DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 12, 13, 15 recite the limitation “the three-dimensional position of the refection point is ascertained by a trilateration method as a function of at least one of a path difference and a phase difference”. Trilateration is a known method of determining a location by measuring distances to known points. Trilateration is a function of the three distances only, and do not depend on phase. It is not clear if the current invention is claiming to modify the known trilateration method of finding location, or claiming to implement a new method of finding location and naming it “trilateration”. The scope of the claims could not be determined and are considered indefinite.
Claims 2-11, 14 are rejected for being dependent on rejected claims.
Note: for the purpose of the art rejection below, the limitation is interpreted to represent “the three-dimensional position of the refection point is ascertained by a trilateration method as a function of at least one of a path difference ” to match the originally filed disclosure as described in [0033] of the published application.
Claims 3 recite the limitation “… at least one of the ultrasonic signals transmitted chronologically one after the other …”. However, the claim recites that the same signal “… is generated by simultaneously activating at least two different sensor elements … to jointly transmit the same ultrasonic signal”. The two limitation of claim 3 contradicts with each other since the simultaneous activation of the sensors to jointly transmit the same signal indicates that the signals are transmitted simultaneously. However, the claim further indicates that the signals are transmitted chronologically one after the other. It is unclear what the scope of the claim is. The claim is considered indefinite.
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 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, 2, 4, 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuda [US 20090059726] in view of Klus et al. [US 20240361454].
As to claim 1. Okuda discloses A method for ascertaining a three-dimensional position of a reflection point of an object in an environment of a vehicle using an ultrasonic sensor, [fig. 1A, 0026] sensor 10, which has at least three sensor elements, [fig. 1A] elements 13p – 13s, wherein at least two sensor elements are arranged at a horizontal offset to one another, [fig. 1A] elements 13p, q, and elements 13r, s, and at least two sensor elements are arranged at a vertical offset to one another, [fig. 1A] elements 13r, p, and elements 13s, q, wherein the method comprises the following steps:
transmitting at least two ultrasonic signals using at least one of the sensor elements of the ultrasonic sensor, [0043] alternatively transmitting two ultrasonic waves from two of the sensor elements with different directivity at a given time intervals,
wherein the at least two ultrasonic signals are transmitted chronologically one after the other, [0043] alternatively transmitted at given time intervals, and
wherein the at least two ultrasonic signals are transmitted in different spatial directions and/or with respectively differently shaped sonic cones and/or with respectively different ultrasonic frequencies, [0043] different directivity;
sensing each of the at least two transmitted ultrasonic signals reflected on an object as reflection signals using the at least three ultrasonic sensor elements, [fig. 8A, 0050] detection area that includes all four elements; [0027] wherein all elements can receive ultrasonic waves; and
ascertaining the three-dimensional position of a reflection point of the object relative to the ultrasonic sensor or to the vehicle, based on at least three sensed reflection signals, [0026, 0033, 0034] detect location of an obstacle in three-dimensional manner, [0033, 0034] using a signal from a plurality of sensor elements,
wherein the at least three reflection signals taken into account originate from at least one of the at least two transmitted ultrasonic signals, [0033, 0034],
wherein the three-dimensional position of the refection point is ascertained as a function of at least one of a path difference and a phase difference between the respectively transmitted ultrasonic signal and the respectively associated sensed reflection signals, [0034] a difference in time, which reads on the claimed path difference, of the received ultrasonic signal is used to determine the location; [0034] wherein a difference in phase is used to improve the accuracy of the location.
Okuda fails to explicitly disclose wherein the three-dimensional position is ascertained by a trilateration method.
Klus teaches a trilateration based ultrasonic system that is implemented in a car, [fig. 13, 0484]; wherein the system uses the time of flight of the signal to determine the distance to the object, [0025]; wherein the distances from a plurality of ultrasonic sensors is used to determine the position of the object using trilateration, [abs.].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Okuda with that of Klus as nothing but using a known algorithm for determining a position of an object using the information already available in the system of Okuda.
As to claim 2. Okuda discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the transmission of the at least two ultrasonic signals takes place using different sensor elements of the ultrasonic sensor, [0044].
As to claim 4. Okuda discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the following step is carried out prior to the transmission of the at least two ultrasonic signals:
detecting a driving situation of the vehicle as a function of a position of the vehicle, [0046] as a function of the type of road the vehicle is traveling, and/or as a function of a sensed speed of the vehicle, and/or as a function of an input of a user of the vehicle, and/or as a function of a captured camera image of the environment of the vehicle;
wherein the transmission of the at least two ultrasonic signals takes place as a function of the detected driving situation, [0046, 0059], such driving situation including a maneuver situation, [0046, 0059] driving situation of the vehicle when the vehicle is traveling on a road, [0043] to detect obstacles on the vehicle’s blind spot, [0049] and on a traveling direction of the vehicle, a parking process, or an unparking process.
As to claim 11. Okuda discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the at least three sensed reflection signals for ascertaining the three-dimensional position of a reflection point are selected based on at least one property of the reflection signals, [0046, 0059] property of the signal as a function of the vehicle environment, including rough ground, and/or a property of the object.
As to claim 12. Okuda discloses A non-transitory computer-readable medium on which is stored a computer program, [0033] arithmetic processing performed that requires an algorithm and a storage medium, including commands for performing the steps as claimed in claim 1, which is rejected using the same prior arts and reasoning as to that of claim 1.
As to claim 13. Okuda discloses A computing device including a control unit or a zonal computing unit or a central computing unit, [0032] ECU, comprising: a processor configured to ascertain the elements and steps as claimed in claim 1, which is rejected using the same prior arts and reasoning as to that of claim 1; and a signal input configured to provide to the processor an input signal representing the reflection signals, [0032, 0033].
As to claim 14. Okuda discloses The computing device according to claim 13, further comprising:
a signal output configured to generate an output signal, [0026, 0033, 0034] representing:
(i) the ascertained three-dimensional position of the reflection point of the object relative to the ultrasonic sensor or to the vehicle, [0026, 0033, 0034] received signals output to the ECU, [0026] determines the three-dimensional location of the obstacle, and/or
(ii) a collision warning regarding the detected object.
As to claim 15. Okuda discloses A vehicle comprising: at least one computing device, including: a processor configured to ascertain the elements and steps as claimed in claim 1, which is rejected using the same prior arts and reasoning as to that of claim 1, and a signal input configured to provide to the processor an input signal representing the reflection signals, [0032, 0033].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuda in view of Klus as applied in claim 1 above, further in view of Okuda et al. [Okuda2, US 20090168603].
As to claim 5. The combination of Okuda and Klus fails to disclose The method according to claim 1, further comprising the following steps. However, Okuda2 teaches an ultrasonic sensor 10 with a plurality of elements 13p-s, [fig. 1A, 0047] wherein the method comprises:
sensing a speed of the vehicle, [0098]; and
(i) transmitting at least one ultrasonic signal as a function of the sensed speed, wherein the spatial direction, the shaping of the sonic cone and/or the ultrasonic frequency of the ultrasonic signal is changed as a function of the speed, [0098]; and/or
(ii) changing a time interval between the transmitted ultrasonic signals as a function of the sensed speed, wherein the time interval between the transmitted ultrasonic signals is reduced with increasing speed.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Okuda and Klus with that of Okuda2 so that the system can adjust the transmitted signals to reduce noise due to the speed of the vehicle.
Claim(s) 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuda wherein the system determines the orientation of the object around the vehicle using a plurality of ultrasonic sensors for generating a surrounding map and plan a route through the environment, [0003], and further implements a classification and clustering methods to improve the recognition, [0003, 0005]; wherein the clustering method uses a neural network model, [0327]v in view of Park et al. [US 20210183093].
As to claim 6. The combination of Okuda and Klus fails to disclose The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
detecting an object in the environment of the vehicle as a function of a plurality of ascertained three-dimensional positions of respectively different reflection points via a trained machine detection method, such trained machine detection method including a neural network, wherein the detected object is assigned to the ascertained three-dimensional positions of the respectively different reflection points.
Park teaches a system and method for surface profile estimation for autonomous machines that uses ultrasonic sensors for generating a 3D point cloud of the detected object, [0028], and determine a free-space location of the boundary of the object, [0027]; wherein each point in the point cloud represents a 3D coordinate that is aligned with a 3D world space coordinate system, [0030]; wherein the point cloud is generated using an algorithm that using a trained neural network, [0025, 0026].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Okuda and Klus with that of Park so that the system can use a trained machine detection algorithm to detect objects that might not have a known characteristic.
As to claim 7. Okuda discloses The method according to claim 6, further comprising:
estimating a position and/or an orientation of the detected object in the environment of the vehicle, [0034] measure the location of the obstacle.
Okuda fails to teach the rest of the limitations of the claim.
However, Klus teaches a trilateration based ultrasonic system that is implemented in a car, [fig. 13, 0484]; wherein the system uses the time of flight of the signal to determine the distance to the object, [0025]; wherein the distances from a plurality of ultrasonic sensors is used to determine the position of the object using trilateration, [abs.], the estimation being relative to the vehicle:
i. as a function of a main axial direction, wherein the main axial direction is ascertained as a function of the ascertained three-dimensional positions of the reflection points assigned to the object, wherein the main axial direction is ascertained as a function of a smallest mean distance between the reflection point, assigned to the object, and an axis; and/or
ii. as a function of a position of a three- dimensional object box around the detected object, wherein the shape of the object box is loaded from a memory based on the detected object and is parameterized as a function of the ascertained three- dimensional positions of the reflection points assigned to the detected object; and/or
iii. as a function of the plurality of ascertained three-dimensional positions of reflection points via the trained machine detection method including via a neural network, wherein the system determines the orientation of the object around the vehicle using a plurality of ultrasonic sensors for generating a surrounding map and plan a route through the environment, [0003], and further implements a classification and clustering methods to improve the recognition, [0003, 0005]; wherein the clustering method uses a neural network model, [0327].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Okuda with that of Klus so that the vehicle can map a route through unknown terrain.
As to claim 8. the combination of Okuda and Klus fails to disclose The method according to claim 7, However, Park teaches a system and method for surface profile estimation for autonomous machines that uses ultrasonic sensors for generating a 3D point cloud of the detected object, [0028], and determine a free-space location of the boundary of the object, [0027]; wherein the system determines the position of the object, [0024]; wherein the method further comprising: ascertaining a movement direction, [0040], and/or a speed of the detected object, [0035], relative to the vehicle based on the positions, estimated over time, of the detected object, [0035] and/or the orientations, estimated over time, of the detected object, [0035] and/or the three-dimensional positions, ascertained over time, [0035], of reflection points assigned to the object.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Okuda and Klus with that of Park so that the system can track the same object as the vehicle is moving and determine the relative position of the object with respect to the vehicle to identify how the position of the object relative to the vehicle is changing.
As to claim 9. the combination of Okuda and Klus fails to disclose The method according to claim 7, however, Park teaches a system and method for surface profile estimation for autonomous machines that uses ultrasonic sensors for generating a 3D point cloud of the detected object, [0028], and determine a free-space location of the boundary of the object, [0027]; wherein the system determines the position of the object, [0024]; wherein the method further comprising: ascertaining a height of the detected object relative to the vehicle as a function of the estimated position of the detected object and/or of the estimated orientation of the detected object and/or of the plurality of ascertained three-dimensional positions of reflection points, [0035, 0035].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Okuda and Klus with that of Park for collision avoidance, as suggested in [0046].
As to claim 10. the combination of Okuda and Klus fails to disclose The method according to claim 9, however, Park teaches a system and method for surface profile estimation for autonomous machines that uses ultrasonic sensors for generating a 3D point cloud of the detected object, [0028], and determine a free-space location of the boundary of the object, [0027]; wherein the system determines the position of the object, [0024]; wherein the method further comprising:
determining a collision warning between the vehicle and the detected object, output of the geometry estimator used for collision avoidance, [0046]; and generate collision warnings, [0082], wherein dimensions of the vehicle are taken into account, [0046] output of the geometry estimator used for collision avoidance, wherein the determination takes place at least as a function of:
i. an estimated current position of the detected object, [0143, 0144], and/or
ii. an estimated current orientation of the detected object, and/or
iii. an ascertained current movement direction of the detected object, and/or
iv. an ascertained current speed of the detected object, and/or
v. the ascertained height of the detected object; wherein a door opening warning as a collision warning is based on a swivel range of a respective door of the vehicle into the environment.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Okuda and Klus with that of Park so that the system can perform collision avoidance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENYAM HAILE whose telephone number is (571)272-2080. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 5:30 PM Mon. - Thur..
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, Steven Lim can be reached at (571)270-1210. 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.
/Benyam Haile/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688