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
This Office Action is in response to communications filed May 12, 2026. Claims 1, 12 and 17 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9, 11-13, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gris et al. (Gris; US Patent No. 11,209,541 B1) in view of Dumas (US Pub No. 2019/0244498 A1).
As per claim 1, Gris teaches a device comprising:
an ultrasonic transducer configured to emit an ultrasonic pulse and receive returned signals corresponding to the emitted ultrasonic pulse (col. 2, lines 47-50); and
at least one processor coupled with the ultrasonic transducer (col. 6, line 57) and configured to:
evaluate the returned signals to identify a first candidate echo indicating a first object (col. 11, lines 59-67; col. 12, lines 1-5) within a distance range of interest of the ultrasonic transducer (col. 3, lines 4-7);
identify at least one subsequent candidate echo resulting from a subsequent emitted ultrasonic pulse and a subsequent received returned signal that corresponds to the first object (col. 12, lines 1-5);
compare characteristics of the received returned signal and the subsequent received returned signal (col. 12, lines 16-18).
Gris does not expressly teach and
determine the first candidate echo represents a stationary object based at least in part on the comparison of characteristics of the received returned signal and the subsequent received returned signal.
Dumas teaches and
determine the first candidate echo represents a stationary object based at least in part on the comparison of characteristics of the received returned signal and the subsequent received returned signal (paragraph [0049], lines 12-15).
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement identifying a stationary target as opposed to a moving target as taught by Dumas, since Dumas states in paragraph [0049] that such a method of determination is well known in the art.
As per claim 2, Gris in view of Dumas further teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to characterize the first object as not being a user of the device (Gris, col. 3, lines 4-7; Dumas, paragraph [0049], lines 1-6).
As per claim 3, Gris in view of Dumas further teaches the device of claim 2, wherein the characteristics of the received return signals comprise at least one of amplitude, width and range (Gris, col. 12, lines 19-20; col. 16, lines 16-23; col. 18, lines 6-17).
As per claim 4, Gris in view of Dumas further teaches the device of claim 3, wherein the characteristics of the received return signals comprise each of amplitude, width and range (Gris, col. 12, lines 19-20; col. 16, lines 16-23; col. 18, lines 6-17).
As per claim 5, Gris in view of Dumas further teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the at least one subsequent candidate echo comprises a plurality of candidate echoes (Gris, col. 12, lines 1-5).
As per claim 6, Gris in view of Dumas further teaches the device of claim 5, wherein the plurality of candidate echoes are received over a period of at least 2 seconds (Gris, col. 12, lines 1-5 & 16-18: It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to receive candidate echoes over a period of at least 2 seconds, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.).
As per claim 9, Gris in view of Dumas further teaches the device of claim 1, wherein determining the first candidate echo represents a stationary object occurs when movement of a user unblocks candidate echoes (Dumas, paragraph [0049]).
As per claim 11, Gris in view of Dumas further teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine multiple objects are stationary based on a comparison of characteristics of the received returned signals (Gris, col. 6, lines 45-50: characterize objects).
As per claim 12, (see rejection of claim 1 above) a sensor processing unit comprising:
an ultrasonic transducer configured to emit an ultrasonic pulse and receive returned signals corresponding to the emitted ultrasonic pulse; and
at least one sensor processor coupled with the ultrasonic transducer and configured to:
evaluate the returned signals to identify a first candidate echo indicating a first object within a distance range of interest of the ultrasonic transducer;
identify at least one subsequent candidate echo resulting from a subsequent emitted ultrasonic pulse and a subsequent received returned signal that corresponds to the first object;
compare characteristics of the received returned signal and the subsequent received returned signal; and
determine the first candidate echo represents a stationary object based at least in part on the comparison of characteristics of the received returned signal and the subsequent received returned signal.
As per claim 13, (see rejection of claim 3 above) the sensor processing unit of claim 12, wherein the characteristics of the received return signals comprise at least one of amplitude, width and range.
As per claim 15, (see rejection of claim 9 above) the sensor processing unit of claim 12, wherein determining the first candidate echo represents a stationary object occurs when movement of a user unblocks candidate echoes.
As per claim 16, (see rejection of claim 11 above) the sensor processing unit of claim 12, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine multiple objects are stationary based on a comparison of characteristics of the received returned signals.
As per claim 17, (see rejection of claim 1 above) a method for employing an ultrasonic sensor to identify a stationary object, comprising:
evaluating, employing at least one processor coupled with an ultrasonic transducer, returned signals from a pulse emitted by the ultrasonic transducer to identify a first candidate echo indicating a first object within a distance range of interest of the ultrasonic transducer;
identifying at least one subsequent candidate echo resulting from a subsequent emitted ultrasonic pulse and a subsequent received returned signal that corresponds to the first object;
comparing characteristics of the received returned signal and the subsequent received returned signal; and
determining the first candidate echo represents a stationary object based at least in part on the comparison of characteristics of the received returned signal and the subsequent received returned signal.
As per claim 18, (see rejection of claim 3 above) the method of claim 17, wherein the characteristics of the received return signals comprise at least one of amplitude, width and range.
As per claim 19, (see rejection of claim 9 above) the method of claim 17, wherein determining the first candidate echo represents a stationary object occurs when movement of a user unblocks candidate echoes.
As per claim 20, (see rejection of claim 11 above) the method of claim 17, further comprising determining multiple objects are stationary based on a comparison of characteristics of the received returned signals.
Claim(s) 7, 8 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gris in view of Dumas as applied above, and further in view of Duval et al. (Duval; US Pub No. 2022/0057498 A1).
As per claim 7, Gris in view of Dumas further teaches the device of claim 1.
Gris in view of Dumas does not expressly teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to compare at least one characteristic of the received returned signals using a decreasing threshold for at least one of the characteristics of the received returned signals when determining the first candidate echo represents a stationary object.
Duval teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to compare at least one characteristic of the received returned signals using a decreasing threshold for at least one of the characteristics of the received returned signals when determining the first candidate echo represents a stationary object (paragraph [0052] & [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the amplitude monitoring as taught by Duval, since Duval states in paragraph [0052] and [0054] that such a modification would result in determining whether an object is stationary or in motion based on the amplitude of a returned signal.
As per claim 8, Gris in view of Dumas, and further in view of Duval, further teaches the device of claim 7, wherein the at least one characteristic of the received return signals is amplitude (Duval, paragraph [0052]).
As per claim 14, (see rejection of claim 7 above) the sensor processing unit of claim 12, wherein the at least one processor is configured to compare at least one characteristic of the received returned signals using a decreasing threshold for at least one of the characteristics of the received returned signals when characterizing the first candidate echo as representing a stationary object.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gris in view of Dumas as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jecker et al. (Jecker; US Pub No. 2012/0065877 A1).
As per claim 10, Gris in view of Dumas further teaches the device of claim 1.
Gris in view Dumas does not expressly teach wherein the characterization of the first candidate echo as representing a stationary object is conveyed to a user detection module of the device.
Jecker teaches wherein the characterization of the first candidate echo as representing a stationary object is conveyed to a user detection module of the device (paragraph [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the display device as taught by Jecker, since Jecker states in paragraph [0020] that such a modification would result in notifying a user of the location of a detected stationary object.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the above claim(s) 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
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 NAOMI J SMALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5184. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/NAOMI J SMALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights