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 .
Response to Amendment
In the amendments filed February 20th, 2026, the following has occurred: claims 14-16, 18-19, 21-22, and 24-25 have been amended; claim 23 has been cancelled; claims 14-22 and 24-25 remain pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 20th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pg. 2-4 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues that Bruckner fails to disclose the limitations of claim 14 for the following reason:
Bruckner fails to teach updating a distance that corresponds to an uncorrected echo length, to a true distance between the ultrasonic sensor and the reflection point.
With respect to (1), the examiner respectfully disagrees that Bruckner fails to teach updating a distance corresponding to an uncorrected echo length to a true distance between the ultrasonic sensor and the reflection point. For example, Bruckner at [attached machine translation, pg. 10] states a first straight line is determined based on the first and second receivers. The position of an object is estimated only when a first solid angle and the distance correspond to a location on a particular arc. Bruckner goes on to disclose that in order to enhance the accuracy of the position estimate, a second solid angle is determined based on a second straight line determined between a first and third receiver and the object. A second angle is then determined and a similar procedure is used for a second positional estimate. This process is then repeated periodically so that the position of the object is checked continuously. Fig. 4 illustrates the angular relationship between receivers (14) and (16) and utilizing an angle (46) between a received echo from the object (8) and receiver (14), which are used in the positional estimate determination process. In other words, Bruckner describes a process in which an ultrasonic array consisting of multiple elements is used to generate a plurality of distance measurements between various elements and the object whose distance is to be determined using angular relationships and straight line distance estimates, and to further update (or correct) those positional (or distance) estimates based on further iterations. Additionally, the examiner submits that the updating is implicitly performed on uncorrected echo lengths, as if they were pre-corrected, there would be no need to update the estimates. Therefore the rejection of claim 14, and similarly claims 22, and 24-25 are maintained.
On pg. 2-4 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues that due to the alleged allowability of claim 14, claims 15-21 are therefore in condition for allowance. As noted in the response to arguments with respect to claim 14, above, the rejection of claim 14 is maintained and therefore so are the rejections of claims 15-21.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 20:
“The method according to one of claim 14” should read – the method according to claim 14 --
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 14-15, 18-19, and 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bruckner et al. (DE 102019201799 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Bruckner discloses a method for correcting at least one ultrasound-based measurement of an ultrasonic sensor of a sensor arrangement by a control device ([attached machine translation, pg. 9] distance sensor comprises a transmitter and multiple receivers which are all coupled to a control unit), the method comprising the following steps:
transmitting and/or receiving sound waves by at least one ultrasonic sensor([attached machine translation, pg. 9], transmitter sends out an ultrasound signal which is then received by a first and second receiver),
and determining at least one distance to a reflection position along a measuring plane based on a time-of-flight measurement of the sound waves, wherein the at least one distance corresponds to at least one uncorrected echo length ([attached machine translation], a first and second straight line distance are determined between the object from which the transmitted signal has been reflected off of and the receivers)([attached machine translation, pg. 10], using the first and second first solid angle with respect to the first and second straight line, an accurate position can be fully updated and estimated);
determining at least one angle within the measuring plane and/or outside the measuring plane, by evaluating measurement data from transducer elements of at least one ultrasonic sensor array ([attached machine translation, pg. 10], a first and second solid angle to the object of interest is determined between the object and each of the first and second receivers with respect to the straight line measurement plane);
and correcting a localization error of the at least one distance between the at least one ultrasonic sensor and the reflection position along the measuring plane using the angle, wherein correcting the localization error of the at least one distance comprises updating the at least one distance to at least one true distance between the at least one ultrasonic sensor and the reflection position along the measuring plane based on the at least one angle ([attached machine translation, pg. 10], using the first and second first solid angle with respect to the first and second straight line, an accurate position can be fully updated and estimated).
Regarding claim 15, Bruckner discloses the method according to claim 14. Bruckner further discloses wherein an azimuth angle within the measuring plane and/or an elevation angle outside the measuring plane are determined as the at least one angle by the at least one ultrasonic sensor array([attached machine translation, pg. 10], a first and second solid angle to the object of interest is determined between the object and each of the first and second receivers with respect to the straight line measurement plane)(Fig. 1 illustrates transmitter (10) as well as receivers (14, 16, and 18) with respect to object (8) which demonstrates the solid angles correspond to an elevation angle).
Regarding claim 18, Bruckner discloses the method according to claim 14. Bruckner further discloses the localization error of the at least one distance is corrected using the angle to a predefined height of the measuring plane above ground([attached machine translation, pg. 10], a first and second solid angle to the object of interest is determined between the object and each of the first and second receivers with respect to the straight line measurement plane)(Fig. 1 illustrates transmitter (10) as well as receivers (14, 16, and 18) with respect to object (8) which demonstrates the solid angles correspond to an elevation angle).
Regarding claim 19, Bruckner discloses the method according to claim 18. Bruckner further discloses the localization error of the at least one distance is corrected using the angle to a height corresponding to a lowest installation position of the at least one ultrasonic sensor above the ground (Implicit, [attached machine translation, pg. 4], to determine the angle, half of the phase angle between the first and second received signal is determined which is between 0 and 360 degrees. Then the value of half of the phase angle is multiplied by a correction factor in order to calculate the solid angle. The resulting approximation used to simulate the signal being reflected off an object with an essentially flat front)([attached machine translation, pg. 3] the straight line between the two receivers may be such that the receivers are arranged horizontally).
Regarding claim 21, Bruckner discloses the method according to claim 15, wherein the at least oneangle determined as the azimuth angle within the measuring plane is used to resolve at least one ambiguity in an assignment of reflection positions to objects(Implicit, [attached machine translation, pg. 4], Position of the object is determined based on its distance and at least a first solid angle. To determine the solid angle, half of the phase angle between the first and second received signal is determined which is between 0 and 360 degrees. Then the value of half of the phase angle is multiplied by a correction factor in order to calculate the solid angle. The resulting approximation used to simulate the signal being reflected off an object with an essentially flat front).
Regarding claim 22, Bruckner discloses a sensor arrangement, comprising:
a control device; at least one ultrasonic sensor; and at least one ultrasonic sensor array having at least two transducer elements, wherein the at least one ultrasonic sensor and the at least two transducer elements of the ultrasonic sensor array are connected in a data-conducting manner to the control device([attached machine translation, pg. 9] distance sensor comprises a transmitter and multiple receivers which are all coupled to a control unit)
the at least one ultrasonic sensor and the at least one ultrasonic sensor array have the same and/or a different installation height on a contour of a vehicle)(Fig. 1 illustrates transmitter (10) as well as receivers (14, 16, and 18) installed at different heights);
the sensor arrangement is configured to correct at least one ultrasound- based measurement of the ultrasonic sensor of the sensor arrangement using the control device, sensor arrangement configured to: transmit and/or receive sound waves by the at least one ultrasonic sensor([attached machine translation, pg. 9], transmitter sends out an ultrasound signal which is then received by a first and second receiver)
and determine at least one distance to a reflection position along a measuring plane based on a time-of-flight measurement of the sound waves, wherein the at least one distance corresponds to at least one uncorrected echo length([attached machine translation, pg. 10], a first and second straight line distance are determined between the object from which the transmitted signal has been reflected off of and the receivers);
determine at least one angle within the measuring plane and/or outside the measuring plane, by evaluating measurement data from the transducer elements of the at least one ultrasonic sensor array([attached machine translation, pg. 10], a first and second solid angle to the object of interest is determined between the object and each of the first and second receivers with respect to the straight line measurement plane);
and correct a localization error of the at least one distance between the at least one ultrasonic sensor and the reflection position along the measuring plane using the at least one angle, wherein correcting the localization error of the at least one distance comprises updating the at least one distance to at least one true distance between the at least one ultrasonic sensor and the reflection position along the measuring plane based on the at least one angle([attached machine translation, pg. 10], using the first and second first solid angle with respect to the first and second straight line, an accurate position can be fully updated and estimated).
Regarding claim 24, the claim is a device claim corresponding to claim 14 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 25, the claim is a CRM claim corresponding to claim 14 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
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) 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruckner in view of Lowe et al. (US 20170208565 A1, “Lowe”).
Regarding claim 16, Bruckner discloses the method according to claim 14. Bruckner further teaches at least two distances are determined by at least two ultrasonic sensors and/or by one ultrasonic sensor and at least one ultrasonic sensor array along a measuring plane, based on the time-of-flight measurement of the sound waves([attached machine translation], a first and second straight line distance are determined between the object from which the transmitted signal has been reflected off of and the receivers)([attached machine translation, pg. 4], the signal propagation speed and the time difference between transmission and reception are used to calculate the initial distance measurement with respect to the first and second reception signal),
wherein the localization error of the at least one determined distance between an ultrasonic sensor and a reflection position before trilateration or after trilateration is corrected using the determined angle([attached machine translation, pg. 10], using the first and second first solid angle with respect to the first and second straight line, an accurate position can be fully updated and estimated).
Bruckner may not explicitly teach wherein a localization of reflection positions is performed using trilateration.
Lowe teaches wherein a localization of reflection positions is performed using trilateration ([0082]-[0083], distances between reference devices and the target device may be used in order to perform trilateration to locate the target device with respect to a right hand coordinate system).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of acoustic localization, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Bruckner, to include the teachings of Lowe in order to utilize the measurements and geometric relationships between multiple reference devices and a target.
The motivation for doing so is to accurately determine coordinates of the target device [0083].
Regarding claim 20, Bruckner discloses the method according to one of claim 14. Bruckner may not explicitly disclose at least one reflection position determined by trilateration and/or at least one reflection position determined by individual measurements are assigned to at least one existing or one new object.
Lowe teaches wherein a localization of reflection positions is performed using trilateration ([0082]-[0083], distances between reference devices and the target device may be used in order to perform trilateration to locate the target device with respect to a right hand coordinate system).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of acoustic localization, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Bruckner, to include the teachings of Lowe in order to utilize the measurements and geometric relationships between multiple reference devices and a target.
The motivation for doing so is to accurately determine coordinates of the target device [0083].
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruckner in view of Lowe and Lucken et al. (US 20180275260 A1, “Lucken”).
Regarding claim 17, Bruckner, as modified in view of Lowe teaches the method according to claim 16. Buckner, as modified in view of Lowe may not explicitly teach a check is carried out as to whether the at least two distances determined within the measuring plane were determined by reflection from a common object or from a plurality of different objects.
Lucken teaches a check is carried out as to whether the at least two distances determined within the measuring plane were determined by reflection
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of acoustic localization, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Bruckner, as modified in view of Lowe to include the teachings of Lucken in order to determine which objects reflection signals correspond to so that positional measurements and angles are determined based on a target object
The motivation for doing so is to allow for differentiating between signals that may have been reflected by multiple objects [0084].
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Barthel et al. (US 20120293356 A1, “Barthel”) which discloses a method for detecting and locating objects through ultrasonics
Binder (US 20190154439 A1, “Binder”) which discloses a method for cooperating usage of multiple distance meters
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 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 CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6136. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at 571-270-3603. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights