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 October 21st, 2025, the following has occurred: claims 1, 3-4, 12, and 14-15 have been amended; claims 2, 5, 13, and 16 have been cancelled; 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, 3-4, 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”) in view of 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 1, Hatori discloses an object detection device comprising: a wave transmitter to transmit a sound wave to an object (Fig. 1 (2) illustrates a transmission element); a wave receiver to receive a sound wave and generate a receive signal that represents a reception result (Fig. (3) illustrates a reception element); 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); 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([attached machine translation, 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([attached machine translation, pg. 3] correlation function calculation section convolves and integrates transmission signal and reception signal to generate a correlation function);
Hatori may not explicitly teach and define and function as a signal corrector 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, or 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.
Song teaches and define and function as a signal corrector 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, or 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 ([pg. 3-4], Eq. 9, 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).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of object detection devices, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Hatori, to include the signal correction of Song with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of estimating the distance to the object without the influence of the DC component or phase interference [pg. 3-4].
Regarding claim 3, Hatori, as modified in view of Song teaches the object detection device according to Claim 2. Song further teaches teaches 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([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)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that Eq. 5 and Eq. 6 represent the transmitted signal and reception signal converted into the transmit and receive spectrum).
Regarding claim 4, Hatori, as modified in view of Song 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; ([attached machine translation, pg. 5] FFT is utilized for DFT to calculate a correlation function for the transmission and reception signal)
Song further teaches and the signal corrector is configured or programmed to perform the computational operation on the transmit spectrum and correct the transmit signal([pg. 3-4], Eq. 9, 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).
Regarding claim 8, Hatori, as modified in view of Song 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.([attached machine translation, 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) 6-7 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatori in view of Song and Ding et al. (US 20190339386 A1, “Ding”).
Regarding claim 6, Hatori, as modified in view of Song teaches the object detection device according to Claim 1. Hatori, as modified in view of Song may not explicitly 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 prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of object detection devices, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Hatori, as modified in view of Song to include the enveloped analytical signal of Ding with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of accurately detecting true reflections in the received signals [0032].
Regarding claim 7, Hatori, as modified in view of Song and Ding, teaches the object detection device according to Claim 6. Ding further teaches wherein 50 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; 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 Song and Hustava et al. (US 20190212423 A1, “Hustava”).
Regarding claim 9, Hatori, as modified in view of Song teaches the object detection device according to Claim 1. Hatori, as modified in view of Song may not explicitly 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 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. ([0028], correlator receives filtered quadrature portion of the received signal and a full transmit signal pattern)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the calculated quadrature component could further be used for complex analysis)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of object detection devices, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Hatori, as modified in view of Song to include the quadrature analysis of Hustava with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of accurately correlating the transmitted and received waveforms [0028].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatori in view of Song, Hustava and Booij et al. (US 20120044786 A1, “Booij”).
Regarding claim 10, Hatori, as modified in view of Song and Hustava teaches the object detection device according to Claim 9. Hatori, as modified in view of Song and Hustava may not explicitly 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; 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 prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of object detection devices, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Hatori, as modified in view of Song and Hustava, to include the cross-correlation quadrature analysis of Booij with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of accurately correlating the transmitted and received waveforms [0095].
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatori in view of Song and Qian et al. (US 8325949 B2, “Qian”).
Regarding claim 11, Hatori teaches the object detection device according to claim 1. Hatori may not explicitly 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)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of object detection devices, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Hatori, as modified in view of Song to include the thermophone of Qian with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of generating sound waves [column 7, lines 60-67].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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
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 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
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights