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 claim amendments filed 12/17/2025 have been entered.
Claims 1-8 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 1-6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 9,921,303 B2) in view of Takahashi (US 10,123,744 B2)..
Regarding claim 1, Lee Lee teaches a receiving circuit, configured to generate a reflected wave signal based on a reflected wave from an object[Title; Abstract has ultrasonic wave reflected];
an envelope detection circuit, configured to generate an envelope detection signal of the reflected wave signal[Fig 7 and Col 7, Lines 10-15 has envelope detector #170 calculating an envelope from filtered signal ie generate envelope detection signal of reflected wave];…..
and a selection circuit, configured to select one of a first signal and a second signal [Fig 7 has comparator #180 and differential value calculator #110],
wherein the first signal is the envelope detection signal or a delayed signal of the envelope detection signal[Fig 7, Abstract has envelope signal and Col 4 Lines 20-25 and col 8 Lines 55-65 has offset to differential signal meaning delayed signal],
and the second signal is the differentially amplified signal or a signal obtained from a difference between the envelope detection signal and the differentially amplified signal. [Fig 10 has j which is the differential and differential value calculator in Fig 7 and Abstract has thresholds meaning differential signal or signal based on difference]
Lee implies, but does not explicitly teach a differential amplifier circuit, configured to generate a differentially amplified signal of the envelope detection signal [Abstract has differential of signals and Fig 10 has j which is the differential and differential value calculator in Fig 7];
Takahashi teaches that a differential amplifier circuit, configured to generate a differentially amplified signal of the envelope detection signal[Abstract has differential amplification and Fig 1 has differential amplification #70 after envelope extraction #40];
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the processor in Lee with the differential amplification of the signal in Takahashi to amplify differences between detection output and baseline to detect the object.
It would also have been obvious to use thresholds, 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 or values involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 2, Lee, as modified, teaches that wherein the differential amplifier circuit is configured to clamp the differentially amplified signal. [Fig 7 has comparator #180 and differential value calculator # 110 and Abstract has maximum value meaning it is being clamped]
Regarding claim 3, Lee, as modified, teaches that wherein the envelope detection signal is a signal obtained by detecting an upper envelope of the reflected wave signal[Abstract has thresholds for detection], or a signal obtained by subtracting a signal obtained by detecting a lower envelope of the reflected wave signal from the signal obtained by detecting the upper envelope of the reflected wave signal. [Claim 3 has subtraction].
Regarding claim 4, Lee, as modified, teaches that wherein the differential amplifier circuit is configured to clamp the differentially amplified signal, such that the differentially amplified signal does not lower than a predetermined value. [Abstract has predetermined threshold].
Regarding claim 5, Lee, as modified, teaches that wherein the envelope detection signal is a signal obtained by detecting an lower envelope of the reflected wave signal[Abstract has thresholds for detection], or a signal obtained by subtracting a signal obtained by detecting an upper envelope of the reflected wave signal from the signal obtained by detecting the lower envelope of the reflected wave signal, and the selection circuit is configured to select a greater one of the first signal and the second signal. [Claim 3 has subtraction; See also Col 8, Lines 40-65 for various comparators and thresholds from Fig 11].
Regarding claim 6, Lee, as modified, teaches that wherein the differential amplifier circuit is configured to clamp the differentially amplified signal, such that the differentially amplified signal docs not exceed a predetermined value. [Fig 7 has comparator # 180 and differential value calculator #110 and Abstract has maximum value meaning it is being clamped at predetermined threshold].
Regarding claim 8, Lee, as modified, teaches that A vehicle comprising the ultrasonic sensor of Claim 7. [Background has use of device in vehicles]
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 9921303 B2) in view of Takahashi (US 10,123,744 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Terumoto (US 2015/0366513 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches An ultrasonic sensor, comprising: the signal processing device of Claim 1 [Abstract has ultrasonic object detection]
Lee does not explicitly teach a piezoelectric element configured to receive the reflected wave. [Though the application of piezoelectric receivers for ultrasonic sensors would be well known in the art]
Terumoto teaches that a piezoelectric element configured to receive the reflected wave. [0081 has peizoelectric sensor]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the sensor in Lee with the piezoelectric element in Terumoto to use piezoelectric elements as the use of such materials are well known in the art for being able to function as a receiver.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Lee has differential value and variable gain for object detection or constant value for position calculation or the use of thresholds, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
The prior art and shown above has envelope detection and a comparator and differentially amplified signal and detection of the object which is what applicant’s claim requires. As pointed out the prior art in fig 7 has envelope detection, has differential amplification and it has object detection. Applicant is asserting that their claim is different without citing how it is distinguished over the prior art.
In response to applicant's argument that Takahashi is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Takahashi has signal processing, amplification and envelope detection
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