DETAILED ACTION
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 .
The following addresses applicant’s remarks/amendments dated 21st April, 2026. No Claim(s) were amended; No Claim(s) were cancelled, and No Claim(s) were added. Therefore, Claim(s) 1-20 are pending in current application and are addressed below. Examiner appreciates the courtesies extended by applicant throughout the prosecution of this application.
Benefit of an Earlier Filing
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in Foreign Application No. (KR) 10-2023-0187654 filed on 20th December, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/23/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks Pg. 6-7), with respect to the rejection of the Claim(s) as being improper, have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant submits that the Office Action failed to establish how “each and every one” of the claimed features is believed to be disclosed by KLUS. In the Office Action, the recitations of the claims appear to be “cut and pasted” onto pages 3-7 of the Office Action with brief parentheticals appended to the end of each line of the claim. These parentheticals only cite paragraph numbers and figures in KLUS. However, no reasoning is provided explaining why these paragraphs and figures from KLUS are believed to disclose the claimed features in each line. Applicant respectfully submits that the rejections are improper.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains that the rejections are proper. The Office Action identified the specific claim limitations and cited the portions of KLUS relied upon for those limitations. The cited portions disclose the relevant ultrasonic sensor architecture and signal-processing operations, including transmission/reception of ultrasonic signals, generation of an envelop signal, comparison of the envelope signal with a threshold curve, echo detection when the threshold is exceeded, acquisition of a resulting data frame and storage of that frame for further processing. (see for example ([0022]-[0024]; [0033]-[0037]).
Applicant has not shown that the cited paragraphs are unrelated to the claimed subject matter; rather, Applicant merely disagrees with the Examiner’s interpretation of the cited disclosure. Such disagreement does not render the rejection improper since applicant has not established that the rejection is improper, but instead merely disagrees with the Examiners reading and application of the cited disclosure.
Furthermore, Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. However, any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks Pg. 6-8), with respect to the rejection of Claim(s) 1, 10 and 19 under AlA 35 U.S.C. §102 (a)(1 ) or (a)(2) or both as being anticipated by KLUS (DE102021121156B4), have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant submits that KLUS fails to disclose the claimed combination including at least the claim features of “in response to a size of the envelope signal satisfying a preconfigured reference, generate a data frame including sizes of the envelope signal,” as required by independent claim 1. That the Office cites paragraphs [0022]-[0023], [0033], and [0323] of KLUS in support. However, a review of these citations reveals that KLUS simply does not teach the above-noted claim features. Paragraphs [0022]-[0023] and [0033] of KLUS describe general signal processing operations, including comparison and envelope detection. They do not describe generating a data frame in response to a condition being satisfied. Also, paragraph [0323]-which the Office appears to rely upon for the ‘data frame’ aspect-is entirely directed to a hardware laboratory setup. It describes a laptop, an NXP board, an adapter board, sensor boards, and data bus connections. There is no mention whatsoever of a 'data frame,' let alone generating such a frame containing envelope signal sizes in response to a threshold condition. Further, that the ‘data frame’ described at paragraph [0334] is used for conveying echo detection status and state information through binary IO line signals (i.e., whether an echo was detected or not). In contrast, the claimed data frame is a data structure that stores amplitude values of the envelope signal, selectively compressed based on a threshold comparison at a preconfigured sampling rate. These are fundamentally different data structures serving entirely different purposes. That the architectural difference between KLUS and the claimed subject matter further supports the patentability of the claims. KLUS employs an ultrasonic echo detector architecture where a micro-IC transmits echo detection results as high/low binary signals on an IO line. In contrast, the present application employs a signal compressor (130) that compares the envelope signal with a preconfigured threshold and, when the preconfigured reference is satisfied, generates a data frame by matching amplitude values with time stamp data. KLUS entirely lacks a signal compression module and the associated data frame generation functionality.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner maintains that prior art of KLUS does disclose teach or suggest “in response to a size of the envelope signal satisfying a preconfigured reference, generate a data frame including sizes of the envelope signal”, as required by independent claim 1. Applicant’s argument focuses on difference between the embodiment described in Applicant’s Specification and the embodiment disclosed in KLUS. However, patentability is determined based upon the claim language rater than the unclaimed implementation details. The claim does not recite a particular compression algorithm, selective retention of amplitude values, a specialized frame format, or any particular signal-compression architecture. KLUS expressly teaches generation of an envelope signal, comparison of the envelope signal with a threshold value, detection of threshold satisfaction, and generation of a resulting data frame based on that evaluation. Accordingly, Applicant has not persuasively distinguished the claimed subject matter from the cited disclosure. Furthermore, the reference KLUS is not limited to a simple binary indication as alleged by Applicant. Rather, in ([0022]), KLUS expressly discloses preparation of an event array containing time and value pairs, demonstrating that the reference generates and processes data structures containing signal-related values. Furthermore, [0023] discloses: “The timer module 0 in this example acquires the resulting frame (data frame) from echo and status information”; and [0024] discloses: “the […] MCU memory […], stores that frame […]”. Meaning, the threshold comparison produces echo information, and the resulting frame is acquired and stored. Furthermore, [0027] recites: “the integrated circuit, the sensor IC, digitally amplifies, samples the incoming pulses and compares the result to the thresholds”. Which expressly teaches digitizing, sampling, and threshold comparison. Furthermore, [0033] discloses: “the microintegral circuit of the ultrasonic sensor amplifies and digitizes the ultrasonic reception signal” […] “digitally filters and reamplifies the ultrasonic receiving signal” […] “This envelope signal contains an amplitude for each distance value” […] “The basic principle of echo detection is the comparison between the envelope signal and the threshold value curve. If the envelope value exceeds the threshold value” […]. Furthermore, [0035] discloses: “The dynamic part adjusts the threshold value curve as a function of the time profile of the envelope curve signal” […] wherein the threshold is directly applied to the envelope signal. Furthermore, [0036] discloses: “If the time value of the envelope signal exceeds the threshold curve, the IO line changes to a lower voltage level” i.e., if envelope exceeds threshold, output event occurs. Furthermore, [0036] discloses: “The IO line changes from the high state to the low state […] when the level of the envelope signal exceeds the threshold curve”. Which is essentially synonymous with the claimed size/amplitude. Therefore, the rejection is proper and maintained.
With respect to the respect to the rejection of Independent Claim(s) 10 and 19; by virtue of their similarity to independent Claim 1, as well as for the subject matter that it separately recites; the Examiners aforementioned response shows explicit reasons why the art of record still anticipates applicants Independent Claim 1; and therefore, Independent Claim(s) 10 and 19 remain anticipated and thus, these rejections still stand.
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks Pg. 8), with respect to the rejection of Claim 2 under AlA 35 U.S.C. §102 (a)(1) or (a)(2) or both as being anticipated by KLUS (DE102021121156B4), have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant has submitted that the rejection of claim 2 is improper. For example, claim 2 further limits the compressor to, in response to the reference being satisfied, match and store both the timestamp and the size in a memory. The Office's citation of KLUS [0033] and [0330] is insufficient. These paragraphs broadly discuss processing and memory. They fail to disclose the specific act of matching the timestamp data with the envelope signal size for storage as a linked data pair in response to the condition being met. This is a specific data management step not taught by the general disclosure of KLUS.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner maintains that prior art of KLUS does disclose, teach or suggest he specific act of matching the timestamp data with the envelope signal size for storage as a linked data pair in response to the condition being met. The claim doesn’t explicitly recite “a linked data pair”; “a relational association table”; “a database record, a pointer structure, a kay-value pair, or any specific memory architecture”; instead, the claim merely recites “timestamp data, corresponding signal information, and storage memory”. [0022] discloses: “[…] This array contains time and value pairs […]” a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would immediately understand that the value is associated with a corresponding time. Furthermore, [0023] discloses: “[…] The timer module 0 […] acquires the resulting frame (data frame) […]”. This demonstrates formation of the data structure. Furthermore, [0024] discloses: “The example MCU memory […], stores that frame in array “CHnCaptureResult”. This expressly teaches storage in memory. Therefore, the rejection does not rely upon generic memory disclosure alone. Rather, KLUS expressly teaches preparation of a data structure containing both timing information and corresponding values. Specifically, [0022] teaches that the MCU prepares an event array and that “[…] This array contains time and value pairs […]”. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would immediately understand that a time/value pair associates a value with a corresponding time occurrence. Thus, the reference expressly teaches matching timing information with corresponding signal information. KLUS further teaches acquisition of a resulting data frame and storage of that frame in memory. [0023] teaches acquisition of the resulting data frame, while [0024] teaches storage of the frame in memory in array CHnCaptureResult. Applicant’s argument that the claim requires a special “linked data pair” structure is unsupported by the claim language. Claim 2 doesn’t recite any particular data structure, memory architecture, database relationship, pointer arrangement, or storage format. Rather, the claim broadly requires matching timestamp information with corresponding signal information and storing that information in memory. KLUS’s disclosure of time/value pairs stored as part of the acquired frame reasonably teaches the claimed matching and storage operation. Furthermore, Applicant’s argument focuses on the manner in which the information is organized within the memory rather than on the claim language itself. Even assuming, arguendo, that Applicant’s Specification describes a particular storage arrangement, Claim 2 doesn’t positively recite any such arrangement. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim and is not persuasive. The rejection of Claim 2 is proper and maintained.
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks Pg. 8), with respect to the rejection of Claim 3 under AlA 35 U.S.C. §102 (a)(1 ) or (a)(2) or both as being anticipated by KLUS (DE102021121156B4), have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant submits that the rejection of claim 3 is improper. For example, claim 3 requires a specific action when the condition is NOT met: storing a preconfigured level value (a flag) and the timestamp. The Office's citation of KLUS [0338] does not cure this deficiency. KLUS does not teach this bifurcated storage method-storing actual amplitude data when a signal is valid, and a simple flag value when it is not. The Office has provided no evidence that KLUS discards the actual amplitude in favor of a "level value" for sub-threshold samples. The claimed method preserves timing information (timestamp) for all samples but conserves data by using a flag for invalid ones. This is a specific solution to a data efficiency problem, which is absent from KLUS.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner maintains that prior art of KLUS does disclose teach or suggest “specific action when the condition is NOT met: storing a preconfigured level value (a flag) and the timestamp.” Claim 3 doesn’t recite: data composition, data efficiency, valid samples, invalid samples, actual amplitude values, a bifurcated storage architecture, storage optimization, or selective retention of data. Instead, claim 3 simply recites: when a threshold/reference is not satisfied, store a preconfigured level and timestamp data. The claim is much broader than the embodiment Applicant is attempting to rely upon. [0036] discloses: “If the time value of the envelope signal exceeds the threshold curve, the IO line changes to a lower voltage level”. This demonstrates that the system uses predetermined output levels associated with the threshold evaluation process. [0037] The IO line changes from the high state to the low state […] when the level of the envelope signal exceeds the threshold curve. This expressly discloses predefined output levels of high and low stats which are precisely the type of “level values” that would be output as a consequence of threshold evaluation. [0023] discloses: “The timer module 0 […] acquires the resulting frame (data frame) from echo and status information”. The frame contains not merely echo information but also status information. [0024] discloses: “MCU memory […] stores that frame. Thus, status information, frame generation, and storage in memory are all expressly discloses by KLUS. Accordingly, KLUS teaches storing predetermined information together with associated timing information resulting from threshold evaluation of the envelope signal. Applicant’s arguments relies on distinctions involving “actual amplitude data”, invalid samples”, “flags” and a purported “data-efficiency problem” none of these features are positively recited in Claim 3. Patentability cannot be predicted upon limitations that do not appear in the claim. The rejection is based upon what the claim requires, namely storing predetermined level information and corresponding timing information resulting from threshold evaluation of the envelope signal. The cited reference expressly teaches output levels, status information, data-frame generation and storage of that information in memory. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim and is not persuasive. The rejection of Claim 3 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks Pg. 8-9), with respect to the rejection of Claim 4 under AlA 35 U.S.C. §102 (a)(1 ) or (a)(2) or both as being anticipated by KLUS (DE102021121156B4), have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant submits that the rejection of claim 4 is improper. For example, claim 4 adds the logic for when and how the data frame is generated. The compressor waits until a “generation number of the time stamp data” hits a reference number, then searches the memory and extracts data to generate the frame. The Office cites [0022]-[0024] to disclose claim 4. These paragraphs in KLUS are extremely general, likely describing basic counter or loop operations. They do not teach the specific combination of (i) counting timestamps, (ii) using that count as a trigger to search memory, and (iii) extracting only the data matched to a specific level value (i.e., the valid data from claim 2). This is a multi-step, state-based logic that is not rendered obvious by the existence of a simple counter in KLUS.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner maintains that prior art of KLUS does disclose teach or suggest the limitation of claim 4. Claim 4 broadly recites accessing stored information and generating a data frame based on that information, but does not recite any particular search algorithm, memory architecture, extraction technique, or state-machine logic. KLUS teaches preparing data structures containing time and value information ([0022]); generating a result data frame from echo and status information ([0023]) and storing that frame in memory for subsequent processing and evaluation ([0024]) A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that subsequent processing and evaluation of stored data necessarily requires accessing and utilizing the stored information. Accordingly, the cited reference teaches the claimed operations of storing time-related information, processing stored information, and generating a data frame therefrom. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim and is not persuasive. The rejection of Claim 4 is maintained.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102“(a)(1)” or “(a)(2)” or both as being anticipated by KLUS (DE102021121156B4).
Referring to Claim 1, KLUS teaches an ultrasonic sensor ([0001]) comprising:
a transmission/reception interface configured to transmit an ultrasonic signal, based on a burst signal, and receive an echo signal with respect to the ultrasonic signal ([0027]);
a signal processor configured to detect an envelope signal from the burst signal and the echo signal ([0033]);
a signal compressor configured to: compare the envelope signal with a preconfigured threshold, based on a preconfigured sampling rate ([0033]);
in response to a size of the envelope signal satisfying a preconfigured reference, generate a data frame including sizes of the envelope signal ([0022]-[0023]; [0033]; [0323]).
Referring to Claim 2, KLUS teaches the ultrasonic sensor of claim 1, wherein the signal compressor is further configured to:
in response to a size of the envelope signal satisfying the preconfigured reference, match time stamp data related to a corresponding sampling time point, and the size of the envelope signal to be stored in a memory ([0033]; [0330]).
Referring to Claim 3, KLUS teaches the ultrasonic sensor of claim 2, wherein the signal compressor is further configured to:
in response to a size of the envelope signal not satisfying the reference, store a level value preconfigured to be output and time stamp data related to a corresponding sampling time point in the memory ([0338]).
Referring to Claim 4, KLUS teaches the ultrasonic sensor of claim 3, wherein the signal compressor is further configured to:
search the memory in response to a generation number of the time stamp data reaching a preconfigured reference number ([0022]-[0024]);
extract a size of the envelope signal and time stamp data matched to a level value preconfigured to be output, in response to the reference being satisfied so as to generate a data frame ([0022]-[0024]).
Referring to Claim 5, KLUS teaches the ultrasonic sensor of claim 1, wherein the signal compressor is further configured to:
compare the envelope signal with one threshold and store, in response to a size of the envelope signal at a sampling time point being greater than or equal to at least one of the threshold, a first level value, time stamp data related to the corresponding sampling time point, the size of the envelope signal, or any combination of the first level value, the time stamp data and the size of the envelope signal ([0338]).
Referring to Claim 6, KLUS teaches the ultrasonic sensor of claim 5, wherein the signal compressor is further configured to store a second level value and time stamp data related to a corresponding sampling time point, in response to a size of the envelope signal being less than a threshold ([0338]).
Referring to Claim 7, KLUS teaches the ultrasonic sensor of claim 1, wherein the signal compressor is further configured to, in response to a size of the envelope signal at a sampling time point falling between a first threshold and a second threshold greater than the first threshold, compare the envelope signal with at least two thresholds and store a first level value, time stamp data related to the corresponding sampling time point, and the size of the envelope signal (Fig. 10, Fig. 11; [0334], [0335]).
Referring to Claim 8, KLUS teaches the ultrasonic sensor of claim 7, wherein the signal compressor is configured to:
in response to a size of the envelope signal being less than the first threshold, store a second level value and time stamp data related to a corresponding sampling time point ([0338]);
in response to the size of the envelope signal being greater than the second threshold, store a third level value and time stamp data related to a corresponding sampling time point ([0338]).
Referring to Claim 9, KLUS teaches the ultrasonic sensor of claim 1, wherein the envelope signal comprises a first envelope signal from the burst signal and a second envelope signal from the echo signal ([0033]-[0045]; Fig. 10; Fig. 11).
Claim 10 is essentially the same as Claim 1 and refers to a signal processing method of the ultrasonic sensor of Claim 1. Therefore Claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 1 above.
Claim 11 is essentially the same as Claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 2 above.
Claim 12 is essentially the same as Claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 3 above.
Claim 13 is essentially the same as Claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 4 above.
Claim 14 is essentially the same as Claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 5 above.
Claim 15 is essentially the same as Claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 6 above.
Claim 16 is essentially the same as Claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 7 above.
Claim 17 is essentially the same as Claim 8 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 8 above.
Claim 18 is essentially the same as Claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 9 above.
Claim 19 is essentially the same as Claim 1 and refers to a vehicle for the ultrasonic sensor of Claim 1; and further comprises a vehicle controller ([0002]); transmit the data frame to the vehicle controller ([0027]). Therefore Claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 1 above.
Claim 20 is essentially the same as Claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 9 above.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. However, any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 AMIE M N'DURE whose telephone number is (571)272-6031. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Isam Alsomiri can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AMIE M NDURE/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ABDALLAH ABULABAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights