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 .
Application Status
This first non-final is in response to applicant’s original filing of 30 May 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-9, 11-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isaacson et al. (US 2017/0168800) in view of Bauer et al. (US 2021/0263147).
With respect to claim 1, and commensurate claim 15, Isaacson et al. teaches a signal control apparatus (see at least ¶[0028]-[0029]), comprising: control circuitry, which, in operation, executes software for controlling a transmission signal transmitted from at least one sonar (see at least ¶[0028], [0068] and [0074] wherein the marine electronics device is used to control the peripheral devices including the sonar device); and software update circuitry, which, in operation, updates the software (see at least ¶[0047]-[0058] wherein the software of the peripheral devices are updated). While Isaacson et al. teaches that the software versions are verified based on a comparison of current version files, Isaacson et al. does not specifically teach wherein the control circuitry compares the transmission signal with a reception signal, the transmission signal being controlled by executing the software, the reception signal being received by one of the at least one sonar, the software having been updated. However, such matter is taught by Bauer et al (see at least ¶ [0123]-[0133] wherein the system compares the transmitted and received ultrasonic signals and correlates the receiver outputs and signal characteristics to determine proper working of a sensor). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify the marine electronics system of Isaacson et al. to include the signal comparison and self-testing techniques of Bauer et al. in order to improve reliability of the sonar system. Combining these known techniques for testing and validating a system would have predictably improved the reliability of the system without changing the basic operation of either system.
With respect to claim 4, and commensurate claim 17. Isaacson et al. does not teach but Bauer et al. teaches wherein the control circuitry compares a ROM pattern with the reception signal (see at least ¶ [0123]-[0133]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify the marine electronics system of Isaacson et al. to include the signal comparison and self-testing techniques of Bauer et al. in order to improve reliability of the sonar system. Combining these known techniques for testing and validating a system would have predictably improved the reliability of the system without changing the basic operation of either system.
With respect to claim 5, and commensurate claim 18, Isaacson et al. does not teach but Bauer et al. teaches wherein the control circuitry compares the transmission signal before modulation with the reception signal that has been demodulated (see at least ¶ [0123]-[0133]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify the marine electronics system of Isaacson et al. to include the signal comparison and self-testing techniques of Bauer et al. in order to improve reliability of the sonar system. Combining these known techniques for testing and validating a system would have predictably improved the reliability of the system without changing the basic operation of either system.
With respect to claim 6, and commensurate claim 19, Isaacson et al. does not teach but Bauer et al. teaches wherein the control circuitry compares a reverberation length of the transmission signal with a reverberation length of the reception signal. (see at least ¶ [0123]-[0133]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify the marine electronics system of Isaacson et al. to include the signal comparison and self-testing techniques of Bauer et al. in order to improve reliability of the sonar system. Combining these known techniques for testing and validating a system would have predictably improved the reliability of the system without changing the basic operation of either system.
With respect to claim 7, Isaacson et al. does not specifically teach but Bauer et al. teaches wherein the control circuitry compares a frequency of the transmission signal with a frequency of the reception signal (see at least ¶ [0123]-[0133]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify the marine electronics system of Isaacson et al. to include the signal comparison and self-testing techniques of Bauer et al. in order to improve reliability of the sonar system. Combining these known techniques for testing and validating a system would have predictably improved the reliability of the system without changing the basic operation of either system.
With respect to claim 8, Isaacson et al. does not teach but Bauer et al. teaches wherein the control circuitry compares a frequency of a reverberation of the transmission signal with a frequency of a reverberation of the reception signal (see at least ¶ [0123]-[0133]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify the marine electronics system of Isaacson et al. to include the signal comparison and self-testing techniques of Bauer et al. in order to improve reliability of the sonar system. Combining these known techniques for testing and validating a system would have predictably improved the reliability of the system without changing the basic operation of either system.
With respect to claim 9, Isaacson et al. does not teach but Bauer et al. teaches wherein the control circuitry adjusts the transmission signal based on a result of a comparison of the transmission signal with the reception signal (see at least ¶ [0123]-[0133]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify the marine electronics system of Isaacson et al. to include the signal comparison and self-testing techniques of Bauer et al. in order to improve reliability of the sonar system. Combining these known techniques for testing and validating a system would have predictably improved the reliability of the system without changing the basic operation of either system.
With respect to claim 11, Isaacson et al. does not teach but Bauer et al. teaches wherein the control circuitry changes a modulation method of the transmission signal according to a position in which the at least one sonar is installed (see at least ¶ [0123]-[0133]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify the marine electronics system of Isaacson et al. to include the signal comparison and self-testing techniques of Bauer et al. in order to improve reliability of the sonar system. Combining these known techniques for testing and validating a system would have predictably improved the reliability of the system without changing the basic operation of either system.
With respect to claim 12, and commensurate claim 20, Isaacson et al. does not teach but Bauer et al. teaches wherein the control circuitry changes, according to a situation of a vehicle, a modulation method of the transmission signal, the vehicle being a vehicle in which the at least one sonar is mounted (see at least ¶ [0123]-[0133]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify the marine electronics system of Isaacson et al. to include the signal comparison and self-testing techniques of Bauer et al. in order to improve reliability of the sonar system. Combining these known techniques for testing and validating a system would have predictably improved the reliability of the system without changing the basic operation of either system.
With respect to claim 13, Isaacson et al. teaches the signal control apparatus according to claim 1; and the at least one sonar (see at least ¶[0028]-[0029, [0068] and [0074)].
With respect to claim 14, Isaacson et al. teaches vehicle, in which the sonar system is mounted (see at least marine vessel 120).
Claims 2-3, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isaacson et al. (US 2017/0168800) in view of Bauer et al. (US 2021/0263147) and further in view of Xu et al. (“Analyzing and Enhancing the Security of Ultrasonic Sensors for Autonomous Vehicles”).
With respect to claim 2, modified Isaacson et al. does not specifically teach
wherein the reception signal is a signal received by, among the at least one sonar, a sonar that has transmitted the transmission signal. However, such matter is taught by Xu et al. (see at least Section V, A “Physical Shift Authentication” wherein a sensor transmits a ping and receives echoes from the same sensor cycle). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to use the teachings of Xu et al. going to the comparison of transmitted signals and receives echoes and compares the waveform characteristics for authentication and validation checks with the system of modified Isaacson et al. going to the validation of a software update in a sensor system as software updating is routine in embedded controller systems and ensuring that the sensor system is working properly would increase reliability of the system.
With respect to claim 10, modified Isaacson et al. does not specifically teach
wherein the control circuitry performs control such that the reception signal is attenuated. However, such matter is taught by Xu et al. (see at least Section V, A “Physical Shift Authentication” wherein a sensor transmits a ping and receives echoes from the same sensor cycle). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to use the teachings of Xu et al. going to the comparison of transmitted signals and receives echoes and compares the waveform characteristics for authentication and validation checks with the system of modified Isaacson et al. going to the validation of a software update in a sensor system as software updating is routine in embedded controller systems and ensuring that the sensor system is working properly would increase reliability of the system.
With respect to claim 3, and commensurate claim 16, modified Isaacson et al. does not specifically teach wherein the reception signal is a signal received directly by, among the at least one sonar, a sonar different from a sonar that has transmitted the transmission signal. (see at least Section V, B “Multiple Sensor Consistency Check” wherein one sensor transmits a ping and multiple other sensors receives the echoes for cross-checking). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to use the teachings of Xu et al. going to the comparison of transmitted signals and receives echoes and compares the waveform characteristics for authentication and validation checks with the system of modified Isaacson et al. going to the validation of a software update in a sensor system as software updating is routine in embedded controller systems and ensuring that the sensor system is working properly would increase reliability of the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI whose telephone number is (313)446-6519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 to 5:00.
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, JAMES TRAMMELL can be reached at 571-272-6712. 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.
ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3666A
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights