CTNF 18/715,865 CTNF 86669 Response to Amendment This action is responsive to applicant’s amendment and remarks received on 04/29/2026. Claims 7-10 and 12 have been presented for examination. Claims 7, 10 and 12 have been amended, and claim 13 has been canceled. Claims 7-10 and 12 have been examined. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 AIA A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/29/2026 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 7-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 7 and 12 claims a first component, a second component and a third component. The originally submitted specification does not provide support for a ratio to be based on components of an echo signal. The specification provides support for the height to be based on the ratio of the amplitudes of the ultrasonic echo signals (page 9, lines 23-30), but there is no support for the height to be based on a ratio of a second component and a third component. The rejection is based on the amplitudes of signals. Further explanation or appropriate correction is required. Claims 8-10 are rejected due to their claim dependency. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 7, 9-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suleiman (Pub. No.: 2024/0061094 A1) in view of Koyama (Pat. No.: 12,259,469 B2) . 1) In regard to claim 7, Suleiman further disclose the system for detecting at least one object in surroundings of a vehicle (figs. 1-2: 1), the system comprising: at least one ultrasonic sensor unit (figs. 1-2: 2) configured to transmit ultrasonic signals and to receive reflected ultrasonic echo signals reflected on the at least one object in the surroundings of the vehicle (¶0048-¶0049); and a processing unit (¶0037 discloses a computing unit is utilized) configured to excite the ultrasonic sensor unit with a first frequency to transmit first ultrasonic signals, and to detect the first ultrasonic signals as first ultrasonic echo signals when reflected on the object and received by using the ultrasonic sensor unit, the processing unit additionally configured to excite the ultrasonic sensor unit with a second frequency to transmit second ultrasonic signals, and to detect the second ultrasonic signals as second ultrasonic echo signals when reflected on the object and received using the ultrasonic sensor unit, and, based on the received first ultrasonic echo signals and the received second ultrasonic echo signals, to detect the object in the surroundings of the vehicle and to determine a height of the object (fig. 4 and ¶0052). Suleiman does not explicitly disclose the second frequency is different from the first frequency, the first ultrasonic echo signals comprise at least a first component associated with the first frequency and a second component associated with the second frequency, wherein the second ultrasonic echo signals comprise at least a third component associated with the second frequency, and the processing unit is configured to determine the height of the at least one object based on a ratio of an amplitude of the second component to an amplitude of the third component. However, Koyama disclose a height detection system which second frequency is different from the first frequency, and a processing unit is configured to determine a height of an object based on a ratio of the amplitudes of the first signal and the second signal (col. 21, lines 25-37), and the first ultrasonic signals comprise at least a first component associated with the first frequency and a second component associated with the second frequency, wherein the second ultrasonic signals comprise at least a third component associated with the second frequency, and wherein the processing unit is further configured to determine the height of the at least one object based on a ratio of an amplitude of the second component to an amplitude of the third component (col. 6, lines 13-28).. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the system of Suleiman to determine the height of an object based a ratio of the signal amplitudes, as taught by Koyama. One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Suleiman as described above in order to use a known technique to determine the height of an object. 2) In regard to claim 9 (dependent on claim 7), Suleiman and Koyama further disclose the system according to claim 7, wherein the processing unit is configured to excite the ultrasonic sensor unit with the first frequency and the second frequency substantially simultaneously (Suleiman ¶0049). 3) In regard to claim 10 (dependent on claim 7), Suleiman and Koyama further disclose the system according to claim 7, wherein the processing unit is configured to determine the height of the object based on amplitudes and/or phases and/or flight times of the first ultrasonic echo signals and the second ultrasonic echo signals (Suleiman ¶0050). 4) In regard to claim 12, claim 12 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 7 and the references applied . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suleiman (Pub. No.: 2024/0061094 A1) in view of Koyama (Pat. No.: 12,259,469 B2) and further in view of Schaffran (Pat. No.: 6,563,761 B1) . 1) In regard to claim 8 (dependent on claim 7), Suleiman and Koyama disclose the system according to claim 7. Suleiman and Koyama do not explicitly disclose the processing unit is configured to select the first frequency and the second frequency such that the first frequency corresponds to a main resonance frequency of the ultrasonic sensor unit and that the second frequency corresponds to a frequency of a higher oscillation mode of the ultrasonic sensor unit, and the second frequency corresponds to a harmonic resonance frequency of the ultrasonic sensor unit. However, Schaffran discloses it is known for a vehicle to utilize an ultrasonic transmitter and the transmitter processing unit is configured to select the first frequency and the second frequency such that the first frequency corresponds to a main resonance frequency of the ultrasonic sensor unit and that the second frequency corresponds to a frequency of a higher oscillation mode of the ultrasonic sensor unit, and the second frequency corresponds to a harmonic resonance frequency of the ultrasonic sensor unit (col. 12, lines 49-58). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the processing unit of Suleiman to set a frequency of the processing unit based on the harmonic resonance frequency, as taught by Schaffran. One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Suleiman as described above in order to utilize a known way for a transducer to determine the location of an object. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments with respect to the amended claims, based solely on the amendments to the claims, have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of the references including new prior art being used in the current new grounds of rejection for the newly added limitations to the claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS J KING whose telephone number is (571)270-5160. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00 - 2:00 EST. 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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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. /CURTIS J KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/715,865 Page 2 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/715,865 Page 4 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/715,865 Page 5 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/715,865 Page 6 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/715,865 Page 7 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/715,865 Page 8 Art Unit: 2685
Prosecution Insights