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 .
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, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda (US 5,686,925) and Barra (US 2020/0200891 A1).
Regarding claim 1, 9, and 15, Maeda teaches a method, a system, and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, comprising:
determining a speed of an unmanned aerial vehicle [[abstract] speed conversion coefficient calculating section 104 calculates a ratio of a GPS Doppler velocity calculated by a GPS velocity calculating section 101 to a vehicle speed measured by a speed sensor 102; [col. 2:15-20] principal object of the present invention is to provide a system for promptly and accurately obtaining a speed sensor coefficient fitting to any type of vehicle];
determining a doppler shift threshold [[col. 2:30-35] make a judgement as to whether the GPS velocity is more than a predetermined threshold, so as to allow calculation of the speed conversion coefficient only when the GPS velocity is more than the predetermined threshold];
Maeda does not explicitly teach and yet Barra teaches transmitting ultrasonic signals from a transducer of the unmanned aerial vehicle, wherein the ultrasonic signals have a burst count or a voltage [[abstract] measuring, using a radar or sonar, the velocity with respect to the ground of a carrier moving parallel to the ground; [0007] article by Kleinhempel, W., D. Bergmann, and W. Stammler. “speed measure of vehicles with on-board Doppler radar”;[0038] dwell time and the number of pulses emitted and echoes received influence the precision of estimation of the velocity of a carrier that does not move at a constant velocity];
receiving an ultrasonic response to a first ultrasonic signal of the ultrasonic signals [[abstract] emitting a plurality of radar or sonar signals (P1-PN) that are directed toward the ground, and acquiring respective echo signals; [0039] delay T in reception of an echo signal with respect to the corresponding emission time, which delay is related to the radar/ground distance D by the relationship D=cT/2, c being the speed of propagation of the signal (speed of light in the case of a radar, speed of sound in the case of a sonar)]; and
determining if the speed of the unmanned aerial vehicle exceeds the doppler shift threshold [[0033] data-processing operations allowing a velocity measurement to be extracted from a delay/Doppler matrix of the type illustrated in FIG. 2; [0038]]; and
responsive to determining that the speed of the unmanned aerial vehicle exceeds the doppler shift threshold, adjusting the ultrasonic response in accordance to the doppler shift threshold by increasing the burst count or the voltage of a subsequent transmission of the ultrasonic signals to increase output power and overcome resonance introduced by a Doppler shift [[0034] algorithm allowing a velocity measurement to be extracted from a delay/Doppler matrix according to one embodiment of the invention; [0038] invention exploits measurements of time-of-flight and of Doppler shift to estimate both the distance from the ground and its velocity relative to the carrier … number N of pulses is generally comprised between 10 and 100, and may for example be N=32 or N=64. The choice of N is made depending on the intended application, and in particular depending on the expected variations in the velocity of the carrier and on the expected maximum distance of obstacles; [0039] dimension along which the Fourier transform is computed corresponds to the Doppler shift, which conveys velocity information. As a variant, it is possible to consider a range/Doppler matrix].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the doppler speed sensing as taught by Maeda, with the adjusting of number of pulses as taught by Barra because the number of pulses emitted and echoes received influence the precision of estimation of the velocity of a carrier that does not move at a constant velocity (Barra) [[0038]].
Claims 3-8, 11-14, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda (US 5,686,925) and Barra (US 2020/0200891 A1) as applied to claims 1, 9, and 15 above, and further in view of Sparling (US 6,133,826).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Maeda does not explicitly teach and yet Sparling teaches the method of claim 1, vehicle of claim 9, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 15, further comprising: detecting if there is feedback within a ring-down window [[col. 2:1-10] transceiver is energized during which it is not capable of detecting energy returns. The transducer element within the transceiver continues to oscillate "ring" during this period much like a bell rings after being struck. This period is referred to as the "ringout" period. An object may be close enough to the transceiver that energy returns from the object may fall within the ringout period and may thus be undetectable].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the comparison of speed sensors as taught by Maeda, with the detection of oscillating/ringing of a transceiver as taught by Sparling so that the ringout period may be reduced (Sparling) [[fig. 10]].
Regarding claim 4, Maeda does not explicitly teach and yet Sparling teaches the method of claim 3, further comprising: reducing a ring-down time of the transducer if the feedback is detected within the ring-down window [[col. 7:20-30] when detecting objects within the sub-field 42 adjacent the vehicle, it is possible to reduce the ringout period. For example, as mentioned above, both the number of pulses and amplitude of the pulses may be reduced. This effectively lowers the energy emission, and correspondingly reduces the ringout time. Additionally, the duty cycle may be altered.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the comparison of speed sensors as taught by Maeda, with the detection of oscillating/ringing of a transceiver as taught by Sparling so that the ringout period may be reduced (Sparling) [[fig. 10]].
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Maeda does not explicitly teach and yet Sparling teaches the method of claim 4 and vehicle of claim 11, wherein the ring-down time is reduced with a counter-drive mechanism that acts against the transducer [[col. 7:20-30] when detecting objects within the sub-field 42 adjacent the vehicle, it is possible to reduce the ringout period. For example, as mentioned above, both the number of pulses and amplitude of the pulses may be reduced. This effectively lowers the energy emission, and correspondingly reduces the ringout time. Additionally, the duty cycle may be altered.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the comparison of speed sensors as taught by Maeda, with the detection of oscillating/ringing of a transceiver as taught by Sparling so that the ringout period may be reduced (Sparling) [[fig. 10]].
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 19, Maeda does not explicitly teach and yet Sparling teaches the method of claim 1, vehicle of claim 9, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 15, further comprising: determining if the ultrasonic response of the ultrasonic signals include a secondary reflection [[col. 3:55-65] for each sensor 20 the respective portion, 34-40, is further divided into sub-fields extending longitudinally from the vehicle 10. A first sub-field 42 is disposed adjacent to the surface 18 and extends from the surface 18 a distance X1 . A second sub-field 44 extends a distance X2 , a third sub-field 46 extends a distance X3 , and so on until a last sub-field 50 extends a distance Xn from the vehicle 10; [col. 5:25-35] this allows for the detection of objects lying within the sub-field and substantially closer to the vehicle than would otherwise be possible by detecting either a primary energy return 58 or a secondary energy return 66].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the comparison of speed sensors as taught by Maeda, with the detection of secondary returns as taught by Sparling so that the objects close to the vehicle may be detected (Sparling) [[col. 5:25-30]].
Regarding claim 7, Maeda does not explicitly teach and yet Sparling teaches the method of claim 6, further comprising: determining a secondary reflection target value of the ultrasonic signals [[col. 5:25-35] this allows for the detection of objects lying within the sub-field and substantially closer to the vehicle than would otherwise be possible by detecting either a primary energy return 58 or a secondary energy return 66].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the comparison of speed sensors as taught by Maeda, with the detection of secondary returns as taught by Sparling so that the objects close to the vehicle may be detected (Sparling) [[col. 5:25-30]].
Regarding claims 8, 14, and 20, Maeda does not explicitly teach and yet Sparling teaches the method of claim 6, vehicle of claim 13, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 19, further comprising: changing an ultrasonic ranging state [[col. 7:20-30] when detecting objects within the sub-field 42 adjacent the vehicle, it is possible to reduce the ringout period. For example, as mentioned above, both the number of pulses and amplitude of the pulses may be reduced. This effectively lowers the energy emission, and correspondingly reduces the ringout time. Additionally, the duty cycle may be altered.], and discarding the secondary reflection [[col. 5:35-45] this process is repeated for each sub-field 42-50, steps 114-120. With the sub-fields displaced at least one sub-field from the vehicle 10, secondary echo's are not of concern for the detection of objects because these sub-fields are displaced such that an object will not be located near enough to the vehicle to generate an energy return that is within the ringout distance from the sensor 20.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the comparison of speed sensors as taught by Maeda, with the lack of concern for secondary echoes as taught by Sparling because these sub-fields are displaced such that an object will not be located near enough to the vehicle to generate an energy return that is within the ringout distance from the sensor (Sparling) [[col. 5:35-45]].
Regarding claim 17, Maeda does not explicitly teach and yet Sparling teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein the processor detects if there is feedback and reduces a ring-down time of the transducer [[col. 7:20-30] when detecting objects within the sub-field 42 adjacent the vehicle, it is possible to reduce the ringout period. For example, as mentioned above, both the number of pulses and amplitude of the pulses may be reduced. This effectively lowers the energy emission, and correspondingly reduces the ringout time. Additionally, the duty cycle may be altered.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the comparison of speed sensors as taught by Maeda, with the detection of oscillating/ringing of a transceiver as taught by Sparling so that the ringout period may be reduced (Sparling) [[fig. 10]].
Regarding claim 18, Maeda does not explicitly teach and yet Sparling teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein a ring-down window is a period of time between when ringing of a ring-down begins and stops [[col. 7:20-30] when detecting objects within the sub-field 42 adjacent the vehicle, it is possible to reduce the ringout period].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the comparison of speed sensors as taught by Maeda, with the detection of oscillating/ringing of a transceiver as taught by Sparling so that the ringout period may be reduced (Sparling) [[fig. 10]].
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda (US 5,686,925) and Barra (US 2020/0200891 A1) as applied to claims 1, 9, and 15 above, and further in view of Archibald (Texas Instruments, 2008).
Regarding claims 21-23, Maeda does not explicitly teach and yet Archibald teaches the method of claim 1, the unmanned aerial vehicle of claim 9, nor the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, further comprising: determining a noise floor estimate for gain values of the transducer of the unmanned aerial vehicle based on a binary search performed over a gain space [[abstract] automatic gain controller … provides options for static and dynamic noise floor estimation; [sec. 1 introduction] sound signal is converted to an electrical signal by a microphone; [sec. 2.2.3.1 raw gain computation] gain required to level the input signal to the maximum amplitude … is stored in lookup tables with the memory address index mapping to gain and the memory content holding the peak level … [b]inary search is used for speeding up the gain selection. The table is divided into two equal halves. The half which contains the gain value is further divided into equal halves.; [sec. 2.2.3.3 gain shaping] gain curve is stored in a lookup table; [sec. 3 results] gain curve consists of analog, residual digital, and sum of analog and digital gains. The variation of peak signal envelope is used to estimate noise floor].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the doppler speed sensing as taught by Maeda, with the binary search for determining the gain curve and associated noise floor as taught by Archibald so that the noise floor may be determined dynamically during automatic gain control operation (Archibald) [[abstract]].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 7-10, filed 3/10/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 9, and 15 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 Barra (US 2020/0200891 A1) and Archibald (Texas Instruments, 2008).
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 JONATHAN D ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7339. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9am-5pm.
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.
/JONATHAN D ARMSTRONG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights