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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
Claims 1, 13, and 20 recite “a first field of view (FOV) of one or more ultrasound sensors of the sensing device”. It is unclear as to whether the first FOV establishes a first FOV for each ultrasound sensor and/or a first FOV for the plurality of ultrasound sensors. For example, claim 1 further recites “whether the target is within the first FOV”. It is unclear as to whether the target is within the first FOV of a first ultrasound sensor, a second ultrasound sensor, etc. or within the first FOV established by the combination of the plurality of ultrasound sensors. As another example, claim 4 claims “responsive to a determination that the target is within the first FOV”, however, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 establishes that each ultrasound sensor includes a first FOV. Therefore, it is unclear as to which “first FOV” that claim 4 refers. Claims 2-12 and 14-19 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, because of their dependencies on claims 1 and 13, respectively.
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.
Claims 1, 4, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heckel et al. (U.S. 2010/0152963 A1).
Claim 1, Heckel teaches:
A method for presence detection (Heckel, Fig. 1, Paragraph [0024]), performed by a sensing device (Heckel, Fig. 1, The combination of all of the components of vehicle 10 form a sensing device.), the method comprising:
performing a non-ultrasound sensing of a target using one or more non-ultrasound sensors of the sensing device (Heckel, Fig. 1: 12, Paragraph [0024], The remote region sensor 12 is used to locate vehicles traveling ahead that are situated in a relatively broad distance range in front of vehicle 10. The remote region sensor 12 can be, for example, a lidar sensor or a long-range radar sensor (LRR).);
determining whether the target is within a first field of view (FOV) of one or more ultrasound sensors of the sensing device based on a result of the non-ultrasound sensing, according to a predetermined criterion (Heckel, Figs. 2a-2c, Paragraphs [0030-0031], When the vehicle 28 is located within location area 32, i.e. a predetermined criteria (see Heckel, Fig. 2c), the control unit 14 sends a request for object detection to driver unit 20 of the USS system to activate ultrasound sensors 16. Location area 32 represents the location range of the ultrasound sensors 16, which is interpretable as a “field of view (FOV)” of the ultrasound sensors 16. The Examiner notes that the term “field of view”, in light of the Applicant’s specification Paragraph [0033], is interpreted as the range over which a sensing device can effectively detect and monitor presence or movement.); and
performing an ultrasound sensing for the target using the one or more ultrasound sensors based on the determination of whether the target is within the first FOV (Heckel, Paragraphs [0030-0031] and [0034-0035], The vehicle 10 effectively switches to exclusively using the ultrasound sensors 16 for determining the presence of vehicle 28, persons, and/or other obstacles have moved into the driving corridor immediately in front of vehicle 10, after the remote region sensor 12 detects the vehicle 28 being located in location area 32.).
Claim 4, Heckel further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein performing the ultrasound sensing comprises:
activating the one or more ultrasound sensors responsive to a determination that the target is within the first FOV (Heckel, Figs. 2a-2c, Paragraphs [0030-0031], When the vehicle 28 is located within location area 32, i.e. a predetermined criteria (see Heckel, Fig. 2c), the control unit 14 sends a request for object detection to driver unit 20 of the USS system to activate ultrasound sensors 16.); or
de-activating the one or more ultrasound sensors responsive to a determination that the target is out of the first FOV.
Claim 20, Heckel teaches:
A sensing device (Heckel, Fig. 1, The combination of all of the components of vehicle 10 form a sensing device.) comprising:
means for performing a non-ultrasound sensing of a target using one or more non-ultrasound sensors of the sensing device (Heckel, Fig. 1: 12, Paragraph [0024], The remote region sensor 12 is used to locate vehicles traveling ahead that are situated in a relatively broad distance range in front of vehicle 10. The remote region sensor 12 can be, for example, a lidar sensor or a long-range radar sensor (LRR).);
means for determining whether the target is within a first field of view (FOV) of one or more ultrasound sensors of the sensing device based on a result of the non-ultrasound sensing, according to a predetermined criterion (Heckel, Figs. 2a-2c, Paragraphs [0030-0031], When the vehicle 28 is within location area 32, i.e. a predetermined criteria, the control unit 14 sends a request for object detection to driver unit 20 of the USS system to activate ultrasound sensors 16. Location area 32 represents the location range of the ultrasound sensors 16, which is interpretable as a “field of view (FOV)” of the ultrasound sensors 16. The Examiner notes that the term “field of view”, in light of the Applicant’s specification Paragraph [0033], is interpreted as the range over which a sensing device can effectively detect and monitor presence or movement.); and
means for performing an ultrasound sensing for the target using the one or more ultrasound sensors based on the determination of whether the target is within the first FOV (Heckel, Paragraphs [0030-0031] and [0034-0035], The vehicle 10 effectively switches to exclusively using the ultrasound sensors 16 for determining the presence of vehicle 28, persons, and/or other obstacles have moved into the driving corridor immediately in front of vehicle 10, after the remote region sensor 12 detects the vehicle 28 being located in location area 32.).
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 6-10, 13, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heckel et al. (U.S. 2010/0152963 A1).
Claim 6, Heckel teaches:
The method of claim 4.
Heckel does not explicitly teach:
Wherein performing the ultrasound sensing comprises: determining if the target is within a second FOV of the of one or more ultrasound sensors using a first sensing signal; and responsive to a determination that the target is outside the second FOV, sensing the target using a second sensing signal.
However, Heckel teaches a plurality of ultrasound sensors 16 and 18 (see Heckel, Fig. 1, Paragraph [0025]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for any of the ultrasound sensors 16 and/or 18 to be capable of detecting the presence of an object, e.g. vehicle 28 or people. For example, an ultrasound sensor 18 may be able to detect the presence of a vehicle 28 if the vehicle 28 is trailing the vehicle 10, i.e. the target is within a second FOV of one of the one or more ultrasound sensors and the signal echoed from the vehicle 28 represents a first sensing signal. If, however, the vehicle 28 is not detectable by ultrasound sensors 18, i.e. the target is outside the second FOV, then it is within the scope of the teachings of Heckel for the vehicle 28 to be in front of the vehicle 10 to be sensed by ultrasound sensors 16, i.e. by sensing a second sensing signal echoed from vehicle 28. Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system, as a whole, and would yield predictable results.
Claim 7, Heckel further teaches:
The method of claim 6, wherein the second sensing signal has at least a higher bandwidth, a longer duration, or a higher power, than the first sensing signal (Heckel, Paragraph [0025], Based on the relative distance between the vehicle 10 and the vehicle 28, for example, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the signal strength of an echoed signal from the vehicle 28 to have a higher power for either the first or second signals.).
Claim 8, Heckel teaches:
The method of claim 1.
Heckel does not explicitly teach:
Wherein performing the ultrasound sensing further comprises: filtering out perturbations from a sensing signal based on a predetermined sensing calibration.
However, Heckel teaches that the USS system may not operate properly, which includes situations in which ultrasound sensors 16 are occluded by dirt (see Heckel, Paragraphs [0031-0032]). Based on the received data from the ultrasound sensors 16, the control unit 14 can determine whether the data supplied by the USS system is reliable or not (see Heckel, Paragraph [0033]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the control unit 14 to be programmed to take steps to identify whether the USS system is functioning properly, i.e. a predetermined sensing calibration, and if the USS system is not functioning properly, effectively filtering out data from ultrasound sensors 16, e.g. by causing driver unit 20 to signal an error even if only one of the ultrasound sensors 16 does not supply the expected signal. Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system, as a whole, and would yield predictable results.
Claim 9, Heckel further teaches:
The method of claim 8, wherein performing the ultrasound sensing further comprises: dynamically adjusting the predetermined sensing calibration based on an environment of the sensing device (Heckel, Paragraphs [0031-0032], If one of the ultrasound sensors 16 is not functioning properly, e.g. is occluded by dirt, the control unit 14 is capable of determining whether the remaining ultrasound sensors 16 are functioning properly. In the cited passage, if none of the ultrasound sensors locates vehicle 28, control unit 14 recognizes that the USS system is not operating properly. Therefore, the ability of the control unit 14 to determine if one or all of the ultrasound sensors 16 is functioning properly is thus equivalent to dynamically adjusting the predetermined sensing calibration, i.e. the steps of determining if USS system is functioning, based on an environment, i.e. at least one ultrasound sensor 16 is not functioning properly.).
Claim 10, Heckel teaches:
The method of claim 1.
Heckel does not explicitly teach:
Wherein determining whether the target is within the first FOV comprises: determining, based on the one or more non-ultrasound sensors, that a confidence level of the target being within the first FOV is higher than a predetermined confidence level.
However, Heckel teaches that, when the USS system activates the ultrasound sensors 16, the ultrasound sensors 16 detect the rear of the vehicle 28 and the sensed data is received by control unit 14 (see Heckel, Paragraphs [0031-0033]). Thus, the ability of the ultrasound sensors 16 to detect the presence of the vehicle 28 is equivalent to a confidence level greater than 0, i.e. a predetermined confidence level. In contrast, if none of the ultrasound sensors 16 supply the expected signal indicative of the presence of vehicle 28 (or other objects), then the confidence level would be 0. Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system, as a whole, and would yield predictable results.
Claim 13, Heckel teaches:
A sensing device (Heckel, Fig. 1, The combination of all of the components of vehicle 10 form a sensing device.) comprising:
one or more non-ultrasound sensors (Heckel, Fig. 1: 12);
and one or more processors communicatively coupled with the one or more non-ultrasound sensors (Heckel, Fig. 1: 14, Paragraphs [0025-0029], The control unit 14 receives data from remote region sensor 12 and ultrasonic sensors 16, interprets the data, and correspondingly controls the vehicle 10. The control unit 14 is therefore functionally equivalent to a processor.), the one or more processors configured to:
perform a non-ultrasound sensing of a target using the one or more non-ultrasound sensors (Heckel, Fig. 1: 12, Paragraph [0024], The remote region sensor 12 is used to locate vehicles traveling ahead that are situated in a relatively broad distance range in front of vehicle 10. The remote region sensor 12 can be, for example, a lidar sensor or a long-range radar sensor (LRR).);
determine whether the target is within a first field of view (FOV) of one or more ultrasound sensors of the sensing device based on a result of the non-ultrasound sensing, according to a predetermined criterion (Heckel, Figs. 2a-2c, Paragraphs [0030-0031], When the vehicle 28 is within location area 32, i.e. a predetermined criteria, the control unit 14 sends a request for object detection to driver unit 20 of the USS system to activate ultrasound sensors 16. Location area 32 represents the location range of the ultrasound sensors 16, which is interpretable as a “field of view (FOV)” of the ultrasound sensors 16. The Examiner notes that the term “field of view”, in light of the Applicant’s specification Paragraph [0033], is interpreted as the range over which a sensing device can effectively detect and monitor presence or movement.); and
perform an ultrasound sensing for the target using the one or more ultrasound sensors based on the determination of whether the target is within the first FOV (Heckel, Paragraphs [0030-0031] and [0034-0035], The vehicle 10 effectively switches to exclusively using the ultrasound sensors 16 for determining the presence of vehicle 28, persons, and/or other obstacles have moved into the driving corridor immediately in front of vehicle 10, after the remote region sensor 12 detects the vehicle 28 being located in location area 32.).
Heckel does not explicitly teach:
One or more memories; and
and one or more processors communicatively coupled with the one or more memories.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the control unit 14 of Heckel to include at least one memory for storing its associated software (see Heckel, Paragraph [0024]). Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system, as a whole, and would yield predictable results.
Claim 16, Heckel further teaches:
The sensing device of claim 13, wherein to perform the ultrasound sensing, the one or more processors are configured to:
activate the one or more ultrasound sensors responsive to a determination that the target is within the first FOV (Heckel, Figs. 2a-2c, Paragraphs [0030-0031], When the vehicle 28 is located within location area 32, i.e. a predetermined criteria (see Heckel, Fig. 2c), the control unit 14 sends a request for object detection to driver unit 20 of the USS system to activate ultrasound sensors 16.); and
de-activating the one or more ultrasound sensors responsive to a determination that the target is out of the first FOV.
Claim 18, Heckel teaches:
The sensing device of claim 16.
Heckel does not explicitly teach:
Wherein, to perform the ultrasound sensing, the one or more processors are configured to: determine if the target is within a second FOV of the of one or more ultrasound sensors using a first sensing signal; and responsive to a determination that the target is outside the second FOV, sensing the target using a second sensing signal.
However, Heckel teaches a plurality of ultrasound sensors 16 and 18 (see Heckel, Fig. 1, Paragraph [0025]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for any of the ultrasound sensors 16 and/or 18 to be capable of detecting the presence of an object, e.g. vehicle 28 or people. For example, an ultrasound sensor 18 may be able to detect the presence of a vehicle 28 if the vehicle 28 is trailing the vehicle 10, i.e. the target is within a second FOV of one of the one or more ultrasound sensors and the signal echoed from the vehicle 28 represents a first sensing signal. If, however, the vehicle 28 is not detectable by ultrasound sensors 18, i.e. the target is outside the second FOV, then it is within the scope of the teachings of Heckel for the vehicle 28 to be in front of the vehicle 10 to be sensed by ultrasound sensors 16, i.e. by sensing a second sensing signal echoed from vehicle 28. Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system, as a whole, and would yield predictable results.
Claim 19, Heckel teaches:
The sensing device of claim 13.
Heckel does not explicitly teach:
Wherein, to perform the ultrasound sensing, the one or more processors are configured to: filter out perturbations from a sensing signal based on a predetermined sensing calibration.
However, Heckel teaches that the USS system may not operate properly, which includes situations in which ultrasound sensors 16 are occluded by dirt (see Heckel, Paragraphs [0031-0032]). Based on the received data from the ultrasound sensors 16, the control unit 14 can determine whether the data supplied by the USS system is reliable or not (see Heckel, Paragraph [0033]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the control unit 14 to be programmed to take steps to identify whether the USS system is functioning properly, i.e. a predetermined sensing calibration, and if the USS system is not functioning properly, effectively filtering out data from ultrasound sensors 16, e.g. by causing driver unit 20 to signal an error even if only one of the ultrasound sensors 16 does not supply the expected signal. Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system, as a whole, and would yield predictable results.
Claims 2, 11-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heckel et al. (U.S. 2010/0152963 A1) in view of Nemati et al. (U.S. 2020/0200870 A1).
Claim 2, Heckel teaches:
The method of claim 1.
Heckel does not specifically teach:
Wherein performing the non-ultrasound sensing comprises performing a passive sensing of a target using one or more passive sensors of the sensing device, wherein the one or more passive sensors perform the passive sensing without emitting energy.
Nemati teaches:
Wherein performing the non-ultrasound sensing comprises performing a passive sensing of a target using one or more passive sensors of the sensing device, wherein the one or more passive sensors perform the passive sensing without emitting energy (Nemati, Paragraph [0013], The vehicle 100 incorporates an optical sensor 105a and a motion sensor 107a, which are examples of passive sensors and is consistent with the Applicant’s definition of passive sensing (see Applicant’s specification, Paragraph [0114]).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the remote region sensor in Heckel by substituting the optical and/or motion sensors of Nemati, for purposes of sensing and measuring proximity of a vehicle to objects in front of the vehicle (see Nemati, Paragraph [0014]). Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system, as a whole, and would yield predictable results.
Claim 11, Heckel in view of Nemati teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein determining whether the target is within the first FOV comprises: updating the predetermined criterion based on assigning penalties to sensing results of the passive sensing (Heckel, Paragraphs [0029-0030], As vehicle 10 gets closer to vehicle 28, the determination of whether the vehicle 28 is partially (see Heckel, Fig. 2b) or wholly (see Heckel, Fig. 2c) within the location area 32 is determined, i.e. the predetermined criterion is updated. As the vehicle 28 transitions from partially to wholly located within location area 32, the remote region sensor 12 is effectively assigned a “penalty”, i.e. is replaced by the ultrasound sensors 16 due to the remote region sensor 12 no longer being precise and reliable enough to provide a satisfactory distance controlling. It is noted that in the combination of Heckel in view of Nemati, the remote region sensor 12 is substituted with an optical and/or motion sensor in Nemati (see Nemati, Paragraph [0013]).).
Claim 12, Heckel in view of Nemati teaches:
The method of claim 11, wherein updating the predetermined criterion comprises: assigning penalties for false determinations where the result of the non-ultrasound sensing falsely indicates whether the target is within the first FOV; and
updating the predetermined criterion to minimize occurrence of the false determinations (Heckel, Paragraphs [0029-0030], As the vehicle 28 gets closer to vehicle 10, i.e. within location area 32, the remote region sensor 12 is no longer precise and reliable enough to provide a satisfactory distance controlling. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the remote region sensor 12 to be capable of providing false determinations as to the location(s) of the vehicle 28 based on the limitations of the remote region sensor 12. The activating of the ultrasonic sensors 16 in lieu of the remote region sensor 12 effectively assigns a “penalty” to the region sensor 12 but also reduces the likelihood of a false determination by deactivating the sensor 12 that is less precise and less reliable at given distances of the vehicle 28.).
Claim 14, Heckel teaches:
The sensing device of claim 13.
Heckel does not specifically teach:
Wherein, to perform the non-ultrasound sensing, the one or more processors are configured to perform a passive sensing of a target using one or more passive sensors of the sensing device, and wherein the one or more passive sensors are configured to perform the passive sensing without emitting energy.
Nemati teaches:
Wherein performing the non-ultrasound sensing comprises performing a passive sensing of a target using one or more passive sensors of the sensing device, wherein the one or more passive sensors perform the passive sensing without emitting energy (Nemati, Paragraph [0013], The vehicle 100 incorporates an optical sensor 105a and a motion sensor 107a, which are examples of passive sensors and is consistent with the Applicant’s definition of passive sensing (see Applicant’s specification, Paragraph [0114]).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the remote region sensor in Heckel by substituting the optical and/or motion sensors of Nemati, for purposes of sensing and measuring proximity of a vehicle to objects in front of the vehicle (see Nemati, Paragraph [0014]). Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system, as a whole, and would yield predictable results.
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heckel et al. (U.S. 2010/0152963 A1) in view of Nemati et al. (U.S. 2020/0200870 A1) in view of Klovning et al. (U.S. 2024/0142615).
Claim 3, Heckel in view of Nemati further teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein the one or more passive sensors comprise: a motion sensor, an audio sensor, an ambient light sensor, or any combination thereof (Nemati, Paragraph [0013]).
Heckel in view of Nemati does not explicitly teach:
Wherein the one or more ultrasound sensors comprise one or more speakers and one or more microphones.
Klovning teaches:
Wherein the one or more ultrasound sensors comprise one or more speakers and one or more microphones (Klovning, Paragraph [0030], One or more ultrasound sensors are paired with subsets of speakers for processing the echoes. Thus, the one or more ultrasound sensors comprise one or more speakers.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Heckel in view of Nemati by integrating the teaching of speakers and microphones, as taught by Klovning.
The motivation would be to generate accurate direction estimates of objects (see Klovning, Paragraph [0031]).
Claim 15, Heckel in view of Nemati further teaches:
The sensing device of claim 14, wherein the one or more passive sensors comprise: a motion sensor, an audio sensor, an ambient light sensor, or any combination thereof (Nemati, Paragraph [0013]).
Heckel in view of Nemati does not explicitly teach:
Wherein the one or more ultrasound sensors comprise one or more speakers and one or more microphones.
Klovning teaches:
Wherein the one or more ultrasound sensors comprise one or more speakers and one or more microphones (Klovning, Paragraph [0030], One or more ultrasound sensors are paired with subsets of speakers for processing the echoes. Thus, the one or more ultrasound sensors comprise one or more speakers.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Heckel in view of Nemati by integrating the teaching of speakers and microphones, as taught by Klovning.
The motivation would be to generate accurate direction estimates of objects (see Klovning, Paragraph [0031]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
The closest related prior art to the Applicant’s invention is Heckel et al. (U.S. 2010/0152963 A1). Heckel discloses a vehicle having a remote region sensor for sensing the presence of an object in front of a vehicle, e.g. another vehicle. If the object is sensed to be within a location area, the vehicle activates a plurality of ultrasound sensors for purposes of providing exact locations of the vehicle (see Heckel, Paragraphs [0031-0033]). Heckel, however, does not specifically define the ultrasound sensors to include at least a first and second speaker, activating the first and second speaker in response to determining that the target, i.e. the other vehicle, is within the first FOV, determining that the first speaker has a detection FOV larger than a predetermined detection FOV, and deactivating the second speaker based on the determining step, as claimed. Additionally, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the Heckel reference to include the steps of claims 5 and 17 without using improper hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES J YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5170. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00p M-F.
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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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.
/JAMES J YANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights