DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-5 are pending.
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 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) 1, 3, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuura et al. [US 20170242120] in view of Ding et al. [US 11733377].
As to claim 1. Matsuura discloses An object detection device for a vehicle, comprising:
first to third sonar devices arranged spaced from each other on an outer periphery of the vehicle with the third sonar device being located between the first and second sonar devices, [fig. 2, 0031] ultrasonic sensors 10, and
a control unit for controlling the first to third sonar devices, [fig. 1, 0031] ECU 20, wherein:
the first and second sonar devices are configured to transmit sound waves and receive direct waves that are sound waves reflected by objects, [fig. 7, 0080] sensors 10RL and 10RRC receive direct waves D1 and D7, respectively,
the third sonar device is configured to receive indirect waves that are sound waves transmitted by the first and second sonar devices and reflected by the objects, [fig. 7, 0041, 0080] sensor 10RLC receives indirect waves D2 and D6 from sensors 10RL and 10RRC, respectively,
the control unit is configured to estimate positions of the objects that generate the direct waves and the indirect waves by reflection of the sound waves based on flight times of the direct waves and the indirect waves, [fig. 3, 0059, 0068],
the control unit is configured to, when, in a situation where the first and second sonar devices receive the direct waves and the third sonar device receives one indirect wave, [fig. 13, 0098] wherein sensor 10RRC would receive a direct wave if another object is located in the region between 10RRC and 10RR, a peak value of the indirect wave received by the third sonar device is greater than or equal to magnified peak values of the direct waves received by the first and second sonar devices with a predetermined magnification value, [0039, 0040, 0059] received wave above an object detection threshold; [0112] wherein an indirect wave received is multiplied by a compensation coefficient before being compared to the detection threshold, estimate a position of a first object existing in a detection area by the direct wave received by the first sonar device based on the flight time of the direct wave received by the first sonar devices and the flight time of the indirect wave received by the third sonar devices, [0098-0100] distance determined based on direct wave D1 and indirect wave D2, or estimate a position of a second object existing in a detection area by the direct wave received by the second sonar device based on the flight time of the direct wave received by the second sonar device and the flight time of the indirect wave received by the third sonar device, and
estimate a position of the object existing in the detection are by the direct wave received by the estimated sonar device based on the flight time of the direct wave received by the estimated sonar device and the flight time of the indirect wave received by the third sonar device, [0098] the control unit knows which of the 10RL or 10RRC transmitted the indirect wave received at 10RLC, in this case 10RL, [0059, 0091, 0099].
Hazama fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first and second sonars transmit simultaneously; and wherein the control unit is configured to identify a sonar device corresponding to the indirect wave received by the third sonar device among the first and second sonar devices.
Ding teaches a code signature detection for coded ultrasonic transmission comprising a plurality of ultrasonic transducers 105 installed on a bumper of a vehicle 1, [fig. 1, col. 3, lines 62-65]; wherein the transducers emit their sound signals simultaneously, [col. 5, lines 56-59]; and wherein each transducer emits a coded waveform with a unique frequency modulation signature, [col. 5, lines 39-46].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hazama with that of Ding so that the transducers can detect an object at the same time avoiding detecting time changing objects.
As to claim 3. Matsuura fails to disclose The object detection device for a vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the first and second sonar devices are configured to transmit sound waves encoded in different codes by frequency modulation, and the control unit is configured to estimate a sonar corresponding to the indirect wave received by the third sonar device based on the code of the indirect wave received by the third sonar device.
Ding teaches a code signature detection for coded ultrasonic transmission comprising a plurality of ultrasonic transducers 105 installed on a bumper of a vehicle 1, [fig. 1, col. 3, lines 62-65]; wherein each transducer emits a coded waveform with a unique frequency modulation signature which is used to identify the specific transmitter that transmitted the received wave, [col. 5, lines 34-46].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hazama with that of Ding so that the transducers can transmit at the same time.
As to claim 4. Matsuura discloses The object detection device for a vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to, when only one of the first and second sonar devices receives the direct wave and the third sonar device receives the indirect wave, estimate a position of the object existing in the detection area by the direct wave received by the one of the first and second sonar devices based on the flight time of the direct wave received by the one of the first and second sonar devices and the flight time of the indirect wave received by the third sonar device, [0098-0100] distance determined based on direct wave D1 and indirect wave D2.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuura in view of Ding as applied in claim 1 above, further in view of Matsuura et al. [Matsuura2, US 20200096633].
As to claim 5. The combination of Matsuura and Ding fails to disclose The object detection device for a vehicle according to claim 1, wherein with a range where the detection area by the direct wave received by the first sonar device and a detection area by the indirect wave received by the third sonar device overlap being defined as an overlapping range, and a ratio of a distance between an arbitrary point existing in the overlapping range and the third sonar device to a distance between the arbitrary point and the first sonar device being defined as a predetermined ratio, the predetermined magnification is a maximum value of the predetermined ratio.
Matsuura2 teaches an object detection device comprising a plurality of ultrasonic wave sensors 1 installed on a bumper of a vehicle 10, [figs. 1, 2, 0027]; wherein the ECU 4 receives a direct reflected wave 73 and an indirect reflected wave 74, [fig. 17, 0125]; wherein a ratio of the minimum amplitude of the direct wave to the maximum amplitude of the indirect reflected wave is used as a threshold, [0133, 0141].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Matsuura and Ding with that of Matsuura2 so that the system can determine if the two reflected waves are from two different objects.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
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 BENYAM HAILE whose telephone number is (571)272-2080. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 5:30 PM Mon. - Thur..
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, Steven Lim can be reached at (571)270-1210. 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.
/Benyam Haile/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688