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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the change information". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4, from which claim 7 depends makes no recitation of “change information”. Additionally, earlier in claim 7, there are recitations of both a “change in intensity of the reflected wave”, as well as “changing directivity”, so it is unclear whether “the change information” corresponds to one or both of the “change in intensity of the reflected intensity” and “changing directivity”. It is the examiner’s interpretation that the “change information” of claim 7 is change information in which a degree of change in a height direction is set according to a change in intensity.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Funakubo (JP 2012249950, “Funakubo”. Refer to attached machine translation for all text citations).
Regarding claim 1, Funakubo discloses an ultrasound generator comprising:
a vibrator including a piezoelectric body that, when an alternating-current voltage is applied, vibrates due to a piezoelectric effect and generates ultrasound (pg. 3, common electrode functions as a ground electrode within the piezoelectric device. When alternating current voltages are impressed with common electrodes and the first or second electrode, polarization is formed in either a first or second region in order to generate an ultrasonic wave in an axial direction with respect to the piezoelectric device. In order to oppose the first or second electrode, the common electrode may act as a counter electrode)
two or more electrodes (Fig. 2 (114) and (116)) provided at positions different in height on a surface of the piezoelectric body, and a counter electrode (Fig. 118) provided at a position facing the two or more electrodes (Fig. 2 illustrates electrodes (114) and (116) being situated in a manner such that depending on the installation orientation, are at different height positions. Additionally, electrode (118), which acts as a counter electrode (See pg. 3) is positioned such that it faces electrode (114) and (116));
a control unit that, when receiving ultrasound generation instruction including information about directivity of ultrasound to be generated([attached machine translation, pg. 2], pulsar receiver, under control of the controller, transmits the output signal to the ultrasonic probe in order to transmit the ultrasonic wave),
performs control to select from among the two or more electrodes and the counter electrode, a combination of a voltage application electrode and ground electrode corresponding to directivity according to the ultrasound generation instruction, the voltage application electrode being an electrode to which an alternating-current voltage is applied, and the ground electrode being an electrode to be set to a ground potential(pg. 3, common electrode functions as a ground electrode within the piezoelectric device. When alternating current voltages are impressed with common electrodes and the first or second electrode, polarization is formed in either a first or second region in order to generate an ultrasonic wave in an axial direction with respect to the piezoelectric device)
and apply an alternating- current voltage to the voltage application electrode to generate ultrasound (pg. 2, pulsar receiver, under control of the controller, transmits the output signal to the ultrasonic probe in order to transmit the ultrasonic wave) (pg. 4, applying voltages in different polarization formation regions results in different ultrasonic waves with different directivity being formed).
Regarding claim 2, Funakubo discloses the ultrasound generator according to claim 1. Funakubo further teaches a storage unit that stores correspondence information about a combination of the voltage application electrode and the ground electrode among the two or more electrodes and the counter electrode, and directivity of ultrasound to be generated(Implicit, pg. 2, pulsar receiver, under control of the controller, transmits the output signal to the ultrasonic probe in order to transmit the ultrasonic wave) (pg. 4, applying voltages in different polarization formation regions results in different ultrasonic waves with different directivity being formed)
wherein the control unit performs controls to generate the ultrasound with reference to the correspondence information (Implicit, pg. 3, common electrode functions as a ground electrode within the piezoelectric device. When alternating current voltages are impressed with common electrodes and the first or second electrode, polarization is formed in either a first or second region in order to generate an ultrasonic wave in an axial direction with respect to the piezoelectric device).
Regarding claim 3, the claim is a device claim corresponding to claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 4, the claim is a device claim corresponding to claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 5, the claim is a device claim corresponding to claim 2 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
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) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funakubo in view of Satake et al. (JP 2020180806 A, “Satake” . Refer to attached machine translation for all text citations).
Regarding claim 6, Funakubo discloses the object detection device according to claim 4. Funakubo fails to teach
the control unit calculates a distance to an object that has reflected ultrasound, on the basis of a timing at which the transmission unit transmits ultrasound and a timing at which the reception unit receives a reflected wave of the ultrasound.
and in a case where the distance has changed with a lapse of time, changes directivity in a height direction of ultrasound transmitted by the transmission unit, on the basis of directivity change information in which a degree of change in a height direction of directivity is set according to the distance.
Satake teaches
the control unit calculates a distance to an object that has reflected ultrasound based on time-of-flight determination(pg. 10, if the CPU calculates the horizontal distance to an object is within a horizontal range threshold, signal determination unit sends reflected wave information such as TOF to the control unit to perform collision avoidance operations)
changing the directivity of sonar transmissions based on a determined height of the object(pg. 13, directivity of the exploration wave can be changed with sonar switching unit)(pg. 6, based on the height of the object, exploration waves having either higher vertical or horizontal directivity may be better for identifying amplitude differences).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the ultrasound generator of Funakubo, to include Satake’s teachings in order to determine a distance to the object based on timing information between when a transmission is made and when a reflected wave is received so that in a case where the distance where the distance has changed over time, the directivity of the transmission may be adjusted in a height direction order to identify objects based on changes in the angular relationship between the object and the sensor.
The motivation for doing so is to identify amplitude differences that are indicative of the presence of an object in the periphery of a vehicle (Satake, pg. 6).
Regarding claim 7, Funakubo discloses the object detection device according to claim 4. Funakubo fails to teach
the control unit acquires information about a change in intensity of the reflected wave, while changing directivity in a height direction of an ultrasound transmitted by the transmission unit, and calculates a height of an object that has reflected the ultrasound, on the basis of the change information.
Satake teaches
the control unit acquires information about a change in intensity of the reflected wave, while changing the directivity of exploratory waves by the transmission unit, and calculates a height of an object that has reflected the ultrasound (pg. 13, directivity of the exploration wave can be changed with sonar switching unit)(pg. 7, signal determination unit determines whether an amplitude ratio between two different exploration wave directivities is greater than a reference threshold. If it is an affirmative judgement, it is determined an object having a height equal to or greater than a predetermined height is present).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the ultrasound generator of Funakubo, to include Satake’s teachings in order to calculate the height of an object which has reflected ultrasonic waves by determining a change in intensity of the reflected wave, as the directivity of the transmitted waves changes by comparing amplitude values of directivity modes of exploration waves in reference to a threshold value in order to determine the height of an object.
The motivation for doing so is to identify amplitude differences that are indicative of the presence of an object in the periphery of a vehicle at or above a predetermined height (Satake, pg. 7).
Conclusion
Kobayashi et al. (US 20210405171 A1, “Kobayashi”) which discloses a vehicle-based ultrasonic sensor
Nishimoto et al. (US 20010020389 A1, “Nishimoto”) which discloses and vehicle-based ultrasonic sensor for detecting the surroundings of a vehicle
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
Prosecution Insights