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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/08/2024, 08/26/2024 and 09/05/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 2 recites the language of “corrected echo information” however applicant does not define how or what this corrected echo information is and leaves the reader confused to the metes and bounds of the invention. Claim 3 also recites the language “corrected echo information” and this indicates “temporal changes” again these terms are not clearly defined for someone of ordinary skill to understand and thus leaves the reader confused to the metes and bounds of the invention. For compact prosecution proposes examiner is interpreting “corrected echo information” as any echo or reflection being changed or adjusted by the system or method.
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) 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura (JP H0424580 A, all citations provided from machine translation attached) in view of Sugae (US 20200301009 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kawamura teaches an object detection device comprising: a transmitting unit (22) configured to transmit a transmission wave in which a plurality of ultrasonic waves of different frequencies (transmitter 22 generates transmission signals of frequencies f1 and f2). (Abstract, Page.2, lines 4-8)
Kawamura also teaches a receiving unit (31a-32a) configured to receive a reflected wave produced by reflection of the transmission wave from an object (The signal processor 31a extracts the received frequency f1 by a filter 311, while the signal processor 32a extracts the received frequency f2 by a filter 32a). (Abstract, Page.2, lines 41-45)
Kawamura also teaches a frequency analysis unit configured to generate separated echo information indicating temporal changes in amplitude value for each of a plurality of frequency components contained in the reflected wave (Signal-processing machine 31a extracts received frequency f1 with filter 311, and signal processing machine 32a extracts received frequency f2 with filter 312). (Abstract, Page.2, lines 41-45)
Kawamura also teaches a calculation unit configured to generate distance information about a distance to the object (sonar device…suitable for the long distance search). (Page.1, line 25-Page.2, line 4)
Kawamura does not explicitly teach different frequencies are multiplexed and based on a maximum amplitude value that is the largest of a plurality of the amplitude values detected for the individual frequency components at the same time, the maximum amplitude value being obtained from the separated echo information.
Sugae also teaches different frequencies are multiplexed. (Paragraph 130, Claim 2)
Sugae also teaches based on a maximum amplitude value (peak) that is the largest of a plurality of the amplitude values detected for the individual frequency components at the same time, the maximum amplitude value being obtained from the separated echo information. (Paragraph 114, Claim 2)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Kawamura to incorporate different frequencies are multiplexed and based on a maximum amplitude value that is the largest of a plurality of the amplitude values detected for the individual frequency components at the same time, the maximum amplitude value being obtained from the separated echo information in order to identify a correspondence relationship between one or more frequencies and estimates the amount of the frequency transition on the basis of a difference between the frequencies which correspond to each other.
Regarding claim 4, Kawamura teaches wherein transmission of the transmission wave and reception of the reflected wave are performed using a common transducer. (Page.1, lines 14-18, Fig.5)
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura in view of Sugae and Ralston (US 20170307741 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Kawamura does not explicitly teach wherein the calculation unit generates the distance information, based on corrected echo information indicating temporal changes in the maximum amplitude value.
Ralston teaches wherein the calculation unit generates the distance information, based on corrected echo information indicating temporal changes in the maximum amplitude value. (Paragraphs 80-81, Fig.1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Kawamura to incorporate wherein the calculation unit generates the distance information, based on corrected echo information indicating temporal changes in the maximum amplitude value as taught by Ralston in order to produce imagery with desired characteristics.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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 and overcoming all 112 rejections as detailed above.
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