DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the objection to claims 1 and 16-17. Accordingly, the objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) of claim 13. Accordingly, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-7, filed 05/12/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 10-17 under U.S.C 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference(s) as detailed below.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fauss (WO 2019149323 A1, all citations provided from machine translation attached) in view of Augenstein (US 20210156996 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Fauss teaches a method for localizing at least one external sound source which is arranged outside a mobile unit (a method and a device for localising and tracking acoustic active sources or acoustic signals), using at least two ultrasonic sensor arrays (13) which each have at least two elements (14) for receiving sound waves (15), the method comprising: receiving, using the elements, sound waves, (microphones (14) arranged to receive sound signals) and generating, using the elements, electrical signals representing the received sound waves (estimating S6 phase offsets using the transformed sound signals and the source frequencies). (Abstract, Page.3, lines 3-8, Page.8, lines 38-47, Claims 1, 6, 8, Fig.2)
Fauss also teaches ascertaining, for each respective ultrasonic sensor array (13) of the at least two ultrasonic sensor arrays, at least one phase offset (estimating S6 phase offsets using the transformed sound signals and the source frequencies to obtain an estimated angle of incidence for each active source) between at least two electrical signals generated by the elements (14) of the respective ultrasonic sensor array (13). (Page.3, lines 37-40, Claims 1, 6, 8)
Fauss also teaches locating the external sound source by triangulation (the position of the source can be determined by the principle of triangulation) based on the ascertained phase offsets (estimating phase offsets using the transformed sound signals) between the electrical signals and a distance between the ultrasonic sensor arrays (distance between the microphone arrays). (Page.6, last paragraph-Page.7 line 22, Page.2, line 36-Page.3, line 24)
Fauss does not explicitly teach at least two ultrasonic sensor arrays which each have at least two transducer elements and generating, using the transducer elements, electrical signals representing the received sound waves.
Augenstein teaches at least two ultrasonic sensor arrays (10) which each have at least two transducer elements (12) and generating, using the transducer elements, electrical signals representing the received sound waves (Each ultrasonic transducer is designed to emit and/or to receive a sound wave at a corresponding working frequency). (Paragraph 53, Claim 1, Fig.2)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Fauss to incorporate at least two ultrasonic sensor arrays which each have at least two transducer elements and generating, using the transducer elements, electrical signals representing the received sound waves as taught by Augenstein in order to permit the use of robust, reliable and/or cost-effective discrete ultrasonic transducers in a phased-array arrangement, which, in turn, permits a large view angle and thus a reliable monitoring of danger areas of vehicles.
Regarding claim 11, Fauss teaches wherein the generated electrical signals are filtered with regard to different phase offsets. (Page.8, lines 31-37, Claims 1-2, 10)
Regarding claim 12, Fauss teaches wherein each of the phase offsets is ascertained according to an alignment of the at least two elements of the respective ultrasonic sensor array along a height direction, and/or along a longitudinal direction, and/or along a transverse direction. (Page.3, lines 9-15, 20-24, Page.7, lines 7-22)
Fauss does not explicitly teach at least two transducer elements.
Augenstein teaches at least two transducer elements. (Paragraph 53, Claim 1, Fig.2)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Fauss to incorporate at least two transducer elements as taught by Augenstein in order to permit the use of robust, reliable and/or cost-effective discrete ultrasonic transducers in a phased-array arrangement, which, in turn, permits a large view angle and thus a reliable monitoring of danger areas of vehicles.
Regarding claim 13, Fauss teaches wherein a relative angle to the sound source is ascertained based on the phase offset of the generated electrical signals and the distance between the elements. (Page.6, last paragraph-Page.7, line 22, Page.3, lines 9-24)
Fauss does not explicitly teach wherein the transducer elements of each respective ultrasonic sensor array are at a distance from one another of half a wavelength of a sound frequency.
Augenstein teaches wherein the transducer elements of each respective ultrasonic sensor array are at a distance from one another of half a wavelength of a sound frequency. (Paragraphs 12, 19, Claims 1, 3)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Fauss to incorporate wherein the transducer elements of each respective ultrasonic sensor array are at a distance from one another of half a wavelength of a sound frequency as taught by Augenstein in order to permit the use of robust, reliable and/or cost-effective discrete ultrasonic transducers in a phased-array arrangement, which, in turn, permits a large view angle and thus a reliable monitoring of danger areas of vehicles.
Regarding claim 14, Fauss teaches wherein the external sound source is an engine or a compressor or a fan or an exhaust system or an external ultrasonic sensor or a passenger loudspeaker or a brake or an acoustic signal generator or rolling wheels and is localized using at least one ultrasonic sensor array. (Page.2, lines 15-24)
Regarding claim 15, Fauss teaches wherein the phase offsets between the generated electrical signals and the triangulation are carried out continuously, at fixed or variable time intervals, when a level is exceeded by at least one electrical signal. (Page.6, last paragraph-Page.7 line 22, Page.2, line 36-Page.3, line 24, Claims 1, 8)
Regarding claim 16, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 10. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 16, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 10.
Regarding claim 17, Fauss teaches a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which is stored a computer program for localizing at least one external sound source which is arranged outside a mobile unit, using at least two ultrasonic sensor arrays (13) which each have at least two elements (14) for receiving sound waves, the computer program, when executed by a computer, causing the computer to perform the following steps: receiving, using the elements (14), sound waves, and generating, using the elements, electrical signals representing the received sound waves. (Abstract, Page.7, lines 1-6, Page.3, lines 3-8, Page.8, lines 38-47, Claims 1, 6, 8, Fig.2)
Fauss also teaches ascertaining, for each respective ultrasonic sensor array (13) of the at least two ultrasonic sensor arrays, at least one phase offset (estimating S6 phase offsets using the transformed sound signals and the source frequencies to obtain an estimated angle of incidence for each active source) between at least two electrical signals generated by the tranducer (14) of the respective ultrasonic sensor array (13). (Page.3, lines 37-40, Claims 1, 6, 8)
Fauss also teaches locating the external sound source by triangulation (the position of the source can be determined by the principle of triangulation) based on the ascertained phase offsets (estimating phase offsets using the transformed sound signals) between the electrical signals and a distance between the ultrasonic sensor arrays (distance between the microphone arrays). (Page.6, last paragraph-Page.7 line 22, Page.2, line 36-Page.3, line 24)
Fauss does not explicitly teach at least two ultrasonic sensor arrays which each have at least two transducer elements and generating, using the transducer elements, electrical signals representing the received sound waves.
Augenstein teaches at least two ultrasonic sensor arrays (10) which each have at least two transducer elements (12) and generating, using the transducer elements, electrical signals representing the received sound waves (Each ultrasonic transducer is designed to emit and/or to receive a sound wave at a corresponding working frequency). (Paragraph 53, Claim 1, Fig.2)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Fauss to incorporate at least two ultrasonic sensor arrays which each have at least two transducer elements and generating, using the transducer elements, electrical signals representing the received sound waves as taught by Augenstein in order to permit the use of robust, reliable and/or cost-effective discrete ultrasonic transducers in a phased-array arrangement, which, in turn, permits a large view angle and thus a reliable monitoring of danger areas of vehicles.
Regarding claim 18, Fauss does not explicitly teach wherein the ultrasonic sensor arrays are produced in MEMS technology and are designed as a piezoelectric micromachined ultrasonic transducer (PMUT sensor).
Augenstein teaches wherein the ultrasonic sensor arrays are produced in MEMS technology and are designed as a piezoelectric micromachined ultrasonic transducer (PMUT sensor). (Paragraph 26)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Fauss to incorporate wherein the ultrasonic sensor arrays are produced in MEMS technology and are designed as a piezoelectric micromachined ultrasonic transducer (PMUT sensor) as taught by Augenstein in order to permit the use of robust, reliable and/or cost-effective discrete ultrasonic transducers in a phased-array arrangement, which, in turn, permits a large view angle and thus a reliable monitoring of danger areas of vehicles.
Claim(s) 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fauss in view of Augenstein and Klee (US 20160365840 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Fauss does not explicitly teach wherein the transducer elements are designed as membranes.
Klee teaches wherein the transducer elements are designed as membranes. (Abstract, Paragraphs 41, 81, 93)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Fauss to incorporate wherein the transducer elements are designed as membranes as taught by Klee in order to achieve a high element density.
Regarding claim 20, Fauss does not explicitly teach wherein the transducer elements are designed as vibrating pistons.
Klee teaches wherein the transducer elements are designed as vibrating pistons. (Paragraphs 17, 81, 93)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Fauss to incorporate wherein the transducer elements are designed as vibrating pistons as taught by Klee in order to provide a higher output pressure.
Regarding claim 21, Fauss does not explicitly teach wherein the transducer elements are designed as combined membrane-piston assemblies.
Klee teaches wherein the transducer elements are designed as combined membrane-piston assemblies. (Paragraphs 81, 93)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Fauss to incorporate wherein the transducer elements are designed as combined membrane-piston assemblies as taught by Klee in order to provide a higher output pressure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLAH ABULABAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00am-3:00pm 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, 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.
/ABDALLAH ABULABAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights