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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/09/2026 has been entered.
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) 1-6, 9-14, 17-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mossau et al (US 2016/0291153) in view of Moskovchenko et al (US 2019/0004172).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 17, Mossau teaches a device comprising an ultrasonic transducer configured to emit an ultrasonic pulse and receive returned signals corresponding to the emitted ultrasonic pulse, wherein ultrasonic sensors include diaphragms excited by excitation pulses to radiate ultrasound, and reflected ultrasound is received as an echo and converted into measuring signals for evaluation (paras. [0014]-[0015], [0034]).
Mossau further teaches at least one processor coupled with the ultrasonic transducer and configured to evaluate returned signals from a first plurality of emitted ultrasonic pulses, wherein evaluation unit 20 evaluates measuring signals generated from received echoes, and repeated measuring cycles include providing excitation pulses and ascertaining the corresponding echoes (paras. [0027], [0034], [0037]).
Mossau further teaches detect an obstruction characteristic based on the evaluation; and determine the ultrasonic transducer is obstructed based on the detected obstruction characteristic, wherein repeated measurements producing an unvarying distance caused by a pseudo-obstacle allow evaluation unit 20 to recognize that the ultrasonic sensors are covered by dirt or icing (paras. [0036]-[0037]).
Mossau further teaches that an ultrasonic sensor may be physically occluded by an object, such as an ice layer or dirt, which compromises the sensing capability of the ultrasonic sensor, including blocking its sensing range and preventing detection of foreign objects (paras. [0013], [0022], [0036]-[0037]). Thus, Mossau teaches wherein the obstruction characteristic indicates physical presence of an object is compromising capability of the ultrasonic transducer.
Mossau does not expressly teach the obstruction characteristic is an absence of an echo in the received signals above a noise level other than a ringdown amplitude.
Moskovchenko teaches determining a noise floor estimate for an ultrasonic transducer and evaluating an ultrasonic response to determine whether the response includes a target value. Moskovchenko teaches that the ultrasonic response may contain no target value, including where the response is too weak to be detected, and upon determining that the response contains no target value, a new noise floor estimate may be determined (paras. [0054], [0071]-[0074]). Moskovchenko further separately identifies transducer ringing and an associated ring-down window, thereby distinguishing transducer ringdown from noise-floor-based evaluation of the received ultrasonic response (paras. [0053]-[0054], [0082]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Moskovchenko's noise-floor-based ultrasonic response evaluation into Mossau's ultrasonic sensor obstruction-detection system to distinguish meaningful returned echoes from background noise and transducer ringdown, thereby improving the reliability of determining whether an expected echo is absent and reducing erroneous sensor-state determinations.
Per claim 2, 10 and 18, Mossau teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine the ultrasonic transducer is obstructed when the obstruction characteristic is detected (0016 teaches evaluation unit now signals the occlusion of the first ultrasonic sensor. 0037 teaches in the case of repeated measuring cycles an excitation pulse is provided and the echoes are ascertained. But, Mossau doesn’t explicitly teach for a first series of sequential ultrasonic pulses emitted over a first period of time.
However, examiner will take Official Notice that before the effective filling data of the invention that it is well known in the art of sensor systems to require that a detected abnormal condition persist over multiple sequential measurement cycles over a period of time before determining a fault or obstruction condition. In view of the above, and in light of the well-known practice of requiring persistence of a detected condition over multiple sequential measurements, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure Mossau’s processor to determine that the ultrasonic transducer is obstructed when the obstruction characteristic is detected for a series of sequential ultrasonic pulses emitted over a period of time. The rationale would be to reduce false detections caused by transient noise or momentary disturbances.
Applicant did not traverse the Examiner’s taking of Official Notice. Accordingly, the noticed fact is accepted as admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03.
Per claim 3, 11 and 19, Mossau teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: evaluate returned signals from a second plurality of emitted ultrasonic pulses subsequent to the first plurality (0037 teaches in the case of repeated measuring cycle, an excitation pulse is provided and the echoes are ascertained); detect an absence of the obstruction characteristic based on the evaluation (0016 teaches signals the occlusion when the decay time is less than a predetermined threshold value. Thus, when the evaluated decay time does not satisfy this condition, the obstruction characteristic is absent. Mossau further mentions example of non-occluded sensor states where decay times indicate unencumbered diaphragm. 0043 teaches decay times point toward unencumbered diaphragms); and determine the ultrasonic transducer is unobstructed based on the absence of the detected obstruction characteristic. Mossau doesn’t explicitly teach the term “determine unobstructed”. However, the process of Mossau determines direct and predictable results of the disclosed threshold-based occlusion signaling. 0043 teaches ultrasonic sensors were free, that is, unblocked, which further means the non-occluded sensor state. However, examiner will take Official Notice that before the effective filling date of the invention, that it is well-known in the art of control and sensor systems that when a condition used to signal a fault or obstruction is absent, the system determines that the device is operating normally or is unobstructed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the absent of obstruction, signals that the ultrasonic transducer is unobstructed.
Applicant did not traverse the Examiner’s taking of Official Notice. Accordingly, the noticed fact is accepted as admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03.
Per claim 4, 12 and 20, Mossau in rejection of claim 1 and 3 already teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine the ultrasonic transducer is unobstructed when the obstruction characteristic is absent. But, Mossau does not explicitly teach for a second series of sequential ultrasonic pulses emitted over a second period of time.
Examiner will take Official Notice, that before the effective filling date of the invention, it is well-known in the art of sensor and control systems to require that absence of a fault or obstruction condition be confirmed over multiple sequential measurement cycles and over a period of time before determining that the sensor has returned to a normal or unobstructed state. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for Mossau to routinely detect obstruction condition over multiple time frame. The rationale will be to minimize fault and to prevent oscillation between fault and normal states due to transient conditions. This represents routine temporal confirmation logic.
Applicant did not traverse the Examiner’s taking of Official Notice. Accordingly, the noticed fact is accepted as admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03.
Per claim 5, 13 and 21, Mossau teaches wherein the detected obstruction characteristic is the same for the returned signals from the first plurality of emitted ultrasonic pulses (0037 teaches repeated measuring cycles in which excitation pulses are transmitted and echoes are evaluated. 0007 teaches determining that the sensor is occluded when only highly attenuated echoes or no echoes are received, after which the evaluation unit signals the occlusion of the sensor. See para 0016.
Per claim 6, 14 and 22, Mossau teaches wherein the detected obstruction characteristic is an absence of an echo in the received signals beyond a threshold range (0007 teaches if only a highly attenuated echo or no echo at all is received, an occluded or defective ultrasonic sensor is assumed. 0017 teaches the distance value ascertained is less than a predetermined maximum value. The maximum value may lie in a range of 0 cm to 50 cm).
Claims 7, 15 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mossau et al. (US 2016/0291153 A1) in view of Moskovchenko et al. (US 2019/0004172 A1) and further in view of Chiapetta (US 2003/0039171 A1).
Regarding claim 7, 15 and 23 Mossau in view of Moskovchenko teaches the limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. However, Mossau and Moskovchenko do not expressly teach wherein the obstruction characteristic comprises a variation in ringdown amplitude and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine a reference ringdown amplitude based on previous usage of the ultrasonic transducer.
Chiapetta teaches determining ring-down characteristics of an ultrasonic transducer, including amplitudes of the sound waves produced during transducer ring-down (paras. [0051], [0060]). Chiapetta further teaches repeatedly operating the transducer, storing the ring-down amplitudes obtained during multiple cycles, and using the stored amplitudes as amplitude thresholds, including averaging amplitudes from corresponding cycles of different signals (paras. [0062]-[0065]). Chiapetta further teaches periodically remodeling the transducer to account for changes in the transducer ring-down profile caused by changing environmental conditions and transducer degradation (para. [0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Chiapetta's stored and periodically updated ring-down amplitude reference into the ultrasonic sensor system of Mossau as modified by Moskovchenko to identify variations in the transducer's ring-down amplitude relative to its previously measured ring-down response, thereby accounting for changes in transducer performance over time and improving the reliability of ultrasonic signal evaluation.
Claims 8, 16 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mossau et al. (US 2016/0291153 A1) in view of Moskovchenko et al. (US 2019/0004172 A1) and further in view of Langlois et al. (US 2007/0034010 A1).
Regarding claim 8, 16 and 24, Mossau in view of Moskovchenko teaches the limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. However, Mossau and Moskovchenko do not expressly teach wherein the obstruction characteristic comprises saturation of the received signals within a threshold range.
Langlois teaches receiving ultrasonic echo signals and processing the received echo signals through a receiver channel including an analog-to-digital converter (paras. [0029]-[0031]). Langlois further teaches detecting saturation of the received ultrasonic signal by assigning a saturation threshold to the output of the analog-to-digital converter and detecting saturation when the digital output exceeds the assigned threshold (paras. [0041]-[0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Langlois's threshold-based saturation detection into the ultrasonic sensor system of Mossau as modified by Moskovchenko to detect when received ultrasonic signals reach a level associated with saturation, thereby identifying unreliable received-signal conditions and improving the reliability of the ultrasonic signal evaluation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bhardwaj et al (US 2023/0293910) paragraph 0085
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMEED ALIZADA whose telephone number is (571)270-5907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 am until 5:30 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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached on 571-272-3059. 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.
/OMEED ALIZADA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
