura discloses the claimed invention except for the threshold is a value of 2/5 of the reverberation end time. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to incorporate the threshold is a value of 2/5 of the reverberation end time, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 4, Nomura teaches wherein the acquisition circuit further acquires the reverberation end time and a reverberation frequency of the ultrasonic wave transmitted by the ultrasonic sensor, and the determination circuit further determines whether or not the reverberation end time of the ultrasonic wave acquired by the acquisition circuit is longer than a predetermined threshold, and, when determining that the reverberation end time is longer than the predetermined threshold, determines whether a foreign matter is attached to the ultrasonic sensor or an object is present in a vicinity of the ultrasonic sensor, based on a predetermined natural frequency and the reverberation frequency. (Paragraphs 6-7, 68, 104, Figs.4-5)
Regarding claim 5, Nomura teaches wherein the determination circuit further determines whether or not a difference between the natural frequency and the reverberation frequency is within a predetermined range, determines that the object is present in the vicinity of the ultrasonic sensor when the difference is within the predetermined range, and determines that the foreign matter is attached to the ultrasonic sensor when the difference exceeds the predetermined range. (Paragraphs 6-7, 39, 43, 67-68, 104, Figs.4-5)
Regarding claim 6, Nomura teaches a control method executed by a control device, comprising: acquiring a wave width (pulse width) of a first wave existing between a transmission of an ultrasonic wave (reflection wave) by an ultrasonic sensor (1) and a reverberation end time. (Paragraphs 105, 107, 109, Fig.1)
Nomura also teaches determining that an object is present in response to determining that the wave width of the first wave is larger than the, wave width threshold. (Paragraphs 105-107, Claim 6, Figs.1-5)
Nomura does not explicitly teach determining whether or not the wave width of the first wave is larger than a wave width threshold and determining that a resonance has occurred in the ultrasonic sensor in response to determining that the wave width of the first wave is equal to or smaller than the wave width threshold.
Li teaches determining whether or not the wave width of the first wave is larger than a wave width threshold and determining that a resonance has occurred in the ultrasonic sensor in response to determining that the wave width of the first wave is equal to or smaller than the wave width threshold. (Paragraphs 3, 31, 33, 44, Claims 5, 12)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Nomura to incorporate determining whether or not the wave width of the first wave is larger than a wave width threshold and determining that a resonance has occurred in the ultrasonic sensor in response to determining that the wave width of the first wave is equal to or smaller than the wave width threshold as taught by Li in order to reduce the interference caused by a reverberation and avoid the degrade of the performance of an acoustic receiving system and avoid noticeably lowering the performance of a voice recognition system due to reverberation.
Regarding claim 7, Nomura teaches wherein the ultrasonic sensor is provided in front, behind, or on a side surface of a vehicle. (Paragraphs 32-33, Fig.1)
Regarding claim 8, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 3. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 8, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 3.
Regarding claim 9, Nomura teaches acquiring the reverberation end time and a reverberation frequency of the ultrasonic wave transmitted by the ultrasonic sensor; determining whether or not the reverberation end time of the ultrasonic wave is longer than a predetermined threshold, and, determining whether a foreign matter is attached to the ultrasonic sensor or an object is present in a vicinity of the ultrasonic sensor, based on a predetermined natural frequency and the reverberation frequency, when determining that the reverberation end time is longer than the predetermined threshold. (Paragraphs 6-7, 68, 104, Figs.4-5)
Regarding claim 10, Nomura teaches acquiring the reverberation end time and a reverberation frequency of the ultrasonic wave transmitted by the ultrasonic sensor; determining whether or not a difference between a predetermined natural frequency and the reverberation frequency is within a predetermined range; determining that the object is present in a vicinity of the ultrasonic sensor when the difference is within the predetermined range, and determining that a foreign matter is attached to the ultrasonic sensor when the difference exceeds the predetermined range. (Paragraphs 6-7, 39, 43, 67-68, 104, Figs.4-5)
Regarding claim 11, Nomura teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium on which programmed instructions are stored, wherein the programmed instructions, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform: acquiring a wave width (pulse width) of a first wave existing between a transmission of an ultrasonic wave (reflection wave) by an ultrasonic sensor (1) and a reverberation end time. (Paragraphs 105, 107, 109, Fig.1)
Nomura also teaches determining that an object is present in response to determining that the wave width of the first wave is larger than the, wave width threshold. (Paragraphs 105-107, Claim 6, Figs.1-5)
Nomura does not explicitly teach determining whether or not the wave width of the first wave is larger than a wave width threshold and determining that a resonance has occurred in the ultrasonic sensor in response to determining that the wave width of the first wave is equal to or smaller than the wave width threshold.
Li teaches determining whether or not the wave width of the first wave is larger than a wave width threshold and determining that a resonance has occurred in the ultrasonic sensor in response to determining that the wave width of the first wave is equal to or smaller than the wave width threshold. (Paragraphs 3, 31, 33, 44, Claims 5, 12)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Nomura to incorporate determining whether or not the wave width of the first wave is larger than a wave width threshold and determining that a resonance has occurred in the ultrasonic sensor in response to determining that the wave width of the first wave is equal to or smaller than the wave width threshold as taught by Li in order to reduce the interference caused by a reverberation and avoid the degrade of the performance of an acoustic receiving system and avoid noticeably lowering the performance of a voice recognition system due to reverberation.
Regarding claim 12, Nomura does not explicitly teach wherein the wave width threshold is less than the reverberation end time.
Li teaches wherein the wave width threshold is less than the reverberation end time. (Paragraphs 31, 33, 44, Claims 5, 12)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Nomura to incorporate wherein the wave width threshold is less than the reverberation end time as taught by Li in order to reduce the interference caused by a reverberation and avoid the degrade of the performance of an acoustic receiving system and avoid noticeably lowering the performance of a voice recognition system due to reverberation.
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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights