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 Applicant's Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed on 04/12/2026 with respect to amended claims are fully considered but are not persuasive. Explanations of how each and every claimed limitation is being met or rendered obvious are provided below.
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).
Per claim 1, 9 and 17, Mossau teaches a device comprising (0028 teaches a distance measuring apparatus): an ultrasonic transducer configured to emit an ultrasonic pulse and receive returned signals corresponding to the emitted ultrasonic pulse (0014 teaches a transmitter unit applies an excitation pulse to the diaphragm of the first ultrasonic sensor, so that the diaphragm thus emits an ultrasound into the sensing range. 0015 teaches an echo is determined that is produced by an object…through reflection of the excitation pulse); and at least one processor coupled with the ultrasonic transducer and configured to (0027 teaches evaluation unit may include a microprocessor, microcontroller): evaluate returned signals from a first plurality of emitted ultrasonic pulses (0037 teaches in the case of repeated measuring cycles…an excitation pulse is provided…and the echoes are ascertained); detect an obstruction characteristic based on the evaluation (0016 teaches evaluation unit now signals the occlusion…when the decay time is less than a predetermined threshold value. 0007 teaches if only a highly attenuated echo or no echo at all is received, an occluded ultrasonic is assumed); and determine the ultrasonic transducer is obstructed based on the detected obstruction characteristic (0016 teaches signals the occlusion of the first ultrasonic sensor).
But, Mossau does not explicitly teach the obstruction characteristic is an absence of an echo in the received signals above a noise level other than a ringdown amplitude.
In an analogous art, Moskovchenko teaches the obstruction characteristic is an absence of an echo in the received signals above a noise level other than a ringdown amplitude (Moskovchenko discloses that a transducer transmits an ultrasonic signal and receives an ultrasonic response. See paras 0051-0052 and 109. Moskovchenko further teaches determining a noise floor estimate, stating that a “noise floor estimation mechanism listens to and measures a background level of noise with an environment…over a period of time” and that “noise values measured over that period of time can be used…to determine the noise floor estimate. See para 0063. Moskovchenko also teaches determining whether the ultrasonic response includes a target value and, when it does not, treating the response as lacking a detected echo/target. Moskovchenko discloses that “a determination is made as to whether the ultrasonic response to the ultrasonic signal includes at least one target value” and that “in some cases the ultrasonic response may not include any target values”. See para 0073. Moskovchenko further teaches that the target values are evaluated separately from ringdown by determining whether a target value is “inside of a ring-down window,” and explains that “the target value is inside of the ring-down window if it is received while the transducer is ringing”. See para 0082. Therefore, Moskovchenko teaches evaluating whether an ultrasonic response includes a target value above a noise floor and distinguishing target values inside or outside a ring-down window, thereby teaching an absence of an echo/target value in received signals above a noise level other than ringdown amplitude.
Therefore, before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mossau’s ultrasonic obstruction detection system to use Moskovchenko’s noise-floor and ring-down-window processing when determining whether an echo is absent, because both references are directed ultrasonic transducer signal processing and object/echo detection. The modification would improve reliability by distinguishing actual returned echoes from a background noise and ringdown artifacts, thereby reducing false obstruction 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).
Claim(s) 7-8, 15-16 and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mossau et al (US 2016/0291153) and Moskovchenko et al (US 2019/0004172) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Zhevelev et al (US 5973996).
Per claim 7, 15 and 23, Mossau teaches variation in ringdown amplitude (0014 the decay time of the natural oscillation of the diaphragm. 0016 teaches signals the occlusion when the decay time is less than a predetermined threshold value, thus teaching obstruction based on variation in ringdown behavior. Mossau in paragraph 0016 further teaches reference ringdown value (preferably, the threshold value is parameterizable).
But, Mossau does not explicitly teach reference determined based on pervious usage. In an analogous art, Zhevelev teaches ultrasound detector comprising of detecting presence of a moving object in a detection area (abstract). Zhevelev further teaches reference determined based on previous usage (Col. 6-7 teaches the received signal is evaluated over time and system parameters are adjusted based on previous signal levels. Zhevelev further teaches reference values are updated based on prior measurements. Therefore, before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine Mossau’s ringdown reference value based on previous range, as taught by Zhevelev, in order to account for sensor aging, environmental changes and installation specific characteristics. The rationale would be to provide a known calibration technique to improve reliability of obstruction detection.
Per claim 8, 16 and 24, Mossau in paragraph 0016 and 0017 teaches obstruction determination based on comparing evaluated signal characteristics to predetermined thresholds. But, Mossau does not explicitly teach wherein the detected obstruction characteristic is a saturation of the received signals within a threshold range.
However, Zhevelev teaches wherein the detected obstruction characteristic is a saturation of the received signals within a threshold range (Col. 6-7 teaches to prevent signal saturation due to strong ultrasound reflections. Zhevelev further teaches the received signals are adjusted to compensate for varying input signal levels and to prevent signal saturation). Therefore, before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Zhevelev’s saturation detection into Mossau’s obstruction detection framework, because saturation is a known indicator of abnormal ultrasonic operation and represents a predictable alternative obstruction characteristic evaluated using the same threshold-comparison logic already employed by Mossau.
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 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
Prosecution Insights