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
In the amendments filed February 26th, 2026, the following has occurred: claims 1, 3, 12, and 14 have been amended; claims 1, 3-4, 6-12, 14-15, and 17-20 remain pending in this application.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8, 12, 14-15, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatori et al. (WO 2019229895 A1, “Hatori”. For all text citations, refer to attached machine translation) in view of Tsujiya et al. (US 20200264136 A1, “Tsujiya”).
Regarding claim 1, Hatori discloses an object detection device (Fig. 1 (10)) comprising:
a wave transmitter to transmit a sound wave to an object (Fig. 1 (2) illustrates a transmission element)(pg. 2, transmission element transmits an ultrasonic wave corresponding to the transmission signal. Receiving element receives the reflected wave reflected from the obstacle);
a wave receiver to receive a sound wave and generate a receive signal that represents a reception result (Fig. (3) illustrates a reception element) (pg. 2, transmission element transmits an ultrasonic wave corresponding to the transmission signal. Receiving element receives the reflected wave reflected from the obstacle);
and a controller configured or programmed to control transmission of a sound wave by the wave transmitter and obtain the receive signal from the wave receiver (Fig. 1 (4) illustrates signal processing unit)(pg. 2-3, signal processing circuit includes analog filter, A/D conversion, digital filter, correlation function calculating unit, detection unit, and transmission processing unit)(pg. 4, transmission processing unit controls the voltage waveform applied to the transmission element);
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to: output a transmit signal to cause the wave transmitter to transmit a sound wave and obtain a corresponding receive signal(pg. 2, signal processing circuit applies voltage to transmission element corresponding to the transmission signal and also performs signal processing on the analog signal output from the reception element);
generate detection information about the object by complex analysis to perform complexification on a correlation signal that represents a correlation between the transmit signal and the receive signal(pg. 3 correlation function calculation section convolves and integrates transmission signal and reception signal to generate a correlation function);
Hatori fails to teach
define and function as a signal corrector configured or programmed to correct the transmit signal by performing a computational operation of removing a direct-current component in a transmit spectrum including a frequency component of the transmit signal, to mitigate a direct-current component in the correlation signal that is targeted for the complex analysis .
Tsujiya teaches
define and function as a signal corrector configured or programmed to correct the transmit signal by performing a computational operation of removing a direct-current component in a transmit spectrum including a frequency component of the transmit signal, to mitigate a direct-current component in the correlation signal that is targeted for the complex analysis (Implicit, [0062], ultrasonic pulse transmitted from the transmission transducer is based on a signal from which a DC component is removed by subtracting the negative signal from the positive signal… thus, ultrasonic waves having a large temporal rate of change of the envelope are received by the reception transducer, and a peak of the correlation value between the first correlation object signal and the sliding second correlation object signal becomes sharp)(transmitting the ultrasonic pulse based on a pulse which has had the direct-current component removed is the same as removing the direct current component)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the object detection device of Hatori, to include the teachings of Tsujiya, in order to yield an acoustic object detection device that corrects the transmitted signal such that the influence of the DC component of the transmitted signal does not carry through the correlation procedure, resulting in a larger correlation spike due to more accurate measurement of signal propagation times. Making such a modification amounts to using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale (C).
Regarding claim 4, Hatori, as modified in view of Tsujiya teaches the object detection device according to Claim 1. Hatori further discloses
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to convert the transmit signal into the transmit spectrum and convert the receive signal into the receive spectrum; (pg. 5, FFT is utilized for DFT to calculate a correlation function for the transmission and reception signal)
Tsujiya further teaches and the signal corrector is configured or programmed to perform the computational operation on the transmit spectrum and correct the transmit signal([0062], ultrasonic pulse transmitted from the transmission transducer is based on a signal from which a DC component is removed by subtracting the negative signal from the positive signal… thus, ultrasonic waves having a large temporal rate of change of the envelope are received by the reception transducer, and a peak of the correlation value between the first correlation object signal and the sliding second correlation object signal becomes sharp)
Regarding claim 8, Hatori, as modified in view of Tsujiya teaches the object detection device according to Claim 1. Hatori further teaches
the detection information includes at least one of a displacement of the object in a predetermined measurement period and a distance to the object.(pg. 11, distance measurement unit calculates the distance to an object based on the time when peak values of the amplitude of the correlation function is detected)
Regarding claim 12, the claim is a method claim corresponding to claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is a method claim corresponding to claim 3 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is a method claim corresponding to claim 4 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is a method claim corresponding to claim 8 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is a method claim corresponding to claim 12 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatori et al. (WO 2019229895 A1, “Hatori”. For all text citations, refer to attached machine translation) in view of Tsujiya and Song et al. ("Implementation of a One-Channel Acoustic Distance Measurement Method Using the Cross-Spectrum of Actual and Pseudo Observations." ICIC express letters. Part B, Applications: an international journal of research and surveys 9.9 (2018): 899-906., “Song”).
Regarding claim 3, Hatori, as modified in view of Tsujiya teaches the object detection device according to Claim 1. Hatori, as modified in view of Tsujiya fails to teach
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to correct the correlation signal by performing a computational operation of removing a direct-current component in a cross spectrum including a frequency component of the correlation signal;
the controller is configured or programmed to convert the transmit signal into the transmit spectrum, convert the receive signal into the receive spectrum, and calculate the cross spectrum based on the transmit spectrum and the receive spectrum;
and the signal corrector is configured or programmed to correct the correlation signal by performing the computational operation on the cross spectrum.
Song teaches
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to correct the correlation signal by performing a computational operation of removing a direct-current component in a cross spectrum including a frequency component of the correlation signal(pg. 3-4, Cross spectral method is applied using Eq. 5 and Eq. 6 as the input and output signals. Distance can then be estimated with Eq. 9, where the first term of Eq. 9 corresponds to the transmitted signal. After performing a Fourier transform and removing the DC component from EQ. 9, a distance estimation to a target can be acquired)(Eq. 5 and Eq. 6 represent the transmitted signal and reception signal converted into the transmit and receive spectrum);
the controller is configured or programmed to convert the transmit signal into the transmit spectrum, convert the receive signal into the receive spectrum, and calculate the cross spectrum based on the transmit spectrum and the receive spectrum(pg. 3-4, Cross spectral method is applied using Eq. 5 and Eq. 6 as the input and output signals. Distance can then be estimated with Eq. 9, where the first term of Eq. 9 corresponds to the transmitted signal. After performing a Fourier transform and removing the DC component from EQ. 9, a distance estimation to a target can be acquired)(Eq. 5 and Eq. 6 represent the transmitted signal and reception signal converted into the transmit and receive spectrum);
and the signal corrector is configured or programmed to correct the correlation signal by performing the computational operation on the cross spectrum(pg. 3-4, Cross spectral method is applied using Eq. 5 and Eq. 6 as the input and output signals. Distance can then be estimated with Eq. 9, where the first term of Eq. 9 corresponds to the transmitted signal. After performing a Fourier transform and removing the DC component from EQ. 9, a distance estimation to a target can be acquired)(Eq. 5 and Eq. 6 represent the transmitted signal and reception signal converted into the transmit and receive spectrum).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the object detection device of Hatori, as modified in view of the teachings of Tsujiya, to further include the teachings of Song, in order to yield an acoustic object detection device in which the signal correlation between the transmitted and received signals is carried out in a manner where the direct current is received from the cross-spectrum such that interference from the sound transmitting and receiving components themselves do not negatively impact object detection results, thus leading to more accurate measurements and object detection determinations. Making such a modification amounts to using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale (C)
Claim(s) 6-7 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatori in view of Tsujiya and Ding et al. (US 20190339386 A1, “Ding”).
Regarding claim 6, Hatori, as modified in view of Tsujiya teaches the object detection device according to Claim 1. Hatori, as modified in view of Tsujiya fails to teach
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to, in complex analysis of the correlation signal, generate an analytic signal including an amplitude and a phase that are determined by a correlation between the transmit signal and the receive signal.
Ding teaches
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to, in complex analysis of the correlation signal, generate an analytic signal including an amplitude and a phase that are determined by a correlation between the transmit signal and the receive signal. ([0025] ultrasonic transmit and receive signals are detected via envelopes of correlated reflected signals in which main peaks (amplitudes) correspond to true reflections)([0032], because each transducer has its own frequency or phase modulation, each receiver circuitry is able to correlate a received signal only to that transducers own frequency or phase signature)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the object detection device of Hatori, as modified in view of the teachings of Tsujiya, to further include the teachings of Ding, in order to yield and acoustic object detection device that is able to discriminate the true reflections of transmitted waves off of on object through phase and amplitude analysis, such that received signals that did not actually reflect off of the object are not passed along for further processing or utilized for object presence determinations, which increases the overall accuracy of resulting object determinations. Making such a modification amounts to using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale (C).
Regarding claim 7, Hatori, as modified in view of Tsujiya and Ding, teaches the object detection device according to Claim 6. Ding further teaches
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to: calculate an envelope of the analytic signal and detect a timing when the amplitude is largest based on the calculated envelope([0025], main peaks in envelopes of correlated signals are detected and validated);
and generate the detection information based on the timing detected from the envelope.([0025], main peaks in envelopes of correlated signals are detected and validated. Validated peaks are reported to central controller and include amplitude and time information)
Regarding claim 17, the claim is a method claim corresponding to claim 6 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is a method claim corresponding to claim 7 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatori in view of Tsujiya and Hustava et al. (US 20190212423 A1, “Hustava”).
Regarding claim 9, Hatori, as modified in view of Tsujiya teaches the object detection device according to Claim 1. Tsujiya further teaches
[removing the direct current component of the transmitted signal before generating the correlation signal] ([0062], ultrasonic pulse transmitted from the transmission transducer is based on a signal from which a DC component is removed by subtracting the negative signal from the positive signal… thus, ultrasonic waves having a large temporal rate of change of the envelope are received by the reception transducer, and a peak of the correlation value between the first correlation object signal and the sliding second correlation object signal becomes sharp)
Hatori, as modified in view of Tsujiya fails to teach
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to, using the correlation signal after a direct-current component of the correlation signal is mitigated by the signal corrector, calculate a quadrature component of the correlation signal and use the quadrature component for the complex analysis.
Hustava teaches
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to, using the correlation signal
Therefore the combination of Hatori, as modified in view of Tsujiya, and Hustava teaches
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to, using the correlation signal after a direct-current component of the correlation signal is mitigated by the signal corrector, calculate a quadrature component of the correlation signal and use the quadrature component for the complex analysis.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the object detection device of Hatori, as modified in view of the teachings of Tsujiya, to further include the teachings of Hustava, in order to generate an acoustic object detection device capable of making accurate object determinations based on analytical correlations performed between the transmitted and received signals, as well as using the in-phase and/or quadrature portions of the signal discriminate whether the detected object is within close or long range, which would better inform the user how near or far an object or obstacle is in relationship to the devices position, allowing them to react accordingly. Making such a modification amounts to using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale (C).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatori in view of Tsujiya, Hustava and Booij et al. (US 20120044786 A1, “Booij”).
Regarding claim 10, Hatori, as modified in view of Tsujiya and Hustava teaches the object detection device according to Claim 9. Hatori, as modified in view of Tsujiya and Hustava fails to teach
wherein the correlation signal is determined by a cross-correlation function between the transmit signal and the receive signal;
and the controller is configured or programmed to perform the complex analysis by performing complexification on the cross- correlation function using the correlation signal and the quadrature component.
Booij further teaches
wherein the correlation signal is determined by a cross-correlation function between the transmit signal and the receive signal([0095], matched filter process consists of a cross-correlation of the received microphone signal with quadrature version of all positioning signals. All received signals may be cross-correlated using a quadrature approach);
and the controller is configured or programmed to perform the complex analysis by performing complexification on the cross- correlation function using the correlation signal and the quadrature component. ([0095], matched filter process consists of a cross-correlation of the received microphone signal with quadrature version of all positioning signals. All received signals may be cross-correlated using a quadrature approach)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the object detection device of Hatori, as modified in view of the teachings of Tsujiya and Hustava, to further include the teachings of Booj, in order to yield an acoustic object detection device that is able to discriminate true reflections between transmitted signals and received echoes by utilizing a cross correlation process that performs additional analytical processing that takes into account the quadrature components of all measurement signals which enables the device to determine distance as well as relative direction of the object. This processing further enables the device to further analyze the cross-correlations with doppler-shifted variants of the signals to account for movement of the device between measurements, making the device more versatile while maintaining measurement accuracy. Making such a modification amounts to using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale (C)
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatori in view of Tsujiya and Qian et al. (US 8325949 B2, “Qian”).
Regarding claim 11, Hatori, as modified in view of Tsujiya teaches the object detection device according to claim 1. Hatori, as modified in view of Tsujiya fails to teach
wherein the wave transmitter includes a thermophone to transmit a sound wave by generating heat in response to a transmit signal that includes a direct-current component.
Qian teaches
wherein the wave transmitter includes a thermophone to transmit a sound wave by generating heat in response to a transmit signal that includes a direct-current component.(Implicit, [column 7, lines 60-67], thermoacoustic device produces sound waves by heating a medium surrounding the thermoacoustic device)(the thermophone’s transmitted sound signal would implicitly include a direct-current component)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the object detection device of Hatori, as modified in view of the teachings of Tsujiya, to further include the teachings of Qian, in order to yield an acoustic object detection device that is capable of generating sound waves that may reflect off of an object using the thermoelectric effect produced by driving electrodes arranged in parallel which allow for lower overall resistance, and further reduce the input voltage required to obtain the same sound characteristics. Making such a modification amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale (A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, filed February 26th, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hatori et al. (WO 2019229895 A1) in view of Tsujiya et al. (US 20200264136 A1).
On Pg. 3-4 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues that due to the alleged allowability of claims 1 and 12, that claims 3, 4, 6-11, 14, 15, and 17-20 are therefore in condition for allowance. As noted in the response to arguments with respect to claims 1 and 12, above, the rejections are maintained, and similarly so are the rejections of claims 3, 4, 6-11, 14, 15, and 17-20.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Preston (U.S. Patent Application No. 20040179428) which discloses a distance detection method using time of flight correlation
Klotz et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 20210125429) which discloses ultrasonic ranging using reflected echo signals
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6136. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at 571-270-3603. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
