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 July, 2026. Claim(s) 1-2 were amended; Claim(s) 3 was cancelled, and No Claim(s) were added. Therefore, Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-10 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. (JP) 2023-195867 filed on 17th November, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/20/2026, 04/10/2025, 11/14/2024 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
Applicants’ arguments (Remarks Pg. 5-8), with respect to the rejections of the Claim(s) are fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amended Claim(s); therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the amendment is made in view of different interpretation of the previously applied references and new prior art as described below. Claim(s) 1-2 have been amended and Claim(s) 1-2 has been canceled; therefore, Claim(s) 1-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAKAJIMA (US 2006/0284515 A1) in view of SALOMON (US 2024/0035814 A1). Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAKAJIMA in view of SALOMON as applied to Claim(s) 1 above; and further in view of HARA (US 2016/0297437 A1). Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAKAJIMA in view of SALOMON as applied to Claim(s) 1 above; and further in view of Applicant presented prior art in IDS, SALOMON (DE 102021103071 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
outer surface side coating film material outer plate member
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAKAJIMA (US 2006/0284515 A1) in view of SALOMON (US 2024/0035814 A1).
Referring to Claim 1, NAKAJIMA teaches a sensor mounting structure ([0006]; [0032]-[0035]) comprising:
an outer plate member provided with a through hole ([0032]-[0035]; [0046]);
an ultrasonic sensor arranged more inward than the through hole ([0035]; [0046]);
a sealing member arranged spaced apart from the ultrasonic sensor, the sealing member covering the through hole ([0037]-[0038]; [0046]; [0048]), wherein
the sensor mounting structure is configured such that an ultrasonic wave transmitted from the ultrasonic sensor passes through the through hole and propagates to an outside via the sealing member, and a reflected wave reflected from the outside passes through the through hole via the sealing member and is received by the ultrasonic sensor ([0033]; [0039]; [0042]; [0044]).
NAKAJIMA doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the sealing member is configured to resonate with the ultrasonic wave transmitted by the ultrasonic sensor.
SALOMON teaches a sealing member arranged spaced apart from the ultrasonic sensor, the sealing member covering the through hole ([0016], [0113]);
the sensor mounting structure is configured such that an ultrasonic wave transmitted from the ultrasonic sensor passes through the through hole and propagates to an outside via the sealing member, and a reflected wave reflected from the outside passes through the through hole via the sealing member and is received by the ultrasonic sensor ([0016]; [0113]);
wherein the sealing member is configured to resonate with the ultrasonic wave transmitted by the ultrasonic sensor ([0028]-[0029]; [0119][0122]; Fig. 7)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the sensor mounting structure disclosed in NAKAJIMA with the sealing member taught in SALOMON with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have increased the sound pressure level of the transmitted ultrasonic signal and improved ultrasonic-wave transmission through the covering member by reducing acoustic resistance and reflection as taught by SALOMON ([0028]-[0029]; [0119]-[0122]; Fig. 7).
Referring to Claim 2, NAKAJIMA teaches a sensor mounting structure ([0006]; [0032]-[0035]) comprising:
an outer plate member provided with a through hole ([0032]-[0035]; [0046]);
an ultrasonic sensor arranged more inward than the through hole ([0035]; [0046]);
a sealing member arranged spaced apart from the ultrasonic sensor, the sealing member covering the through hole ([0037]-[0038]; [0046]; [0048]), wherein
the sensor mounting structure is configured such that an ultrasonic wave transmitted from the ultrasonic sensor passes through the through hole and propagates to an outside via the sealing member, and a reflected wave reflected from the outside passes through the through hole via the sealing member and is received by the ultrasonic sensor ([0033]; [0039]; [0042]; [0044]).
NAKAJIMA doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the sealing member is configured such that an amplitude of the ultrasonic wave transmitted from the ultrasonic sensor to the outside via the sealing member is larger than an amplitude of the ultrasonic wave transmitted from the ultrasonic sensor to the outside via the outer plate member in a case where the outer plate member is provided instead of the sealing member.
SALOMON teaches a sealing member arranged spaced apart from the ultrasonic sensor, the sealing member covering the through hole ([0016], [0113]);
the sensor mounting structure is configured such that an ultrasonic wave transmitted from the ultrasonic sensor passes through the through hole and propagates to an outside via the sealing member, and a reflected wave reflected from the outside passes through the through hole via the sealing member and is received by the ultrasonic sensor ([0016]; [0113])
the sealing member is configured such that an amplitude of the ultrasonic wave transmitted from the ultrasonic sensor to the outside via the sealing member is larger than an amplitude of the ultrasonic wave transmitted from the ultrasonic sensor to the outside via the outer plate member in a case where the outer plate member is provided instead of the sealing member ([0028]-[0029]; [0119];[0122]; Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the sensor mounting structure disclosed in NAKAJIMA with the sealing member taught in SALOMON with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have increased the sound pressure level of the transmitted ultrasonic signal and improved ultrasonic-wave transmission through the covering member by reducing acoustic resistance and reflection as taught by SALOMON ([0028]-[0029]; [0119]-[0122]; Fig. 7).
Referring to Claim 3, (Canceled).
Referring to Claim 4, NAKAJIMA, as modified teaches the sensor mounting structure according to claim 1, wherein the sealing member is configured to have a natural frequency that deviates from a natural frequency of a member configured to transmit the ultrasonic wave in the ultrasonic sensor by 5% or less (implicit in [0042]-[0043] the shape and size of the perforated part 41 can alternatively be changed based on the directional effect of the ultrasonic transducer 10 to a position as shown in Fig. 3. This prevents the detection range from being reduced).
Referring to Claim 5, NAKAJIMA, as modified teaches the sensor mounting structure according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of the sealing member is smaller than a thickness of the outer plate member (Fig. 4; [0046]-[0048]).
Referring to Claim 6, NAKAJIMA, as modified teaches the sensor mounting structure according to claim 1, wherein the outer plate member has a plurality of the through holes, one of the ultrasonic sensor and one of the sealing member are arranged for each of the plurality of through holes, and the sealing member is configured to have at least partially different thicknesses ([0039]).
Referring to Claim 7, NAKAJIMA, as modified teaches the sensor mounting structure according to claim 1, wherein the sealing member is formed of the same material as a member configured to transmit the ultrasonic wave in the ultrasonic sensor ([0028]).
Referring to Claim 9, NAKAJIMA, as modified teaches the sensor mounting structure according to claim 1, wherein the sealing member and the ultrasonic sensor are spaced apart by a non-conductive spacer arranged between the sealing member and the ultrasonic sensor ([0040]).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAKAJIMA in view of SALOMON as applied to Claim(s) 1 above; and further in view of HARA (US 2016/0297437 A1).
Referring to Claim 8, NAKAJIMA, as modified teaches the sensor mounting structure according to claim 1, but doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the outer plate member has a coating film on an outer surface side thereof, and the sealing member has, on an outer surface side thereof, a coating film formed of the same material as the coating film of the outer plate member.
HARA teaches the outer plate member has a coating film on an outer surface side thereof, and the sealing member has, on an outer surface side thereof, a coating film formed of the same material as the coating film of the outer plate member ([0060]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the sensor mounting structure disclosed in NAKAJIMA with the outer plate member taught in HARA with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have been formed of a material that transmits ultrasound waves as taught by HARA ([0060]).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAKAJIMA in view of SALOMON as applied to Claim(s) 1 above; and further in view of Applicant presented prior art in IDS, SALOMON (DE 102021103071 A1).
Referring to Claim 10, NAKAJIMA, as modified teaches the sensor mounting structure according to claim 1, further comprising a processor electrically connected to the ultrasonic sensor, wherein the processor is configured to calculate the coefficient changes based on at least one of a distance and an angle between the ultrasonic sensor and the sealing member ([0036]).
However, NAKAJIMA doesn’t explicitly teach calculate a speed of a surrounding object based on a value obtained by multiplying a frequency of the reflected wave detected by the ultrasonic sensor by a predetermined coefficient, and the coefficient changes based on at least one of a distance and an angle between the ultrasonic sensor and the sealing member.
SALOMON teaches a processor electrically connected to the ultrasonic sensor ([0061]), wherein the processor is configured to calculate a speed of a surrounding object based on a value obtained by multiplying a frequency of the reflected wave detected by the ultrasonic sensor by a predetermined coefficient ([0062]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the sensor mounting structure disclosed in NAKAJIMA with the processor taught in SALOMON with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided a state of motion including information on whether the object is moving towards or away from the ultrasonic sensor array as taught by SALOMON ([0062]).
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
Applicants’ 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 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 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