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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not). When limitations are sub-numbered, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the first number or letter of the alphabet and not the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented.
In the instant case, the claims individual limitations are sub-numbered in a manner that is confusing. For instance claim 78 has its limitations continuing with the letter "hh" instead of restarting from the letter "a". The situation is the same with claims 79-81, and 86. Each claim that has the individual limitations that are sub-numbered should restart in order to avoid confusion. Appropriate correction is required.
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 79, 83-85 and 87-89 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 20130100774 A1) in view of Ebrahimi (US 11348269 B1).
Regarding claim 79, Brown teaches lll. emitting an ultrasonic burst[0035; 0062-0066 has pulse from emitter #1 in Fig 14, 15];
mmm. receiving, in the at least four ultrasonic sensors, a reflection of ultrasonic bursts[0031, 0032, 0046 and 0064 have echos and Fig 14, 15 have several receiver elements #3];
nnn. converting the received reflection of ultrasonic burst to ultrasonic echoes[0031, 0032, 0046 and 0064 have echos received by elements #3 in Figs 14,15],
ooo. ascertaining distance values based on the ultrasonic echoes[0004, 0031, 0032, 0046 and 0064 have distance determination];
ppp. ascertaining solutions by means of a trilateration of the distance values determined based on the reflection of the ultrasonic burst received from at least three different ultrasonic sensors of the at least four ultrasonic sensors[0006 and 0011 have trilateration being used for distance determination see also 0008 for triangulation];
qqq. filtering, by means of a Kalman filter or an estimation filter, each of the solutions to form filtered solutions,[0032 has filtering].
Brown does not explicitly teach rrr. clustering, by means of a clustering method, the filtered solutions to form accepted solutions and discarding unaccepted filtered solutions.
Ebrahimi teaches that qqq. filtering, by means of a Kalman filter or an estimation filter, each of the solutions to form filtered solutions,[Col 35, Lines 10-20 has estimator and Kalman filtering]
and rrr. clustering, by means of a clustering method, the filtered solutions to form accepted solutions and discarding unaccepted filtered solutions.[Col 43, Lines 35-50 and Col 88, Lines 25-40 and Col 89, Lines 10-40 have clustering algorithms to evaluate solutions] .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the ultrasonic sensor in Brown to use the Kalman filter and solution clustering of Ebrahimi to filter for and evaluate solution as the use of such algorithms are well known in the art for the purpose of evaluating solutions.
Regarding claim 83, Brown, as modified teaches that wherein performing the plausibility check further comprises discarding those of the solutions lacking: (i) being attributed to at least one ultrasonic echo of an associated ultrasonic sensor[0031, 0032, 0046 and 0064 have echos and Fig 14, 15 have several receiver elements #3; 0004, 0031, 0032, 0046 and 0064 have distance determination 0006 and 0011 have trilateration being used for distance determination see also 0008 for triangulation meaning it requires 3 echos and receivers] and (ii) exactly one further ultrasonic echo of an associated further ultrasonic sensor [0031, 0032, 0046 and 0064 have echos and Fig 14, 15 have several receiver elements #3; 0004, 0031, 0032, 0046 and 0064 have distance determination 0006 and 0011 have trilateration being used for distance determination see also 0008 for triangulation meaning it requires 3 echos and receivers]and (iii) an exactly one additional ultrasonic echo of an associated additional ultrasonic sensor[0031, 0032, 0046 and 0064 have echos and Fig 14, 15 have several receiver elements #3; 0004, 0031, 0032, 0046 and 0064 have distance determination 0006 and 0011 have trilateration being used for distance determination see also 0008 for triangulation meaning it requires 3 echos and receivers], thus to three ultrasonic echoes of three different ultrasonic sensors. [0031, 0032, 0046 and 0064 have echos and Fig 14, 15 have several receiver elements #3; 0004, 0031, 0032, 0046 and 0064 have distance determination 0006 and 0011 have trilateration being used for distance determination see also 0008 for triangulation meaning it requires 3 echos and receivers; Overall it is a description and definition of trilateration to use 3 receivers and their solutions to locate a point]
Regarding claim 84, Brown but does not explicitly teach wherein performing the plausibility check further comprises deactivating the filtering upon determining that a solution of a value of an arrival time of a relevant ultrasonic echo changes by more than Δefilter_max or by Δefilter_max two consecutive iterations, wherein Δefilter_max >=500 μs, wherein deactivating the filtering includes directly using at least one of the plausibility checked solutions as filtered solutions for the time of the deactivation.
Ebrahimi teaches wherein performing the plausibility check further comprises deactivating the filtering upon determining that a solution of a value of an arrival time of a relevant ultrasonic echo changes by more than Δefilter_max or by Δefilter_max two consecutive iterations, wherein Δefilter_max >=500 μs, wherein deactivating the filtering includes directly using at least one of the plausibility checked solutions as filtered solutions for the time of the deactivation[Col 114, Lines 1-20 have distance thresholds and distance is related to time on an echo].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the ultrasonic sensor in Brown to use the thresholds of Ebrahimi to optimize for filtering for thresholds.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set thresholds, 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 or values involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 85, Brown but does not explicitly teach wherein performing the plausibility check further comprises discarding solutions for which a line from a location of a filtered u-th solution to a location of a relevant ultrasonic sensor has an angle a to a viewing axis (SA) of the ultrasonic sensor with a magnitude greater than the magnitude of a maximum angle aim.
Ebrahimi teaches wherein performing the plausibility check further comprises discarding solutions for which a line from a location of a filtered u-th solution to a location of a relevant ultrasonic sensor has an angle a to a viewing axis (SA) of the ultrasonic sensor with a magnitude greater than the magnitude of a maximum angle aim. [Col 94, Line 60-Col 95 Line 30 has various FOV of sensors to generate a map to fit in the FOV].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the ultrasonic sensor in Brown to use FOV of check the accuracy of the results to ensure results do not appear outside of a FOV which would indicate and inaccurate result.
Regarding claim 87, Brown implies but does not explicitly teach clustering the solutions or the filtered solutions to form accepted solutions; and discarding unaccepted, possibly filtered solutions if the distances between at least one of the solutions of the cluster and at least e other solutions of the cluster are less than a threshold value distance ( s), wherein e is a positive number greater than 0. [Though by definition trilateration involves 3 solutions which reads on the claim]
Ebrahimi teaches clustering the solutions or the filtered solutions to form accepted solutions; and discarding unaccepted, possibly filtered solutions if the distances between at least one of the solutions of the cluster and at least e other solutions of the cluster are less than a threshold value distance ( s), wherein e is a positive number greater than 0. [Col 114, Lines 1-20 have distance thresholds and distance is related to time on an echo meaning any threshold would read on the claim].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the ultrasonic sensor in Brown to use the thresholds of Ebrahimi to optimize for filtering for thresholds.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set thresholds, 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 or values involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233)
Regarding claim 88, Brown, as modified, teaches wherein the e is a positive number greater than 3. [Though by definition trilateration involves 3 solutions which reads on the claim and each receiver supplies a solution and the fig shows more than 3 receivers]
Ebrahimi teaches wherein the e is a positive number greater than 3. [Col 114, Lines 1-20 have distance thresholds and distance is related to time on an echo].
Moreover it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set thresholds or search for a certain number of solutions, 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 or values involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233)
Regarding claim 89, Brown, as modified, teaches further comprising clustering the solutions to form accepted solutions and discarding unaccepted, possibly filtered solutions when a number of solutions of a cluster is at least three.[By definition trilateration involves 3 solutions which reads on the claim and each receiver supplies a solution]
Moreover it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set thresholds or search for a certain number of solutions, 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 or values involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233)
Claims 80-82 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 20130100774 A1) in view of Ebrahimi (US 11348269 B1) as applied to claim 79 above, and further in view of Fuelster (US 20230386167 A1).
Regarding claim 80, Brown does not explicitly teach replacing, by means of a plausibility check, the discarded unaccepted filtered solutions with respective most recently accepted solutions; and ttt. using the most recently accepted solutions as plausibility-checked solutions.
Fuelster teaches that replacing, by means of a plausibility check, the discarded unaccepted filtered solutions with respective most recently accepted solutions; and ttt. using the most recently accepted solutions as plausibility-checked solutions. [0112-0119 and Fig 11,12 has plausibility checks].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the ultrasonic sensor in Brown to use the Plausibility checks of Fuelster to ensure accuracy of the solution.
Regarding claim 81, Brown does not explicitly teach uuu. discarding those of the solutions that correspond to a time of flight of the ultrasonic burst from transmission to reception by at least one of the ultrasonic sensors that is greater than a maximum allowed time of flight tmax, and vvv. discarding those of the solutions that correspond to a time of flight of the ultrasonic burst from its emission to the reception by at least one of the ultrasonic sensors that is greater than the maximum allowed time of flight Δemax.
Ebrahimi teaches that explicitly teach uuu. discarding those of the solutions that correspond to a time of flight of the ultrasonic burst from transmission to reception by at least one of the ultrasonic sensors that is greater than a maximum allowed time of flight tmax, and vvv. discarding those of the solutions that correspond to a time of flight of the ultrasonic burst from its emission to the reception by at least one of the ultrasonic sensors that is greater than the maximum allowed time of flight Δemax[Fig 51 and Col 62, Lines 40-55 have certain TOF as limits for sensor]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the ultrasonic sensor in Brown to use the TOF limits of Ebrahimi to limit number of echos and time taken for measurements.
Moreover it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set thresholds or limits for TOF, 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 or values involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
Regarding claim 82, Brown does not explicitly teach wherein the maximum allowed time of flight tmax is 1.4ms and of the maximum allowed time of flight Δemax is 1.4ms.
Ebrahimi teaches that wherein the maximum allowed time of flight tmax is 1.4ms and of the maximum allowed time of flight Δemax is 1.4ms [Fig 51 and Col 62, Lines 40-55 have certain TOF as limits for sensor and given the short distances in the room in the figure it would be within the claimed limitation]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the ultrasonic sensor in Brown to use the TOF limits of Ebrahimi to limit number of echos and time taken for measurements.
Moreover it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set thresholds or limits for TOF, 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 or values involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
Claim 86 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 20130100774 A1) in view of Ebrahimi (US 11348269 B1) as applied to claim 79 above, and further in view of Klotz (US 20210125429 A1).
Regarding claim 86, Brown does not explicitly teach www. extracting a respective envelope signal (HK) per ultrasonic sensor, based on respective reflected ultrasonic wave (USW) of the respective ultrasonic sensor, and xxx. extracting respective ultrasonic echoes (ec1, ec2, ec3, ec4, ec5, ec6) of the respective ultrasonic sensor using a respective threshold value curve (SWK) of the respective ultrasonic sensor from this respective envelope curve signal (HK) of the respective ultrasonic sensor, wherein the threshold value curve (SWK) of an ultrasonic sensor depends on the clustered and accepted solutions that the method previously determined.
Klotz teaches that www. extracting a respective envelope signal (HK) per ultrasonic sensor, based on respective reflected ultrasonic wave (USW) of the respective ultrasonic sensor, and xxx. extracting respective ultrasonic echoes (ec1, ec2, ec3, ec4, ec5, ec6) of the respective ultrasonic sensor using a respective threshold value curve (SWK) of the respective ultrasonic sensor from this respective envelope curve signal (HK) of the respective ultrasonic sensor, wherein the threshold value curve (SWK) of an ultrasonic sensor depends on the clustered and accepted solutions that the method previously determined.[0009-0016 has envelope from the signal and threshold value curve; See also claim 19]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the ultrasonic device of Brown with the threshold value of Klotz in order to have an envelope based on certain thresholds and parameters to limit the results within the desired parameters.
Moreover it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set thresholds, 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 or values involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 77, 78 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Independent Claim(s) 77 and 78, the claimed limitations “w. ascertain, after the transmission and reception of the ultrasonic burst, from the first ultrasonic echo (ec1) of a (u-1)-th ultrasonic sensor in the generated measured values via the u-th channel when present, a distance value of the first ultrasonic echo (ec1) of the (u-1)-th ultrasonic sensor of the u-th channel" in claim 77 and limitation "yy. if a p(u-1)-th distance value of the (u-1)-th ultrasonic sensor for the p@u-1)-th ultrasonic echo is marked as used in respective usage information, or if the pu-th distance value of the u-th ultrasonic sensor for the pu-th ultrasonic echo is marked as used in respective usage information: treating trilateration as if at least one of the first trilateration point and a second trilateration point is outside a fault tolerance range (FB) and skipping a jump point 2 and continuing with a jump point 3" are neither anticipated nor found obvious over the art of record.
The Closest Prior art of reference Brown (US 20130100774 A1) discloses ultrasonic transmission and trilateration via various receivers but not Kalman filtering and clustering.
Ebrahimi (US 11348269 B1) discloses Kalman filtering and clustering
However Brown or Ebrahime remedy the deficiencies as claimed because the claimed invention requires w. ascertain, after the transmission and reception of the ultrasonic burst, from the first ultrasonic echo (ec1) of a (u-1)-th ultrasonic sensor in the generated measured values via the u-th channel when present, a distance value of the first ultrasonic echo (ec1) of the (u-1)-th ultrasonic sensor of the u-th channel" in claim 77 and limitation "yy. if a p(u-1)-th distance value of the (u-1)-th ultrasonic sensor for the p@u-1)-th ultrasonic echo is marked as used in respective usage information, or if the pu-th distance value of the u-th ultrasonic sensor for the pu-th ultrasonic echo is marked as used in respective usage information: treating trilateration as if at least one of the first trilateration point and a second trilateration point is outside a fault tolerance range (FB) and skipping a jump point 2 and continuing with a jump point 3. Therefore, the art of record does not teach or suggest at least the combination of interrelated steps or elements recited in the claims.
Claim 78 is essentially the same as Claim 77 and refers to a method for operating an ultrasonic sensor system for a mobile apparatus, for ascertaining a map with coordinates of objects in an environment of the ultrasonic sensor system in form of accepted solutions as claimed in Claim 77. Therefore Claim 78 is allowed for the same reasons as applied to Claim 77 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIKAS NMN ATMAKURI whose telephone number is (571)272-5080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:30pm.
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.
/VIKAS ATMAKURI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645