Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to applicant’s amendment and remarks received on 12/04/2025. Claims 7-10 and 12-13 has/have been presented for examination. Claims 7-10 and 12 have been amended, claim 11 has been canceled, and new claim 13 has been added. Claims 7-10 and 12-13 have been examined.
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 7, 9-10 and 12-13 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, and the processing unit is configured to determine the height of the at least one object based on a ratio of the amplitudes of the first ultrasonic echo signals and the second ultrasonic echo signals.
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).
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.
5) In regard to claim 13 (dependent on claim 7), Suleiman and Koyama further disclose the system according to claim 7, wherein 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 (Koyama col. 6, lines 13-28).
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
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 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