, 1DETAILED ACTION
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 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 of claim 11. Accordingly the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 10, 12-15, and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altman (2013/0301391) in view of Stirling-Gallacher (EP 2463683).
With respect to claim 1, Altman discloses a transmitter configured to emit a frequency-modulated ([0138], lines 4-6) ultrasonic signal ([0148], lines 1-5) toward the object; a receiver configured to receive an echo signal from the object in response to the frequency-modulated ultrasonic signal being reflected from the object ([0138], lines 13-14); a mixer configured to mix the frequency-modulated ultrasonic signal with the echo signal to output a mixer signal ([0141], lines 5-8; [0143], lines 11-14); and one or more processors ([0139], line 1; [0145], line 1) configured to estimate a distance from the apparatus to the object based on the mixer signal ([0139], lines 3-5; [0145]), and detect a characteristic of the object based on the estimated distance ([0161], lines 6-11). However, it does not teach estimating a distance from the apparatus to the object based on a beat frequency obtained from the mixer signal.
Stirling-Gallacher teaches estimating a distance from the apparatus to the object based on a beat frequency obtained from the mixer signal ([0032], lines 20-28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the apparatus of Altman with the use of beat frequency as taught by Stirling-Gallacher since such a modification would have provided a way of measuring a distance with increased accuracy.
With respect to claim 12, Altman discloses to emitting a frequency-modulated ([0138], lines 4-6) ultrasonic signal ([0148], lines 1-5) toward the object; receiving an echo signal from the object in response to the frequency-modulated ultrasonic signal being reflected from the object ([0138], lines 13-14); mixing the frequency-modulated ultrasonic signal with the echo signal to output a mixer signal ([0141], lines 5-8; [0143], lines 11-14); and estimating a distance from the apparatus to the object based on the mixer signal ([0139], lines 3-5; [0145]), and detecting a characteristic of the object based on the estimated distance ([0161], lines 6-11).
However, it does not teach estimating a distance from the apparatus to the object based on a beat frequency obtained from the mixer signal.
Stirling-Gallacher teaches estimating a distance from the apparatus to the object based on a beat frequency obtained from the mixer signal ([0032], lines 20-28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the apparatus of Altman with the use of beat frequency as taught by Stirling-Gallacher since such a modification would have provided a way of measuring a distance with increased accuracy.
Claims 2-4, 10, 13-15, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altman in view of Stirling-Gallacher, and further in view of Doherty (2015/0192672).
With respect to claim 20, Altman teaches an ultrasound sensor configured to emit a frequency-modulated ([0138], lines 4-6) ultrasonic signal ([0148], lines 1-5) toward the object; receive an echo signal from the object in response to the frequency-modulated ultrasonic signal being reflected from the object ([0138], lines 13-14); mix the frequency-modulated ultrasonic signal with the echo signal to output a mixer signal ([0141], lines 5-8; [0143], lines 11-14); estimate a distance from the apparatus to the object based on the mixer signal ([0139], lines 3-5; [0145]), and detect a characteristic of the object based on the estimated distance ([0161], lines 6-11); a memory storing one or more instructions ([0158], lines 1-2; Fig 1: 151); and a processor ([0139], line 1; [0145], line 1) configured to execute the one or more instructions to operate the ultrasound sensor and to control the display to display the characteristic of the object. However, it does not teach a display.
Doherty teaches a display ([0026], lines 2-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the system of Altman with the display of Doherty since such a modification would have allowed for easier information access by the user.
With respect to claims 2 and 13, Altman in view of Stirling-Gallacher teaches the invention as discussed above. However, it does not teach an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) configured to convert the mixer signal into a digital signal and transmit the digital signal to the one or more processors.
Doherty teaches an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) configured to convert the mixer signal into a digital signal and transmit the digital signal to the one or more processors ([0029], lines 6-7). It would have been obvious to the of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the system of Altman with the analog-to-digital converter of Doherty since such a modification would have enabled the analog received signals to be processed using a digital computer processor.
With respect to claims 3 and 14, Altman teaches estimating the distance by performing frequency analysis on the digital signal through Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) ([00146], lines 4-7).
With respect to claims 4 and 15, Altman teaches the invention as discussed above. It further teaches performing frequency analysis within an envelope estimation of expected distance ([0174]). However, it does not teach obtaining a frequency response characteristic of the object based on the estimated distance, and detect the characteristic of the object based on the obtained frequency response characteristic.
Doherty teaches obtaining a frequency response characteristic of the object based on the estimated distance, and detect the characteristic of the object based on the obtained frequency response characteristic ([0056]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the system of Altman with the frequency response characteristic determination of Doherty since such a modification would have allowed for more accurate positioning of the desired target.
With respect to claim 10, Altman as modified teaches the invention as discussed above. However, it does not teach obtaining the characteristic of the object by comparing the obtained frequency response characteristic with a frequency response characteristic template pre-stored in a storage device or by inputting the obtained frequency response characteristic to a pre-trained neural network.
Doherty teaches obtaining the characteristic of the object by comparing the obtained frequency response characteristic with a frequency response characteristic template pre-stored in a storage device or by inputting the obtained frequency response characteristic to a pre-trained neural network ([0057]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the system of Altman with the stored frequency characteristic of Doherty since such a modification would have improved accuracy of the determinations and allowed for multiple types of objects to be accurately identified quickly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9 and 16-19 are 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.
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.
The prior art which is cited but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The references made herein are done so for the convenience of the applicant. They are in no way intended to be limiting. The prior art should be considered in its entirety.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRYSTINE E BREIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7614. The examiner can normally be reached Monday (9:30am-6:30pm); Tuesday & Friday (11:30am-5:30pm).
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.
/KRYSTINE E BREIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights