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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed 06/17/2026 has been entered. Claims 23-44 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 27-28 and 37. Accordingly, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant' s arguments with respect to claim(s) 23, 40 and all subsequent dependent claims have been considered but are moot in view of the references cited in the most current rejection with respect to the amended claim language as currently written.
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) 23-30, 34-38 and 40-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bendel (DE 102020110756 A1, all citations provided from machine translation attached) in view of Touge (US 20080079537 A1) and Yoshimura (US 8645022 B2).
Regarding claim 23, Bendel teaches a device (fig.2) for detecting an actuator (8) by sonicating the actuator with sound waves by a sensor (7), namely in a safety application (door closed state) for ensuring the safety of a system, wherein the sensor (7) and the actuator (8) are movable relative to each other. (Abstract, Page.4, lines 3-12 and lines 14-15, Claims 1, 6, Fig.2)
Bendel also teaches the sensor (7) comprises a sound wave transmitter (ultrasound source), a sound wave receiver (ultrasound receiver) and a computing unit (9), wherein the sound wave transmitter and sound wave receiver can be realized as a single component (7) (the sensor is equipped with a corresponding source (ultrasound source, radio wave source) and an additional receiver (ultrasound receiver, radio wave receiver). (Page.3, lines 37-46, Claims 1, 10, Fig.2)
Bendel also teaches the sound wave transmitter (ultrasound source) is intended to transmit sound waves (ultrasonic waves) in the direction of the actuator (8) and the sound wave receiver (ultrasound receiver) is intended to pick up the sound waves reflected by the actuator (8) (the sound waves in question are reflected by the probe element). (Page.4, lines 3-12 and lines 14-15, Page.3, lines 37-46, Claims 1, 6, Fig.2)
Bendel also teaches wherein, the computing unit (9) implements the detection of the actuator by comparison with a reference signal (coding or the respective coding varies as a function of a relative position between the sensor and the probe element) (the coding is then evaluated by the control unit to determine the relative position in which the sensor and the probe element are to one another). (Page.5, lines 1-13)
Bendel does not explicitly teach converting received signal to analog signal and the computing unit converts the analog signal into a digital signal and implements the detection of the actuator by comparison with a reference signal, which is assigned to the actuator.
Touge teaches converting received signal to analog signal. (Abstract, Paragraphs 7, 26, Claim 1)
Yoshimura teaches the computing unit (100) converts the analog signal into a digital signal (generating node 100 may further comprise an analog/digital converter (ADC)) and implements the detection of the actuator by comparison with a reference signal, which is assigned to the actuator (300). (Figs.40-46)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Bendel to incorporate converting received signal to analog signal as taught by Touge in order to execute conversion between the ultrasonic wave signal and an electric signal in order to process the received signals and further modify Bendel to incorporate the computing unit converts the analog signal into a digital signal and implements the detection of the actuator by comparison with a reference signal, which is assigned to the actuator as taught by Yoshimura in order to detect failures or abnormalities in the system and adjust accordingly.
Regarding claim 24, Bendel teaches wherein the actuator has a pattern from which the sound waves are reflected and changed. (Page.3, lines 37-46, Page.4, lines 3-12)
Regarding claim 25, Bendel teaches wherein the sensor comprises computing unit which has a reference signal. (Page.5, lines 1-13, Claims 1, 10, Figs.2-3) Bendel discloses the claimed invention except for two computing units. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to incorporate two computing units, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 26, Bendel teaches wherein the actuator has a contact surface for the sensor, wherein the pattern is arranged at a distance from the contact surface. (Fig.2)
Regarding claim 27, Bendel teaches wherein the actuator and the sensor are installed movable relative to each other such that they can contact each other or such that a nominal distance remains when the actuator and the sensor are at their maximum approximation, wherein the device is configured such that the sound wave transmitter of the sensor is directed towards the pattern of the actuator when there is contact or when the actuator and the sensor are at their maximum approximation, respectively. (Figs.1-2)
Regarding claim 28, Bendel teaches wherein the sound wave transmitter and the sound wave receiver for detecting the actuator rest on a contact surface of the actuator. (Figs.1-2)
Regarding claim 29, Bendel teaches wherein the sound wave receiver picks up the reflected sound waves in their entirety. (Page.4, lines 3-12 and lines 14-15, Page.3, lines 37-46, Claims 1, 6)
Regarding claim 30, Bendel teaches wherein the reference signal is stored in the computing unit. (Page.5, lines 1-13)
Regarding claim 34, Bendel does not explicitly teach wherein the computing unit infers the pattern of the actuator by comparison with a reference signal.
Touge teaches wherein the computing unit infers the pattern of the actuator by comparison with a reference signal. (Paragraphs 25, 36-37, 40, Figs.4, 6)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Bendel to incorporate wherein the computing unit infers the pattern of the actuator by comparison with a reference signal as taught by Touge in order to execute envelope detection to unlock the device
Regarding claim 35, Bendel does not explicitly teach wherein the computing unit generates a binary signal based on the detection of the actuator.
Touge teaches wherein the computing unit generates a binary signal based on the detection of the actuator. (Paragraphs 36-37, Fig.4)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Bendel to incorporate wherein the computing unit generates a binary signal based on the detection of the actuator as taught by Touge in order to execute envelope detection to unlock the device
Regarding claim 36, Bendel does not explicitly teach wherein the computing unit generates a switch-off signal if the actuator is not successfully detected.
Touge teaches wherein the computing unit generates a switch-off signal if the actuator is not successfully detected. (Paragraph 46)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Bendel to incorporate wherein the computing unit generates a switch-off signal if the actuator is not successfully detected as taught by Touge to implement a safety procedure and unwanted/intended unlocking.
Regarding claim 37, Bendel teaches wherein the sound wave transmitter and the sound wave receiver are arranged at the same location, in particular use a same membrane for transmitting and receiving sound waves. (Page.3, lines 37-46, Claims 1, 10, Figs.2-3)
Regarding claim 38, Bendel teaches wherein the sound wave transmitter generates sound waves with a frequency. (Page.4, lines 3-22) Bendel discloses the claimed invention except for a frequency of 300 kHz to 20 MHz. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to incorporate a frequency of 300 kHz to 20 MHz, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 40, Bendel teaches a method for recognizing an actuator (8) with the aid of sound waves which are transmitted by a sound wave transmitter (ultrasound source) and received by a sound wave receiver (ultrasound receiver) for ensuring the safety of a system. (Page.3, lines 37-46, Claims 1, 10, Fig.2)
Bendel also teaches transmitting sound waves to a pattern of the actuator and receiving the sound waves reflected by the pattern of the actuator by a sound wave receiver. (Page.4, lines 3-12 and lines 14-15, Page.3, lines 37-46, Claims 1, 10, Fig.2)
Bendel also teaches comparison of this signal by a computing unit with a reference signal stored therein. (Page.5, lines 1-13)
Bendel does not explicitly teach converting the sound waves into an electrical signal and comparison of this signal by a computing unit with a reference signal, which is assigned to the actuator and generation of a binary signal as a result of the comparison by the computing unit and determination of the detection of the actuator on the basis of the binary signal.
Touge teaches converting the sound waves into an electrical signal (converting the oscillation signal of the ultrasonic wave into the electric signal) and generation of a binary signal (w4-w8) as a result of the comparison (4b) by the computing unit and determination of the detection of the actuator on the basis of the binary signal. (Paragraphs 7, 26, 36-37 Claim 1, Fig.4)
Yoshimura teaches comparison of this signal by a computing unit (100) with a reference signal, which is assigned to the actuator (300). (Figs.40-46, Col.41, lines 25-46)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Bendel to incorporate converting the sound waves into an electrical signal and generation of a binary signal as a result of the comparison by the computing unit and determination of the detection of the actuator on the basis of the binary signal as taught by Touge to execute conversion between the ultrasonic wave signal and an electric signal in order to process the received signals and further modify Bendel to incorporate comparison of this signal by a computing unit with a reference signal, which is assigned to the actuator as taught by Yoshimura in order to detect failures or abnormalities in the system and adjust accordingly.
Regarding claim 41, Bendel teaches wherein in a first step the reference signal is generated by teaching-in the actuator. (Page.3, line 37-Page.4, line 22)
Regarding claim 42, Bendel teaches wherein the method is used in a safety application and a warning signal or a safety withdrawal is generated if the actuator is not successfully detected. (Page.5, line 27-29, Page.3, lines 1-3, Claims 1, 10)
Regarding claim 43, Bendel teaches wherein the actuator has a contact surface and the sound wave transmitter bears against this contact surface to detect the actuator. (Fig.2)
Regarding claim 44, Bendel teaches wherein the sound wave transmitter transmits sound waves directed essentially perpendicularly to the contact surface. (Page.4, lines 3-12 and lines 14-15, Page.3, lines 37-46, Claims 1, 6, Fig.2)
Claim(s) 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bendel in view of Touge, Yoshimura and Zhou (CN 209924678 U, all citations provided from machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 31, Bendel does not explicitly teach wherein the pattern of the actuator has a three-dimensional structure.
Zhou teaches wherein the pattern of the actuator has a three-dimensional structure. (Page.3, lines 7-8 and lines 18-20, Page.5, lines 42-47, Claims 12, 16, 18, Figs.1-2)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Bendel to incorporate wherein the pattern of the actuator has a three-dimensional structure as taught by Zhou in order to lock and unlock the vehicle without unwanted or unintended procedures.
Regarding claim 32, Bendel does not explicitly teach wherein the pattern comprises two surfaces facing the contact surface of the actuator, each of which has a different distance from the contact surface.
Zhou teaches wherein the pattern comprises two surfaces facing the contact surface of the actuator, each of which has a different distance from the contact surface. (Page.3, lines 7-8 and lines 18-20, Page.5, lines 42-47, Claims 12, 16, 18, Figs.1-2)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Bendel to incorporate wherein the pattern comprises two surfaces facing the contact surface of the actuator, each of which has a different distance from the contact surface as taught by Zhou in order to lock and unlock the vehicle without unwanted or unintended procedures.
Regarding claim 33, Bendel does not explicitly teach wherein the difference between the distances of these two surfaces is less than 1 mm.
Zhou teaches wherein the difference between the distances of these two surfaces is a distance. (Page.3, lines 7-8 and lines 18-20, Page.5, lines 42-47, Claims 12, 16, 18, Figs.1-2) Bendel in view of Zhou discloses the claimed invention except for a distance less than 1 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to incorporate a distance less than 1 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Bendel to incorporate wherein the difference between the distances of these two surfaces is less than 1 mm. as taught by Zhou in order to lock and unlock the vehicle without unwanted or unintended procedures.
Claim(s) 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bendel in view of Touge, Yoshimura and Witte (EP 3054069 A1, all citations provided from machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 39, Bendel does not explicitly teach wherein the actuator is made of a plastic material which is characterized by a low sonic velocity and a low temperature dependence thereof.
Witte teaches wherein the actuator is made of a plastic material which is characterized by a low sonic velocity and a low temperature dependence thereof. (Page.2, lines 38-40)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Bendel to incorporate wherein the actuator is made of a plastic material which is characterized by a low sonic velocity and a low temperature dependence thereof as taught by Witte in order to detect position of metallic objects with respect to the distance sensor with high precision.
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 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
