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 November 6th, 2025, the following has occurred: claims 1-3 have been amended; claim 1-12 remain pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“mounted to extend in parallel with a ground” should read -- mounted to extend in parallel with a ground surface --
Appropriate correction is required.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Yang et al. ("Research on the Sewer Inspection with Single Immersion Ultrasonic Probe and Rotating Planar Reflector." 2009 First International Conference on Information Science and Engineering. IEEE, 2009., “Yang”) in view of Hucker (EP 3026457 A1, “Hucker”).
Regarding claim 1, Yang discloses an ultrasonic probe (1), configured for transmitting ultrasonic waves and receiving echoes; a reflector (3), arranged spaced apart from the ultrasonic probe (1), which redistributes the energy of the ultrasonic wave to change the detection range of the ultrasonic wave([pg. 1], immersion ultrasonic probe projects ultrasonic wave outward towards planar reflector device and the reflected ultrasonic waves reflect off a pipe wall, back to the reflector, and are received by the probe).
Yang may not explicitly teach an ultrasonic detection device configured for detecting flow of people in a predetermined space; the ultrasonic detection device is arranged at a predetermined distance above an entrance and/or exit pathway of the predetermined space, and the reflector (3) is configured for redistributing the energy of the ultrasonic wave to change a detection range of the ultrasonic wave perpendicular to a direction of flow of people such that said detection range matches a width of the entrance and/or exit pathway of the predetermined space; wherein the reflector (3) of the ultrasonic detection device is further configured for redistributing the energy of the ultrasonic wave such that a detection range along a direction of the flow of people matches an average striding distance of people along the direction of the flow of people.
Hucker teaches an ultrasonic detection device configured for detecting flow of people in a predetermined space; the ultrasonic detection device is arranged at a predetermined distance above an entrance and/or exit pathway of the predetermined space([attached machine translation, pg. 3], detection field may be generated by an ultrasonic sensor)([attached machine translation, pg. 1], present invention relates to machine sensor units that secure and/or control automatic doors as presence detectors in order to detect the flow of persons and their presence), and the [detection device] is configured for redistributing the energy of the ultrasonic wave to change a detection range of the ultrasonic wave perpendicular to a direction of flow of people such that said detection range matches a width of the entrance and/or exit pathway of the predetermined space; wherein the [detection device] of the ultrasonic detection device is further configured for redistributing the energy of the ultrasonic wave such that a detection range along a direction of the flow of people matches an average striding distance of people along the direction of the flow of people(fig. 1 illustrates sensor unit (12) generating a detection field (5) which matches a direction of flow in one direction, and the detection field in another direction matches the width of the entrance/exit)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that combining the ultrasound probe and reflector of Yang with the placement and application of Hucker would yield an ultrasonic probe with a reflector plate being affixed above an entrance/exit and would be configured to redistribute energy such that the detection range covers the width of the exit/entrance as well as an average striding distance of people along the direction of flowing people).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of ultrasonic presence detection, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Yang, to include the detection field and device positioning of Hucker with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of securing and/or controlling the function of an automatic door system [attached machine translation, pg. 1].
Regarding claim 2, Yang, as modified in view of Hucker teaches the ultrasonic detection device as claimed in claim 1. Hucker further teaches the ultrasonic detection device is mounted to extend in parallel with a ground of the predetermined space(fig. 1 illustrates sensor unit (12) generating a detection field (5) which matches a direction of flow in one direction, and the detection field in another direction matches the width of the entrance/exit)(Fig. 4 (12A) illustrates the sensor unit extending in a direction that is parallel with the ground surface associated with the entrance/exit)
Yang further teaches the reflector of the ultrasonic detection device is mounted to reflect ultrasonic waves transmitted from the ultrasonic prove towards the ground of the predetermined space ([pg. 1], immersion ultrasonic probe projects ultrasonic wave outward towards planar reflector device and the reflected ultrasonic waves reflect off a pipe wall, back to the reflector, and are received by the probe)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the ultrasonic probe of Yang, when mounted as the sensor unit of Hucker would read upon the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 3, Yang, as modified in view of Hucker teaches the ultrasonic detection device as claimed in claim 2. Hucker further teaches wherein the predetermined space is a supermarket, a shopping mall, a store or a museum(implicit,[attached machine translation, pg. 1], present invention relates to machine sensor units that secure and/or control automatic doors as presence detectors in order to detect the flow of persons and their presence)(fig. 1 illustrates sensor unit (12) generating a detection field (5) which matches a direction of flow in one direction, and the detection field in another direction matches the width of the entrance/exit)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the automatic doors illustrated in Fig. 1 are similar to those commonly found in supermarkets, shopping malls, stores, or museums).
Regarding claim 4, Yang, as modified in view of Hucker teaches the ultrasonic detection device as claimed in claim 2. Yang further teaches the reflector (3) comprises a reflecting surface (31) ([pg. 1], immersion ultrasonic probe projects ultrasonic wave outward towards planar reflector device and the reflected ultrasonic waves reflect off a pipe wall, back to the reflector, and are received by the probe).
Claim(s) 5 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Hucker as applied to claim 4, and further in view of Mills (US 4791430 A, “Mills”).
Regarding claim 5, Yang, as modified in view of Hucker teaches the ultrasonic detection device as claimed in claim 4. Yang, as modified in view of Hucker may not explicitly teach wherein the reflecting surface (31) comprises a convergence zone and/or a dispersion zone, the convergence zone causing the ultrasonic waves from the ultrasonic probe (1) to converge along an X-axis direction and/or a Y-axis direction, and the dispersion zone causing the ultrasonic waves from the ultrasonic probe (1) to disperse along the X-axis direction and/or the Y-axis direction.
Mills teaches wherein the reflecting surface (31) comprises a convergence zone and/or a dispersion zone, the convergence zone causing the ultrasonic waves from the ultrasonic probe (1) to converge along an X-axis direction and/or a Y-axis direction, and the dispersion zone causing the ultrasonic waves from the ultrasonic probe (1) to disperse along the X-axis direction and/or the Y-axis direction (Implicit, [column 4, lines 13-26], cavity includes two conical reflective surfaces which each have their own respective radius of curvature)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the reflector plate(s) would implicitly have a zone of convergence along an x-direction and/or y-direction which would cause the ultrasonic waves to disperse alone the x-direction and/or y-direction.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of ultrasonic presence detection, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Yang, as modified in view of Hucker to include the convergence and/or dispersion zone creation of Mills with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of concentrating the ultrasonic waves to achieve accurate and effective monitoring of the area of interest [column 4, lines 30-24].
Regarding claim 7, Yang, as modified in view of Hucker teaches the ultrasonic detection device as claimed in claim 4. Yang, as modified in view of Hucker may not explicitly teach the reflector (3) is a reflecting plate, and along an X-axis direction and/or a Y-axis direction, the reflector (3) is thinner in the middle and thicker on both sides, so that the ultrasonic waves from the ultrasonic probe (1) can converge along the corresponding direction.
Mills teaches the reflector (3) is a reflecting plate, and along an X-axis direction and/or a Y-axis direction, the reflector (3) is thinner in the middle and thicker on both sides, so that the ultrasonic waves from the ultrasonic probe (1) can converge along the corresponding direction (Fig. 7 (17) illustrates a reflector plate which is thinner in the middle and thicker at the sides).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of ultrasonic presence detection, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Yang, as modified in view of Hucker to include the reflector plate thickness distribution of Mills with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of concentrating the ultrasonic waves to achieve accurate and effective monitoring of the area of interest [column 4, lines 30-24].
Regarding claim 8, Yang, as modified in view of Hucker teaches the ultrasonic detection device as claimed in claim 4. Yang, as modified in view of Hucker, may not explicitly teach wherein the ultrasonic probe (1) is mounted along a horizontal direction, and the reflecting surface (31) is provided at an outward inclination with respect to the ultrasonic probe (1), so that the reflecting surface (31) reflects the ultrasonic waves coming from the ultrasonic probe (1) and then propagates them downwards.
Mills teaches wherein the ultrasonic probe (1) is mounted along a horizontal direction, and the reflecting surface (31) is provided at an outward inclination with respect to the ultrasonic probe (1), so that the reflecting surface (31) reflects the ultrasonic waves coming from the ultrasonic probe (1) and then propagates them downwards (Fig. 3 illustrates the ultrasound transducer (15) disposed on a horizontal axis with the reflector plate (17) being projected outwardly and downwardly with respect to the horizontal axis).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of ultrasonic presence detection, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Yang, as modified in view of Hucker to include the reflector plate thickness distribution of Mills with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of concentrating the ultrasonic waves to achieve accurate and effective monitoring of the area of interest [column 4, lines 30-24].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Hucker as applied to claim 4, and further in view of Schulte et al. (WO 2023131372 A1, “Schulte”).
Regarding claim 6, Yang, as modified in view of Hucker teaches the ultrasonic detection device as claimed in claim 4. Yang, as modified in view of Hucker may not explicitly teach the reflector (3) is a reflecting plate, and along an X-axis direction and/or a Y-axis direction, the reflector (3) is thicker in the middle and thinner on both sides, so that the ultrasonic waves from the ultrasonic probe (1) can disperse along the corresponding direction.
Schulte teaches wherein the reflector (3) is a reflecting plate, and along an X-axis direction and/or a Y-axis direction, the reflector (3) is thicker in the middle and thinner on both sides, so that the ultrasonic waves from the ultrasonic probe (1) can disperse along the corresponding direction (Fig. 7 illustrates ultrasound transducer (2) utilizing a reflector plate (3) which is thicker in the middle and thinner on both sides
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of ultrasonic presence detection, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Yang, as modified in view of Hucker, to include the reflector thickness distribution of Schulte with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of creating a spread out wide angle of dispersion for the emitted ultrasound waves [attached machine translation, pg. 4-5].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Hucker and Schulte as applied to claim 6, and further in view of Watanabe et a. (US 20190339370 A1, “Watanabe”).
Regarding claim 9, Yang, as modified in view of Hucker and Schulte teaches the ultrasonic detection device as claimed in claim 6. Yang, as modified in view of Hucker and Schulte may not explicitly teach an acoustic wave absorbing device (11), and the acoustic wave absorbing device (11) is arranged on the ultrasonic probe (1) or on the reflector (3) or in between.
Watanabe teaches an acoustic wave absorbing device (11), and the acoustic wave absorbing device (11) is arranged on the ultrasonic probe (1) or on the reflector (3) or in between ([0050], transducer includes a sound absorber defined by a molded body of sponge material or the like, interposed between the resin and a portion to accommodate the piezoelectric element).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of ultrasonic presence detection, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Yang, as modified in view of Hucker and Schulte, to include the sound absorber disposition of Watanabe with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of accommodating the piezoelectric element and reducing unwanted vibrations [0050].
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Yang in view of Hucker as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Agam et al. (US 6417602 B1, “Agam”).
Regarding claim 10, Yang, as modified in view of Hucker, discloses the ultrasonic detection device as claimed in claim 1. Yang may not explicitly disclose a mounting bracket (2) is also provided for mounting the ultrasonic probe (1).
Agam teaches a mounting bracket (2) is also provided for mounting the ultrasonic probe (1) ([column 1, line 65]-[column 2, line 11], ultrasonic transducer reflector assembly is provided with a mounting surface to mount the transducer being mounted upon in an off-axis relationship with the reflective surface).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of ultrasonic presence detection, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Yang, to include the mounting surface of Agam with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of mounting the ultrasonic transducer in a fixed position in order to reliably direct ultrasonic energy towards the reflector [column 1, line 65]-[column 2, line 11].
Regarding claim 11, Yang, as modified in view of Hucker and Agam teaches the ultrasonic detection device as claimed in claim 10. Agam further teaches wherein the reflector (3) is integrated with the mounting bracket (2) ([column 1, line 65]-[column 2, line 11], ultrasonic transducer reflector assembly is provided with a mounting surface to mount the transducer being mounted upon in an off-axis relationship with the reflective surface).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Hucker and Mills as applied to claim 7, and further in view of Watanabe et a. (US 20190339370 A1, “Watanabe”).
Regarding claim 12, Yang, as modified in view of Hucker and Mills, teaches the ultrasonic detection device as claimed in claim 7. Yang, as modified in view of Hucker and Mills, may not explicitly teach an acoustic wave absorbing device (11), and the acoustic wave absorbing device (11) is arranged on the ultrasonic probe (1) or on the reflector (3) or in between.
Watanabe teaches an acoustic wave absorbing device (11), and the acoustic wave absorbing device (11) is arranged on the ultrasonic probe (1) or on the reflector (3) or in between. ([0050], transducer includes a sound absorber defined by a molded body of sponge material or the like, interposed between the resin and a portion to accommodate the piezoelectric element).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of ultrasonic presence detection, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Yang, as modified in view of Hucker and Mills, to include the sound absorber disposition of Watanabe with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of accommodating the piezoelectric element and reducing unwanted vibrations [0050].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 6th, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pg. 2-3 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues that Yang, as modified in view of Hucker fails to teach the limitations of amended claim 1 for the following reasons:
Hucker is directed towards measuring inclination and correcting errors associated with a detection field
Hucker is directed towards detection of objects associated with the detection field as opposed to monitoring the flow of people passing through the field.
With respect to (1), the examiner agrees that Hucker teaches measuring and correcting the inclination of an associated detection field, however that is not the sole aspect of the detection device of Hucker. For example, Hucker at [attached machine translation, pg. 3] teaches that the detection device (12) is configured to monitor a detection field for the presence of objects within the detection field. Hucker at [attached machine translation, pg. 4] further teaches that the detection field may be associated with an automatic sliding door and includes an evaluation unit and microcontroller for evaluating the output signals in the ultrasonic frequency range within the detection field. It is the examiner’s interpretation that these citations demonstrate the Hucker teaches monitoring a doorway through the use of ultrasonic signals to determine the presence of objects within the detection field. In the context of an automatic sliding door, objects entering and exiting the detection field reasonably including people, or a flow of people moving through the detection field.
With respect to (2), the examiner agrees that Hucker states the capability of detecting objects within a detection field, however that does not prevent Hucker from reading upon the limitations associated with monitoring the flow of people. As noted in the response to arguments associated with (1), above, Hucker at [attached machine translation, pg. 4] teaches that the detection field may be associated with an automatic sliding door and includes an evaluation unit and microcontroller for evaluating the output signals in the ultrasonic frequency range within the detection field. In the context of an automatic sliding door, objects present within a detection field implicitly includes humans. This indicates that in order for the sliding door to function properly, a flow of people would implicitly be monitored in order to ensure the doors operation as intended. Further, the claims, as currently drafted, do not specify how the measurement of the flow of people (i.e. determining flow rate of persons who have passed through the predetermined space in a given time period) is conducted in a manner that differentiates the claim language from the object (presence) detection of Hucker. Therefore the rejection of amended claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained over Yang in view of Hucker.
On pg. 3 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues that due to the alleged allowability of claim 1, that claims 2-12 are therefore in condition for allowance. As noted in the response to arguments associated with claim 1, above, the rejection is maintained. Similarly, so are the rejections of claims 2-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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:
Schulte (US 5869764 A, “Schulte 2”) which discloses an ultrasonic transducer with a parabolic reflector
Jeyaraj (“Vibro-acoustic behavior of an isotropic plate with arbitrarily varying thickness." European Journal of Mechanics-A/Solids 29.6 (2010): 1088-1094, “Jeyeraj”) which discloses properties of various plate reflector shapes and thicknesses on acoustic transmissions.
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