DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 1-6 remain pending.
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 Amendments
The Examiner accepts the amendments received on 06/23/2026.
(a) The Applicant, via the claim amendments filed, overcomes the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretations set forth in the previous Office Action. The Examiner, therefore, withdraws said claim interpretations.
(b) The Applicant’s filed arguments pertaining to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is found persuasive. The Examiner, therefore, withdrawals said rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the instant claims 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsujiya et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2020/0292492A1 (hereinafter, Tsujiya), in view of Asafusa et al. JP 2003-000596A (hereinafter, Asafusa), and further in view of Kim U.S. P.G. Publication 2017/0168151A1 (hereinafter, Kim).
Regarding Claim 1, Tsujiya describes an apparatus comprising:
-a receiver comprising an ultrasound transducer that receives ultrasound ... and that outputs a reception signal (reception transducer receives the ultrasonic waves transmitted from transmission transducer and converts the received ultrasonic pulse into a reception pulse signal which is an electric signal, Tsujiya, Paragraphs 0031-0032 and 0039 and Figures 1-2); and
-an analyzer comprising an electronic circuit that ... (measurement circuit , Tsujiya, Paragraph 0032 and Figure 2),
wherein the analyzer ... determines a space propagation time ... (propagation time measurement unit determines propagation time of the ultrasonic waves based on the reception pulse signal, Tsujiya, Paragraphs 0039 and 0042-0044 and Figures 2 and 4),
-wherein the space propagation time is a time of propagation of the ultrasound through a concentration measurement space (measurement circuit obtains the propagation time of the ultrasonic waves propagating through the concentration measurement space, Tsujiya, Paragraphs 0031, 0039 and 0042-0044 and Figures 1-2), and
-the analyzer determines a concentration of a gas which is a measurement target based on the space propagation time (concentration measurement unit determines the gas concentration based on the propagation time and propagation speed of the ultrasonic waves through the concentration measurement space, Tsujiya, Paragraphs 0031-0032 and 0042-0044 and Figures 1-2).
Tsujiya does not specifically describe the apparatus to include the analyzer comprising an electronic circuit that generates a shaped reception signal obtained by combining an adjusted signal, obtained by delaying the reception signal and adjusting a level thereof, with the reception signal, wherein the analyzer determines an evaluation value obtained by combining and integrating a delay signal, obtained by delaying the reception signal by a delay time corresponding to the frequency control value, and the reception signal, or that the analyzer determines a space propagation time based on the shaped reception signal.
Asafusa discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitations. Asafusa describes receiving an ultrasonic echo signal, delaying the received echo signal, adjusting the delayed signal, and combining the adjusted delayed signal with the original echo signal (Asafusa, Paragraphs 0006 and 0008-0015 and Figures 1-5). Asafusa further determines a frequency of the received echo signal and determines a delay corresponding to the determined frequency, including determining a delay such that the delay interval is approximately one-half of the period corresponding to the determined frequency (Asafusa, Paragraph 0017 and Figure 10). Asafusa additionally describes generating delayed waves having different amplitudes and delay times, combining the waves, calculating coefficients corresponding to amplitude and delay time, and optimizing the coefficients using a least-square error calculation (Asafusa, Paragraphs 0023-0026 and Figures 8, 12 and 13).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the apparatus of Tsujiya to include the analyzer comprising an electronic circuit that generates a shaped reception signal obtained by combining an adjusted signal, obtained by delaying the reception signal and adjusting a level thereof, with the reception signal, wherein the analyzer determines an evaluation value obtained by combining and integrating a delay signal, obtained by delaying the reception signal by a delay time corresponding to the frequency control value, and the reception signal, and the analyzer determines a space propagation time based on the shaped reception signal, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Asafusa.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify Tsujiya and Asafusa, with a reasonable expectation of success, because a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to incorporate Asafusa's reception-signal shaping into Tsujiya to improve the received ultrasonic waveform used to determine the space propagation time and resulting gas concentration (Asafusa, Paragraphs 0006 and 0010-0017).
Tsujiya does not specifically describe a receiver comprising an ultrasound transducer that receives ultrasound of a frequency which follows a frequency control value, or that the analyzer ... searches for the frequency control value which results in a local minimum of the evaluation value, the analyzer generates the adjusted signal based on the delay signal corresponding to the frequency control value resulting in the local minimum of the evaluation value.
Kim discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitations. Kim describes an ultrasonic signal sensing unit that transmits and receives ultrasonic signals and receives feedback from a frequency optimization device such that the ultrasonic signal sensing unit transmits and receives an ultrasonic signal having a changed frequency (Kim, Paragraph 0039). Kim further describes variably adjusting frequency within a preset frequency range and measuring ringing time for each frequency (Kim, Paragraph 0042). Kim selects a frequency value, evaluates whether ringing is minimized, evaluates neighboring frequency values, and repeats the process to determine an optimum correction frequency that minimizes the ringing (Kim, Paragraphs 0046-0049). Kim then generates and applies a correction signal using the optimum correction frequency (Kim, Paragraphs 0050-0051 and 0074-0079).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify the apparatus of Tsujiya, as modified by Asafusa, to include a receiver comprising an ultrasound transducer that receives ultrasound of a frequency which follows a frequency control value, and to have the analyzer ... searches for the frequency control value which results in a local minimum of the evaluation value, the analyzer generates the adjusted signal based on the delay signal corresponding to the frequency control value resulting in the local minimum of the evaluation value, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Kim.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success, because varying frequencies according to operating and environmental conditions helps find and minizine unwanted residual oscillation (Kim, Paragraphs 0033, 0042 and 0046-0049).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tsujiya in view of Asafusa, and further in view of Kim, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Trucco et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2005/0033167 A1 (hereinafter, Trucco).
Regarding Claim 2, Tsujiya, as modified, describes the waveform shaping apparatus according to claim 1.
Tsujiya does not specifically describe the analyzer determines, separately from determining the concentration of the gas which is the measurement target, a level evaluation value obtained by combining and integrating a level adjusted delay signal, obtained by multiplying the delay signal corresponding to the frequency control value resulting in the local minimum of the evaluation value, by a level adjustment coefficient, and the reception signal, and searches for the level adjustment coefficient which results in a local minimum of the level evaluation value, in determining the concentration of the gas, the analyzer generates the level adjusted delay signal corresponding to the level adjustment coefficient resulting in the local minimum of the level evaluation value, and the analyzer generates the adjusted signal based on the level adjusted delay signal corresponding to the level adjustment coefficient resulting in the local minimum of the level evaluation value.
Trucco discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing level-adjustment optimization. Trucco describes defining an energy function dependent on weighting parameters and delays, determining a minimum of the energy function, and determining weighting parameters and delays corresponding to the minimum (Trucco, Paragraphs 0030 and 0033-0040). Trucco further describes receive-side ultrasonic optimization in which amplitude weights are applied to received ultrasonic signal contributions and the amplitude weights are determined by minimizing an integrated energy function (Trucco, Paragraphs 0051-0054). Trucco additionally describes determining an amplitude-weight vector that provides a minimum of an integrated energy function and applying the resulting amplitude weights to the signal contributions forming the received signal (Trucco, Paragraphs 0086-0094 and Figures 10-13).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify the apparatus of Tsujiya to include the analyzer determines, separately from determining the concentration of the gas which is the measurement target, a level evaluation value obtained by combining and integrating a level adjusted delay signal, obtained by multiplying the delay signal corresponding to the frequency control value resulting in the local minimum of the evaluation value, by a level adjustment coefficient, and the reception signal, and searches for the level adjustment coefficient which results in a local minimum of the level evaluation value, in determining the concentration of the gas, the analyzer generates the level adjusted delay signal corresponding to the level adjustment coefficient resulting in the local minimum of the level evaluation value, and the analyzer generates the adjusted signal based on the level adjusted delay signal corresponding to the level adjustment coefficient resulting in the local minimum of the level evaluation value, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Trucco.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success, because a person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have found it obvious to determine Asafusa's level adjustment coefficient using Trucco's integrated minimum-energy optimization technique before using the optimized waveform in Tsujiya's gas-concentration measurement process, thereby reducing unwanted components of the received ultrasonic signal and improving the signal used to determine the space propagation time (Trucco, Paragraphs 0051-0054 and 0086-0094).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights