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 .
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 1-6 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borigo (US 2016/0023772 A1) and Giles (US 2016/0280379 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Borigo teaches an ice removal system for an ultrasonic sensor, the system comprising:
the ultrasonic sensor including a transducer [[0010] amount of power required for ice, mud, debris or contamination removal or prevention is reduced via appropriate ultrasonic actuator design to excite specific ultrasonic modes in the structure; [0065] system is triggered by an ice/contaminant sensing system which is achieved by use of the system actuators or by a supplementary set of sensors]; and
an electronic processor configured to
output, at the transducer, a chirp signal [[0092] a frequency sweep is performed. As described above, a frequency sweep includes driving actuators 501 (FIG. 11) at different frequencies within a finite frequency range],
determine, based on the chirp signal, whether a mechanical impedance is present at the transducer [[abstract] method includes calculating, using a processor, an impedance or forward and reflected power coefficients of a phased system including a plurality of actuators disposed on a structure; and activating the plurality of actuators disposed on the structure to produce shear stress via ultrasonic continuous wave activation to at least one of delaminate or weaken an adhesion strength of a contamination on the structure],
in response to determining that the mechanical impedance is present, output, at the transducer, a frequency sweep signal [[0047] electromechanical impedance of the actuator-ice/contaminant-structure system may be periodically measured in order to adjust the actuator driving parameters including frequency and impedance matching],
receive, at the transducer, a reflected frequency sweep signal [[0043] wave encounters boundaries, the wave is reflected at various angles. The initial wave patterns are complex but eventually, after many reflections and as the wave travels from one boundary to another, a modal pattern is established at a resonant frequency],
determine, based on the reflected frequency sweep signal, a resonant frequency [[0044] after the many reflections leading to the vibration state. The ice or contaminant is removed as a result of ultrasonic transient waves, reflection factors; [0047] electromechanical impedance of the actuator-ice/contaminant-structure system may be periodically measured in order to adjust the actuator driving parameters including frequency and impedance matching], and
output, at the transducer, an output signal according to the [frequency] [[0047] system may be driven at one or more of the frequencies at which an impedance minimum occurs, which are the resonant frequencies associated with the electromechanical system, or in some embodiments, at off-resonant frequencies. As material is disbonded, cracked, removed, or otherwise altered, and as the actuators may heat up during operation, the electromechanical resonance characteristics of the system change].
Borigo does not explicitly teach and yet Giles teaches resonant frequency [[abstract] methods and systems are generally described that inhibit debris (such as ice) accretions and/or remove debris (such as ice) accretions from the exterior surface of an aircraft.; [0013] driving the plurality of actuators at at least the resonant frequencies; measuring an impedance of the plurality of actuators as a function of frequency; selecting, based on the measuring, a plurality of resonant frequencies for use in driving the plurality of actuators during flight of the aircraft in order to inhibit a formation of ice; [0040] actuation frequency of the one or more actuators will be controlled by the microcontroller based on feedback received from the sensor … configured to switch a driving frequency of the one or more actuator/s 114 based on signaling received from the sensor 122; [0041] resonant frequency along one or more location/s of the component 120. This measured resonant frequency of the component 120 may then be used by the microcontroller 104 to tune the frequency of the signal generated by the wave generator 106 … may be affected by many factors … mass, composition; [0088]; [0091]; [0093] driving frequency of one ( or more) actuators to correspond to a new or changing resonance frequency of the component; [fig. 2] model structure and determine resonant frequencies – 204; [fig. 13] Adjust driving mode and/or frequency based on sensed conditions - 1360].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the impedance/resonant frequencies measurement as taught by Borigo, with the determine of a resonant frequency as taught by Giles so that the driving mode may be adjusted based on frequency change in response to sensed conditions (Giles) [[fig. 13]].
Regarding claim 2, Borigo teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the electronic processor is further configured to: output at the transducer, following outputting the output signal, a second chirp signal; receive, at the transducer, a second reflected response signal, and determine, from the second reflected response signal, whether the mechanical impedance is still present [[0047] electromechanical impedance of the actuator-ice/contaminant-structure system may be periodically measured in order to adjust the actuator driving parameters including frequency and impedance matching.].
Regarding claim 3, Borigo teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the electronic processor is further configured to: in response to determining that the mechanical impedance is still present, output, at the transducer, a second frequency sweep signal; receive, at the transducer, a second reflected frequency sweep signal, determine, based on a second received frequency sweep signal, a second resonant frequency, and output, at the transducer, the second output signal at the second resonant frequency [[abstract] ultrasonic continuous wave activation].
Regarding claim 4, Borigo teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the electronic processor is further configured to: in response to determining that the mechanical impedance is still present, provide power to the transducer for a predetermined amount of time [[0047] as material is disbonded, cracked, removed, or otherwise altered, and as the actuators may heat up during operation, the electromechanical resonance characteristics of the system change, thus the system impedance is monitored in order to operate the system effectively and efficiently].
Regarding claim 5, Borigo teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the transducer is a piezoelectric transducer [[0060] actuator designs that can be considered non-limiting embodiments include, normal incidence loading using either shear polarized piezoelectric elements].
Regarding claim 6, Borigo teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the resonant frequency corresponds to an ice blockage on the transducer [[0058] either one or a combination of some or all of these concepts may be used for ice, mud, and/or debris prevention or removal, depending on the situation. For example, ice or debris type or thickness, structural geometry, environmental conditions, etc. will affect which concepts are applicable.].
Regarding claim 8, Borigo teaches a method for removing ice for an ultrasonic sensor, the method comprising:
outputting, at a transducer of the sensor [[0010]], a chirp signal [[0092]],
determining with an electronic processor, based on the chirp signal, whether a mechanical impedance is present at the transducer [[abstract]],
in response to determining that the mechanical impedance is present, outputting, at the transducer, a frequency sweep signal [[0047]],
receiving, at the transducer, a reflected frequency sweep signal [[0043]],
determining, based on the reflected frequency sweep signal, a [frequency] [[0044]], and
outputting, at the transducer, an output signal according to the [frequency] [[0047]].
Borigo does not explicitly teach and yet Giles teaches resonant frequency [[abstract] methods and systems are generally described that inhibit debris (such as ice) accretions and/or remove debris (such as ice) accretions from the exterior surface of an aircraft.; [0013] driving the plurality of actuators at at least the resonant frequencies; measuring an impedance of the plurality of actuators as a function of frequency; selecting, based on the measuring, a plurality of resonant frequencies for use in driving the plurality of actuators during flight of the aircraft in order to inhibit a formation of ice [0088]; [0091]; [0093] driving frequency of one ( or more) actuators to correspond to a new or changing resonance frequency of the component; [fig. 2] model structure and determine resonant frequencies – 204; [fig. 13] Adjust driving mode and/or frequency based on sensed conditions - 1360].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the impedance/resonant frequencies measurement as taught by Borigo, with the determine of a resonant frequency as taught by Giles so that the driving mode may be adjusted based on frequency change in response to sensed conditions (Giles) [[fig. 13]].
Regarding claim 9, Borigo teaches the method of claim 8, further comprising: outputting at the transducer, following outputting the output signal, a second chirp signal; receiving, at the transducer, a second reflected response signal, and determine, from the second reflected response signal, whether the mechanical impedance is still present [[0047]].
Regarding claim 10, Borigo teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising: in response to determining that the mechanical impedance is still present, outputting, at the transducer, a second frequency sweep signal; receiving, at the transducer, a second reflected frequency sweep signal, determining, based on a second received frequency sweep signal, a second resonant frequency, and outputting, at the transducer, the second output signal at the second resonant frequency [[abstract]].
Regarding claim 11, Borigo teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising: in response to determining that the mechanical impedance is still present, providing power to the transducer for a predetermined amount of time [[0047]].
Regarding claim 12, Borigo teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the transducer is a piezoelectric transducer [[0060]].
Regarding claim 13, Borigo teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the resonant frequency corresponds to an ice blockage on the transducer [[0058]].
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borigo (US 2016/0023772 A1) and Giles (US 2016/0280379 A1) as applied to claim 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Mielenz (US 2012/0020188 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Borigo does not explicitly teach and yet Mielenz teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the ultrasonic sensor is part of an advanced driver-assistance system of a vehicle [[abstract] ultrasound sensor for distance detection includes a transducer external surface and a blockage sensor provided on the transducer external surface; [0004] driver assistance systems, in the area of motor vehicle technology ultrasound-based sensors are used that make use of a pulse-echo method to detect the object].
It would have been obvious to incorporate the blockage sensor as taught by Borigo, into the driver assistance system as taught by Mielenz so that an ultrasonic sensor used for detecting objects from a vehicle may have a high reliability (Mielenz) [[0006]].
Regarding claim 14, Borigo does not explicitly teach and yet Mielenz teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the ultrasonic sensor is part of an advanced driver-assistance system of a vehicle [[abstract][0004]].
It would have been obvious to incorporate the blockage sensor as taught by Borigo, into the driver assistance system as taught by Mielenz so that an ultrasonic sensor used for detecting objects from a vehicle may have a high reliability (Mielenz) [[0006]].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See below.
Claims 1-14 are pending. Claims 1 and 8 are independent. The remaining claims are dependent. Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration of the pending claims in view of the amendments above and the following remarks.
I. Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. & 103
Claims 1-6 and 8-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Borigo (US 2016/0023772 A1) and Giles (US 2016/0280379 A1). Claims 7 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Borigo, Giles, and Mielenz (US 2012/0020188 A1). Applicant respectfully disagrees. As set forth below, the cited references, taken alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest the subject matter of the pending claims.
The Office Action indicates that Applicant's previous arguments regarding Borigo were persuasive, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 was withdrawn. Office Action, page 9. The Office now relies on Giles to cure Borigo's deficiencies. However, Giles fails to cure these deficiencies.
Giles determines resonant frequencies through pre-modeling and testing, not from a reflected frequency sweep signal as recited in the claims. Giles explains that "[i]n step 204, the component is modeled and the resonant frequencies of the component are determined." Giles, paragraph [0046]. Giles further discloses that resonance "may be determined by attaching one or more actuators to the component/component surface and performing a vibrational analysis (e.g., using Finite Element Analysis) to determine one or more resonance frequencies of the component and/or component surface." Id., paragraph [0047]. Giles also discloses that resonance frequencies may be determined "using a sensor... for running a constant impedance analysis in the desired frequency zones." Id., paragraph [0048]. Thus, Giles' resonant frequency determination is performed during a design or testing phase before operational use, not dynamically based on a reflected signal received at a transducer.
In contrast, claim 1 recites "receive, at the transducer, a reflected frequency sweep signal" and "determine, based on the reflected frequency sweep signal, a resonant frequency." The claims recite the transducer receiving a reflected signal and analyzing that reflection to determine resonant frequency. Neither Borigo nor Giles teaches this. Borigo describes wave physics within structures, and Giles describes pre-characterization through modeling and testing. Neither reference teaches receiving a reflected frequency sweep signal at a transducer and determining a resonant frequency based on that reflected signal.
The Examiner disagrees because Borigo teaches removal of ice layers from a steel plate using the ultrasonic frequency sweeping deicing approach [[0075][0092]] and that electromechanical impedance of the actuator-ice/contaminant-structure system may be periodically measured in order to adjust the actuator driving parameters including frequency and impedance matching [[0047]]. Giles teaches resonant frequencies [[0013]; [0041]] resonant frequency along one or more location/s of the component 120. This measured resonant frequency of the component 120 may then be used by the microcontroller 104 to tune the frequency of the signal generated by the wave generator 106 … may be affected by many factors … mass, composition].
Furthermore, neither reference teaches using a chirp signal as an initial diagnostic test to detect whether ice is present at a transducer. Neither reference teaches the conditional structure where the frequency sweep is output only "in response to determining that the mechanical impedance is present." Giles, like Borigo, describes systems that operate based on sensed icing conditions such as temperature, altitude, and humidity, rather than detecting impedance at a transducer via a chirp signal. See Giles, paragraphs [0056], [0089], [0095].
The Examiner disagrees because a frequency sweep is a synonym for a “chirp”.
Additionally, both Borigo and Giles are directed to ice removal from aircraft structures such as wings, rotor blades, and airfoils using arrays of actuators positioned on those structures. See Borigo, paragraph [0003]; Giles, Abstract. Borigo specifically describes "a system for de- icing a structure" where "the structure may be an aircraft wing, a rotor blade, a wind turbine blade, or any other structure that may be susceptible to ice formation." Borigo, paragraph [0003]. Similarly, Giles is directed to "a system for removing ice from a component surface" where the component is "an aircraft component such as a wing, a rotor blade, an airfoil, or other aircraft surface." Giles, Abstract, paragraph [0002]. Both references employ separate actuator arrays that are distinct from any sensing elements and are specifically designed for large structural surfaces.
The Examiner disagrees because Giles explicitly teaches actuation frequency of the one or more actuators will be controlled by the microcontroller based on feedback received from the sensor … configured to switch a driving frequency of the one or more actuator/s 114 based on signaling received from the sensor 122 [[0040]] and at least one sensor (e.g., the sensor 122) will be coupled to one or more actuators (e.g., the one or more actuator/s 114) and configured to sense an impedance of the one or more actuator/s [[0042]].
In contrast, the claims are directed to an ice removal system for an ultrasonic sensor where the sensor's own transducer performs both detection and removal functions. Specifically, claim 1 recites "the ultrasonic sensor including a transducer" and an electronic processor configured to "output, at the transducer, a chirp signal,""determine, based on the chirp signal, whether a mechanical impedance is present at the transducer," and "output, at the transducer, an output signal according to the resonant frequency." Thus, the claimed invention uses a single transducer that serves the dual purpose of detecting ice blockage through the chirp signal and removing ice through the output signal at the resonant frequency. This is fundamentally different from the references, which use dedicated actuator arrays separate from any sensing components. Neither Borigo nor Giles teaches or suggests using an ultrasonic sensor's transducer for both ice detection and ice removal, and there is no motivation in the prior art to combine these functions into a single transducer element as recited in the claims.
The Examiner disagrees because Borigo teaches the system is triggered by an ice/contaminant sensing system which is achieved by use of the system actuators or by a supplementary set of sensors … a sensing system operates by identifying changes in the electromechanical impedance of the system induced by ice accretion or by utilizing separate transducers [[0065]].
For at least these reasons, the combination of Borigo and Giles fails to teach or suggest the subject matter of independent claims 1 and 8. Claims 2-6 and 9-13 depend from allowable independent claims 1 and 8, respectively, and are therefore allowable on at least that basis. Claims 7 and 14 add Mielenz. Mielenz fails to cure the deficiencies discussed above, nor was it cited for that purpose. Applicant therefore respectfully requests that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 be rescinded and the claims passed to allowance.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JONATHAN D ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7339. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9am-5pm.
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.
/JONATHAN D ARMSTRONG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645