DETAILED 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guenzel et al. (US 20180081055 A1, “Guenzel”).
Regarding claim 12, Guenzel discloses a method implemented by a sensor controller for a sensor, the method comprising: driving a piezoelectric transducer to generate a short acoustic burst for obstacle detection or distance measurement; obtaining a receive signal to monitor for reflections of the short acoustic burst ([0011], sensor system comprises at least one ultrasonic transducer and a controller for actuating the sensor as well as analyzing detected sound waves. The analyzing is carried out to determine the distance associated with reflecting the transmitted sound waves); and operating to clean the sensor by driving the piezoelectric transducer to generate a long acoustic burst at a resonant frequency of the piezoelectric transducer(Implicit, [0028], for an effective cleaning, it is preferred if the membrane in cleaning mode is stimulated over a longer period of time into vibrations than in the measuring mode)([0015]-[0016] cleaning mode is carried out at the resonance frequency of the sensor).
Regarding claim 13, Guenzel discloses the method of claim 12. Guenzel further discloses the sensor implements a series of sequential measurement intervals, and wherein the long acoustic burst occupies a full measurement interval with driven vibration or residual ringdown vibration(implicit, [0029] a length of the cleaning cycle can be predefined or predetermined by the driver. The cleaning mode is temporary and is followed by a subsequent sensor test)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the cleaning cycle make be predefined or predetermined to be equal to the measurement interval in duration. Once the cleaning mode is completed and a sensor test is conducted, if the sensor continues to show signs of blockage, cleaning mode may be restarted).
Regarding claim 14, Guenzel discloses the method of claim 12. Guenzel further discloses the short acoustic burst drives the piezoelectric transducer at a frequency above or below the resonant frequency ([0015]-[0016], cleaning mode is configured to generate cleaning vibrations which are at the resonance frequency. The cleaning frequency is preferably lower than the measuring frequency).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 10-11, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White et al. (US 20250110225 A1) in view of Guenzel.
Regarding claim 1, White discloses a sensor that comprises: a piezoelectric transducer; and a sensor controller that includes: a transmitter coupled to the piezoelectric transducer to generate an acoustic burst; a receiver coupled to at least one of the piezoelectric transducer and a microphone to detect a reflection of the acoustic burst within a measurement interval associated with the acoustic burst([0027], piezoelectric transducer may be a transmitter-receiver pair of separate transducers, which during operation function to emit one or more ultrasonic signals and receive reflected signals that are evaluated via the controller)([0039], transducer outputs a chirp signal that is generated by the electronic processor)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the receive transducer implicitly acts as a microphone); and a microcontroller ([0030], controller may include an electronic processor which may include a microcontroller)([0038], process for detecting and mitigating ice is carried out by the electronic controller)
White may not explicitly disclose control[ling] a length of the acoustic burst, the microcontroller setting a longer acoustic burst length when operating to clean the sensor, the longer burst length exceeding half of the measurement interval.
Guenzel teaches control[ling] a length of the acoustic burst, the microcontroller setting a longer acoustic burst length when operating to clean the sensor, the longer burst length exceeding half of the measurement interval (Implicit, [0028], for an effective cleaning, it is preferred if the membrane in cleaning mode is stimulated over a longer period of time into vibrations than in the measuring mode) (implicit, [0029] a length of the cleaning cycle can be predefined or predetermined by the driver. The cleaning mode is temporary and is followed by a subsequent sensor test)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the cleaning cycle make be predefined or predetermined to be equal to half of the measurement interval in duration).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of ultrasonic sensors, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the sensor of White, to include the longer cleaning interval of Guenzel with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of increasing the efficiency of the cleaning cycle [0028].
Regarding claim 2, White, as modified in view of Guenzel teaches the sensor of claim 1. Guenzel further teaches the longer burst length fully occupies the measurement interval with driven vibration or residual ringdown vibration (implicit, [0029] a length of the cleaning cycle can be predefined or predetermined by the driver. The cleaning mode is temporary and is followed by a subsequent sensor test)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the cleaning cycle make be predefined or predetermined to be equal to the measurement interval in duration).
Regarding claim 4, White, as modified in view of Guenzel teaches the sensor of claim 1. Guenzel further teaches the transmitter drives the transducer at a resonant frequency for the length of the acoustic burst when operating to clean the sensor, and drives the transducer at above or below the resonant frequency when operating to detect the reflection ([0015]-[0016], cleaning mode is configured to generate cleaning vibrations which are at the resonance frequency. The cleaning frequency is preferably lower than the measuring frequency).
Regarding claim 10, White, as modified in view of Guenzel teaches the sensor of claim 1. Guenzel further teaches when operating to clean the sensor the sensor controller heats the piezoelectric transducer without relying on a heater ([0017], cleaning amplitude is configured such that cleaning may be completed without the use of excessive heating of the ultrasonic transducer).
Regarding claim 11, White, as modified in view of Guenzel teaches the sensor of claim 1. White further teaches the microcontroller is configured to monitor for sensor impairment and is configured to automatically begin operating to clean the sensor after detecting sensor impairment ([0039]-[0042], processor evaluates one or more characteristics of the piezo element during signal transmission of the signal and compares to one or more predetermined thresholds to determine where there is an ice blockage associated with the transducer. If a blockage is determined to be present, an additional signal may be output at the resonant frequency to induce oscillations that may fracture the ice due to contact between the sensor and the ice blockage).
Regarding claim 17, the claim is a device claim corresponding to claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18, claim is a device claim corresponding to claim 11 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 5-9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White in view of Guenzel and Schoenherr et al. (DE 102013211419 A1, “Schoenherr”).
Regarding claim 5, White, as modified in view of Guenzel teaches the sensor of claim 1. White, as modified in view of Guenzel may not explicitly teach the transmitter drives the transducer with a drive current greater than or equal to 400 milliamps when operating to clean the sensor.
Schoenherr teaches the transmitter drives the transducer with a drive current greater than or equal to 400 milliamps when operating to clean the sensor ([attached machine translation, pg. 5], in heating mode, the transducer is driven at 400 mA).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of ultrasonic sensors, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the sensor of White, as modified in view of Guenzel to include the cleaning mode drive current of Schoenherr with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of increasing the temperature of the sensor in order to melt or remove any ice that is present [attached machine translation, pg. 5].
Regarding claim 6, White, as modified in view of Guenzel teaches the sensor of claim 1. White, as modified in view of Guenzel may not explicitly teach the microcontroller employs the longer acoustic burst length for multiple consecutive measurement intervals when operating to clean the sensor.
Schoenherr teaches the microcontroller employs the longer acoustic burst length for multiple consecutive measurement intervals when operating to clean the sensor (Implicit, [attached machine translation, pg. 5], after heating mode is exited, measuring mode is resumed to determine if the sensor signal reflections can be received again. If so, the sensor is deemed ice free and heating mode will not restart while measuring mode will be continued)..
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of ultrasonic sensors, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the sensor of White, as modified in view of Guenzel to include the cleaning mode repetition of Schoenherr with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of increasing the temperature of the sensor in order to melt or remove any ice that is present [attached machine translation, pg. 5].
Regarding claim 7, White, as modified in view of Guenzel teaches the sensor of claim 1. White, as modified in view of Guenzel may not explicitly teach when operating to clean the sensor, the microcontroller repeatedly employs the longer acoustic burst length until the sensor controller reaches a temperature threshold.
Schoenherr teaches when operating to clean the sensor, the microcontroller repeatedly employs the longer acoustic burst length until the sensor controller reaches a temperature threshold ([attached machine translation, pg. 2] heating mode is started when the external temperature falls below freezing and may continue as a function of outside temperature, meaning heating mode is longer when the external temperature remains below freezing for a longer period of time).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of ultrasonic sensors, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the sensor of White, as modified in view of Guenzel to include the cleaning mode duration of Schoenherr with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of increasing the temperature to reach a predetermined threshold that is above freezing [attached machine translation, pg. 2].
Regarding claim 8, White, as modified in view of Guenzel and Schoenherr teaches the sensor of claim 7. Schoenherr further teaches when operating to clean the sensor, the microcontroller resumes employing the longer acoustic burst length after the sensor controller returns from the temperature threshold to a lower temperature threshold. (Implicit, [attached machine translation, pg. 2] heating mode is started when the external temperature falls below freezing)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that in a scenario in which the external temperature of the sensor drops below freezing after the heating mode is concluded, the heating mode will implicitly be executed again).
Regarding claim 9, White, as modified in view of Guenzel and Schoenherr teaches the sensor of claim 7. Schoenherr further teaches the sensor controller heats a microphone port to clear away ice (Implicit, [attached machine translation, pg. 5], after heating mode is exited, measuring mode is resumed to determine if the sensor signal reflections can be received again. If so, the sensor is deemed ice free and heating mode will not restart while measuring mode will be continued)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the receiver is equivalent to a microphone and that heating it to remove ice buildup is equivalent to heating up a port).
Regarding claim 19, White, as modified in view of Guenzel teaches the sensor controller of claim 18. White, as modified in view of Guenzel may not explicitly teach when operating to clean the sensor, the microcontroller repeatedly employs the longer acoustic burst length to reach and maintain an elevated temperature for the sensor controller while the sensor impairment remains.
Schoenherr teaches when operating to clean the sensor, the microcontroller repeatedly employs the longer acoustic burst length to reach and maintain an elevated temperature for the sensor controller while the sensor impairment remains([attached machine translation, pg. 2] heating mode is started when the external temperature falls below freezing and may continue as a function of outside temperature, meaning heating mode is longer when the external temperature remains below freezing for a longer period of time).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of ultrasonic sensors, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the sensor controller of White, as modified in view of Guenzel to include the cleaning mode duration of Schoenherr with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of increasing the temperature to reach a predetermined threshold that is above freezing [attached machine translation, pg. 2].
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guenzel in view of Schoenherr.
Regarding claim 15, Guenzel discloses the method of claim 12. Guenzel may not explicitly disclose said driving the piezoelectric transducer is performed with a drive current greater than or equal to 400 milliamps when operating to clean the sensor.
Schoenherr teaches said driving the piezoelectric transducer is performed with a drive current greater than or equal to 400 milliamps when operating to clean the sensor([attached machine translation, pg. 5], in heating mode, the transducer is driven at 400 mA).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of ultrasonic sensors, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Guenzel to include the cleaning mode drive current of Schoenherr with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of increasing the temperature of the sensor in order to melt or remove any ice that is present [attached machine translation, pg. 5].
Regarding claim 16, Guenzel discloses the method of claim 13. Guenzel may not explicitly disclose as part of said operating to clean the sensor, the method includes repeatedly generating the long acoustic burst until the sensor controller reaches a temperature threshold.
Schoenherr teaches as part of said operating to clean the sensor, the method includes repeatedly generating the long acoustic burst until the sensor controller reaches a temperature threshold([attached machine translation, pg. 2] heating mode is started when the external temperature falls below freezing and may continue as a function of outside temperature, meaning heating mode is longer when the external temperature remains below freezing for a longer period of time).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of ultrasonic sensors, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Guenzel to include the cleaning mode duration of Schoenherr with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of increasing the temperature to reach a predetermined threshold that is above freezing [attached machine translation, pg. 2].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, White, as modified in view of Guenzel teaches the sensor of claim 1. Guenzel further teaches the measurement interval is greater than 50 ms, and wherein the microcontroller sets the length of the acoustic burst less than or equal to 4 ms when operating to detect the reflection([0028], for an effective cleaning, it is preferred if the membrane in cleaning mode is stimulated over a longer period of time into vibrations than in the measuring mode) ([0029] a length of the cleaning cycle can be predefined or predetermined by the driver. The cleaning mode is temporary and is followed by a subsequent sensor test)(Guenzel fails to disclose any limitation regarding a duration of the measurement mode specific duration nor the duration of the actual signal excitation during the measurement mode in sufficient detail to read upon the claim limitation).
Schoenherr et al. (DE 102013211419 A1, “Schoenherr”) teaches the measurement interval is greater than 50 ms, and wherein the microcontroller sets the length of the acoustic burst less than or equal to 4 ms when operating to detect the reflection ([attached machine translation, pg. 5] measurement interval may be set to have a 300 microsecond pulse duration for a 30 ms measurement interval duration or less. Schoenherr, nor any other identified prior art teaches total measurement interval being greater than 50 seconds, nor teaches the limitation in part with sufficient motivation combine).
Regarding claim 20, the claim is a device claim corresponding to claim 3 and is therefore indicated as containing allowable subject matter for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Treptow et al. (DE 102015211710 A1, “Treptow”) which discloses a method of heating an ultrasonic transducer
Displacido et al. (“Enhancement of ultrasonic de-icing via tone burst excitation." Journal of Aircraft 53.6 (2016): 1821-1829, “Displacido”) which discloses methods of ultrasonic de-icing through tone-burst excitation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6136. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at 571-270-3603. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645