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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 10/21/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1, 9, 12, 14-18 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ding (US 2019/0339386 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ding discloses a transmitter configured to drive the acoustic transducer to generate acoustic bursts[Abstract, Claim 1 has ultrasonic bursts from transducer];
a receiver coupled to the acoustic transducer and configured to sense a respective response for each of the acoustic bursts[ Abstract, Claim 1 has transducer/receiver that receives the burst];
and a processing circuit configured to derive output data from the responses[Fig 2, 4, 5 has electronics that process signals and give an output],
wherein each of the acoustic bursts has a single respective frequency displacement from a sequence of frequency displacements associated with the acoustic transducer[0004-0006, 0030, 0069, claim 1 and Fig 17 have acoustic bursts being frequency modulated meaning frequency has sequence of displacement].
Regarding claim 9, Ding discloses providing a first acoustic burst to a transducer at a first center frequency[0031, 0032, 0037 have first frequency ];
and providing, to the transducer, a second acoustic burst at a second center frequency that is displaced relative to the first center by a single respective frequency displacement from a sequence of frequency displacements associated with the transducer[0031, 0032, 0037 have burst pattern with second frequency meaning frequency displacement and each transducer has its owns signature],
wherein the second acoustic burst is consecutive to the first acoustic burst.[0031, 0032, 0037 have second frequency consecutive the first frequency namely it follows the first frequency in the sweep].
Regarding claim 12, Ding discloses a transmitter configured to transmit a sequence of first ultrasonic signals, each of the first ultrasonic signals having a single respective frequency displacement from a sequence of frequency displacements [Abstract, Claim 1 has ultrasonic bursts from transducer, 0031, 0032, 0037 have burst pattern];
a receiver coupled to the acoustic transducer and configured to sense a plurality of reflected ultrasonic signals[Abstract, Claim 1 has transducer/receiver that receives the burst];
and a processing circuit[Fig 2, 4, 5 has electronics that process signals and give an output] configured to determine whether the reflected ultrasonic signals are reflections of the first ultrasonic signals or reflections of a sequence of second ultrasonic signals from a second vehicle[003 1, 0032, 0036 has identification of pattern as well as each transducer having its own signature meaning each transducer can identify its own pattern from another transducers pattern], based on whether the reflected ultrasonic signals have the sequence of frequency displacements.[0031, 0032, 0036 has identification of pattern as well as each transducer having its own signature meaning each transducer can identify its own pattern from another transducers pattern]
Regarding claim 16, Ding discloses transmitting a sequence of first ultrasonic signals from a first vehicle, each of the first ultrasonic signals having a single respective frequency displacement from a sequence of frequency displacements [Abstract, Claim 1 has ultrasonic bursts from transducer, 0031, 0032, 0037 have burst pattern];
detecting, by an obstacle monitoring system of the first vehicle, a plurality of reflected ultrasonic signals[Abstract, Claim 1 has transducer/receiver that receives the burst];
and determining whether the reflected ultrasonic signals are reflections of the first ultrasonic signals or reflections of a sequence of second ultrasonic signals from a second vehicle[0031, 0032, 0036 has identification of pattern as well as each transducer having its own signature meaning each transducer can identify its own pattern from another transducers pattern], based on whether the reflected ultrasonic signals have the sequence of frequency displacements. [003 1, 0032, 0036 has identification of pattern as well as each transducer having its own signature meaning each transducer can identify its own pattern from another transducers pattern]
Regarding claim 2, Ding discloses wherein the controller comprises a frequency displacement control unit that is configured to apply the frequency displacements to a transmit carrier frequency.[Abstract, Claim 1, 0004-0006 has ultrasonic bursts from transducer with frequency modulation meaning it applies frequency displacements to the transmit burst].
Regarding claim 3, Ding discloses wherein the frequency displacements are in a range of 200-2000 Hz.[0052 has varying about 1kHz ie 1000hz which is within the claimed range]
Regarding claim 4, Ding discloses wherein the frequency displacements are in a range of 300-1200 Hz. [0052 has varying about 1kHz ie 1000hz which is within the claimed range] .
Regarding claim 5, Ding discloses wherein the processing circuit is further configured to suppress any peaks in the output data not conforming to the sequence of frequency displacements.[0038 has system doing cross correlation meaning checking whether or not the received echo matches the code].
Regarding claim 6, Ding discloses wherein the transmitter is configured to generate the acoustic bursts by generating a series of consecutive driving signals.[0004-0006 has sequency of pulses meaning consecutive signals].
Regarding claim 7, Ding discloses wherein a first of the acoustic bursts is provided at a first center frequency pattern[0031, 0032, 0037 have burst pattern with second frequency ], and wherein a second of the acoustic bursts is consecutive with the first of the acoustic bursts and is provided at a second center frequency that is displaced relative to the first center frequency according to the sequence of frequency displacements. [0030-0032, 0037 have second frequency consecutive the first frequency namely it follows the first frequency in the sweep as well as frequency modulation between two frequencies ie displacement]
Regarding claim 8, Ding discloses wherein the sequence of frequency displacements is unique to the acoustic transducer. [0031,0032, 0036 has each transducer having its own signature pattern]
Regarding claim 10, Ding discloses further comprising receiving first and second responses to the first and second acoustic bursts, respectively. [0004-0006 has sequence of pulses meaning bursts and Abstract, Claim 1 has transducer/receiver that receives the burst]
Regarding claim 13, Ding discloses wherein the first ultrasonic signals comprise chirps.[Abstract, Claim 1, 0004-0006 has ultrasonic bursts from transducer, ie chirps].
Regarding claim 14, Ding discloses wherein the sequency of frequency displacements corresponds to time shifts of the reflections of the first ultrasonic signals.[0004 -0006, 0069, claim 1 has sequency of variable time pulses meaning reflection will have the pattern of time shift in the signature].
Regarding claim 15, Ding discloses wherein the processing circuit is configured to determine whether the reflected ultrasonic signals have the sequence of frequency displacements by determining whether measured distances shift in correspondence with the sequence of frequency displacements.[0030-0032, 0036 has identification of pattern as well as each transducer having its own signature meaning each transducer can identify its own pattern from another transducers pattern; 0040, 0043, 0050-0052 also has minimum peak distance meaning distance and time is also being considered].
Regarding claim 17, Ding discloses wherein each of the ultrasonic signals comprises a chirp [Abstract, Claim 1, 0004-0006 has ultrasonic bursts from transducer, ie chirps].
Regarding claim 18, Ding discloses wherein determining whether the reflected ultrasonic signals have the sequence of frequency displacements comprises determining whether measured distances shift in correspondence with the sequence of frequency displacements. [0030-0032, 0036 has identification of pattern as well as each transducer having its own signature meaning each transducer can identify its own pattern from another transducers pattern; 0040, 0043, 0050- 0052 also has minimum peak distance meaning distance and time is also being considered]
Regarding claim 19, Ding discloses wherein the reflections of the first ultrasonic signals are reflections from an obstacle. [Abstract, 0003 has obstacle detection from ultrasonic signals]
Regarding claim 20, Ding discloses wherein the reflections of the second ultrasonic signals are reflections from the obstacle.[Abstract, 0003 has obstacle detection from ultrasonic signals; 0025 has echos from other transducers namely second ultrasonic signals]
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding (US 20190339386 A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Horsky (US 8,699,299 B2).
Regarding claim 11, Ding does not explicitly teach converting the responses into first zero intermediate frequency (ZIF) IQ data corresponding to the first acoustic burst and second ZIF IQ data corresponding to the second acoustic burst;
applying derivation-based processing to the first and second ZIF IQ data, to calculate a derivative magnitude, wherein applying derivation-based processing comprises performing subtraction between the first and second ZIF IQ data;
and identifying a distance to an object based on the calculated derivative magnitude.
Horsky teaches that converting the responses into first zero intermediate frequency (ZIF) IQ data corresponding to the first acoustic burst and second ZIF IQ data corresponding to the second acoustic burst[Col 8; Fig 7 Lines 20-40, Claim 9 has ZIF demodulator];
applying derivation-based processing to the first and second ZIF IQ data, to calculate a derivative magnitude, wherein applying derivation-based processing comprises performing subtraction between the first and second ZIF IQ data[Col 8; Lines 20-40, has subtraction of data and difference between outputs to calculate values];
and identifying a distance to an object based on the calculated derivative magnitude. [Claim 9 has distance measurement based on the output of the ZIF]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the distance measurement of Ding with the use of ZIF demodulation and calculation in Horsky in order to have another way to calculate distance based on the echo data. Moreover it would have been obvious to use known techniques such as ZIF to process the acoustic bursts.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant is reading the prior art overly narrowly in applicants arguments on page 1 of the remarks. A single frequency from a sequence of frequency displacements is simply another manner of describing frequency modulation as frequency modulation is the change of frequency over time. The prior art of Ding which has bursts embedded with signatures involving frequency modulation which reads on the claim limitation of frequency displacements.
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
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights