DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation of ““an amplifier for processing raw input signals from the transmitter” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “wherein the fixed voltage regulator receives the main output power, transforms it into intermediate power and applies the intermediate power the adjustable voltage regulator”, which appears to be missing the word “to”. It is suggested that Applicant amend the claim to “wherein the fixed voltage regulator receives the main output power, transforms it into intermediate power and applies the intermediate power to the adjustable voltage regulator”
Claim 3-9 recites “the adjustable amplitude ultrasonic occupancy sensor of claim 1”, which appears to be an editorial error for -- the adjustable amplitude ultrasonic occupancy sensor of claim 2--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-9 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.
Claim 2 recites “an amplifier for processing raw input signals from the transmitter to produce a signal and apply the signal to a peak detector to generate an ultrasonic peak noise signal which is applied to the controller.” The underlined portion is unclear because if the amplifier (19A) receive signals from the transmitter (12; FIG. 5), such signals would not have any characteristics of the reflections for sensing occupancy. Instead, the Drawings (FIG. 3 and 5) and Specification ([0014]) teach “Amplifier filter circuit 19A of Figure 3 processes raw input signal 21 from ultrasonic transducer 22 to produce signal 23 that represents the amplitude of the incoming ultrasonic envelope”. It is emphasized that the ultrasonic transducer 22 is a part of the receiver (FIG. 5; [0014]), not the transmitter as claimed. Thus, to further prosecution, the Examiner will examine the claims as such.
Claims 3-9 are rejected because they inherit the indefiniteness of their parent claim, claim 2.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-6 and 8-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,002,869 (hereinafter ‘869).
With respect to claim 2, ‘869 (claim 1) recites an adjustable amplitude ultrasonic occupancy sensor (lines 1-2) comprising:
a transmitter (line 3);
a receiver (line 4);
a power supply including main power supply (lines 5-6), an adjustable voltage regulator (lines 7-8) and a fixed voltage regulator (lines 9-10) and operably connected to apply adjustable power to the transmitter (lines 5-9);
a controller controlling the transmitter and the receiver and controlling an output voltage of the adjustable voltage regulator (lines 9-14); and
an amplifier for processing raw input signals from the transmitter to produce a signal and apply the signal to a peak detector to generate an ultrasonic peak noise signal which is applied to the controller (lines 16-19);
wherein the power supply processes input power and produces main output power (lines 6-7);
wherein the adjustable voltage regulator produces controlled output power (lines 7-9);
wherein the fixed voltage regulator receives the main output power, transforms it into intermediate power and applies the intermediate power the adjustable voltage regulator (lines 10-13).
With respect to claim 3, ‘869 (claim 1) recites the adjustable amplitude ultrasonic occupancy sensor of claim 1 (see Claim Objections above). However, ‘869 is silent regarding wherein the intermediate power has a voltage between the voltage of the main output power and the voltage of the controlled output power.
It has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"). In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.") In this particular case, ‘869 teaches a generic intermediate power voltage and finding the optimum or workable ranges would be routine to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform routine experimentation to find the optimum intermediate power voltage of ‘869 including the voltage as claimed with reasonable expectation of providing power as originally intended.
With respect to claim 4, ‘869 (claim 1) recites the adjustable amplitude ultrasonic occupancy sensor of claim 1 (see Claim Objections above). However, ‘869 is silent regarding wherein the main output power is about 24VDC.
It has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"). In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.") In this particular case, ‘869 teaches a generic main power voltage and finding the optimum or workable ranges would be routine to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform routine experimentation to find the optimum main power voltage of ‘869 including the voltage as claimed with reasonable expectation of providing power as originally intended.
With respect to claim 5, ‘869 (claim 1) recites the adjustable amplitude ultrasonic occupancy sensor of claim 1 (see Claim Objections above). However, ‘869 is silent regarding wherein the intermediate power is about 12VDC.
It has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"). In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.") In this particular case, ‘869 teaches a generic intermediate power voltage and finding the optimum or workable ranges would be routine to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform routine experimentation to find the optimum intermediate power voltage of ‘869 including the voltage as claimed with reasonable expectation of providing power as originally intended.
With respect to claim 6, ‘869 (claim 1) recites the adjustable amplitude ultrasonic occupancy sensor of claim 1 (see Claim Objections above). However, ‘869 is silent regarding adjustable amplitude ultrasonic occupancy sensor of claim 1 wherein the controlled output power is in range of 5- 9VDC.
It has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"). In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.") In this particular case, ‘869 teaches a generic controlled output power voltage and finding the optimum or workable ranges would be routine to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform routine experimentation to find the optimum controlled output power voltage of ‘869 including the voltages as claimed with reasonable expectation of providing power as originally intended.
With respect to claim 8, ‘869 recites the adjustable amplitude ultrasonic occupancy sensor of claim 1 wherein the transmitter is an ultrasonic transmitter (claim 1, line 3).
With respect to claim 9, ‘869 recites the adjustable amplitude ultrasonic occupancy sensor of claim 1 wherein the receiver is an ultrasonic receiver (claim 1, line 4).
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,002,869 (hereinafter ‘869) in view of Winpenny (GB 2408132 A; hereinafter Winpenny).
With respect to claim 7, ‘869 recites the adjustable amplitude ultrasonic occupancy sensor of claim 1. However, ‘869 is silent regarding wherein the output power (26A) applied to controller (16) to create a feedback loop (17) for control of the power applied to the transmitter ([0016]).
Joyce teaches an adjustable amplitude ultrasonic occupancy sensor (10; [0014]; FIG. 1), wherein the output power (26A) applied to controller (16) to create a feedback loop (17) for control of the power applied to the transmitter ([0016]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the feedback loop as taught by Joyce to the occupancy sensor as taught by ‘869 to enable accurate control of the power applied to the transmitter ([0016]; Joyce).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-9 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Joyce (US Publication 2012/0024069) in view of Winpenny (GB 2408132 A; hereinafter Winpenny).
With regards to claim 2, Joyce teaches an adjustable amplitude ultrasonic occupancy sensor (10; [0014]; FIG. 1) comprising:
a transmitter (12; [0014]; FIG.1-3);
a receiver (14; [0014]; FIG. 1-3);
a power supply (50) including main power supply (51), an adjustable voltage regulator (52) and a fixed voltage regulator (53) and operably connected to apply adjustable power to the transmitter ([0020]; FIG. 6);
a controller (16) controlling the transmitter and the receiver ([0014]) and controlling an output voltage of the adjustable voltage regulator ([0018]); and
wherein the power supply (50) processes input power (50A) and produces main output power (50X; [0020]; FIG. 6);
wherein the adjustable voltage regulator (52) produces controlled output power (26A; [0020]; FIG. 6);
wherein the fixed voltage regulator (53) receives the main output power (50X), transforms it into intermediate power (54) and applies the intermediate power to (see Claim Objections above) the adjustable voltage regulator (52; [0020]; FIG. 6).
However, Joyce is silent regarding the adjustable amplitude ultrasonic occupancy sensor comprising an amplifier for processing raw input signals from the transmitter to produce a signal and apply the signal to a peak detector to generate an ultrasonic peak noise signal which is applied to the controller.
Winpenny teaches a sensor for detecting the occupancy of a parking space (abstract). Winpenny further teaches the sensor comprising an amplifier (including 17; FIG. 4) for processing raw input signals (from 13; FIG. 4) from the transmitter (see 35 USC § 112 Rejection above) to produce a signal and apply the signal to a peak detector (18) to generate an ultrasonic peak noise signal which is applied to the controller (14; FIG. 4; page 8, lines 5-14).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the amplifier and peak detector as taught by Winpenny to the occupancy sensor as taught by Joyce to process received signals to determine occupancy (page 8, lines 5-32; Winpenny) as originally intended.
With regards to claim 3, Joyce, as combined with Winpenny, teaches (citations to Joyce unless specified otherwise) the adjustable amplitude ultrasonic occupancy sensor of claim 1 wherein the intermediate power (54) has a voltage between the voltage of the main output power (50X) and the voltage of the controlled output power (26A; [0020]; FIG. 6).
With regards to claim 4, Joyce, as combined with Winpenny, teaches (citations to Joyce unless specified otherwise) the adjustable amplitude ultrasonic occupancy sensor of claim 1 wherein the main output power (50X) is about 24VDC ([0020]).
With regards to claim 5, Joyce, as combined with Winpenny, teaches (citations to Joyce unless specified otherwise) the adjustable amplitude ultrasonic occupancy sensor of claim 1 wherein the intermediate power (54) is about 12VDC ([0020]).
With regards to claim 6, Joyce, as combined with Winpenny, teaches (citations to Joyce unless specified otherwise) the adjustable amplitude ultrasonic occupancy sensor of claim 1 wherein the controlled output power (26A) is in range of 5-9VDC ([0020]).
With regards to claim 7, Joyce, as combined with Winpenny, teaches (citations to Joyce unless specified otherwise) the adjustable amplitude ultrasonic occupancy sensor of claim 1 wherein the output power (26A) applied to controller (16) to create a feedback loop (17) for control of the power applied to the transmitter ([0016]).
With regards to claim 8, Joyce, as combined with Winpenny, teaches (citations to Joyce unless specified otherwise) the adjustable amplitude ultrasonic occupancy sensor of claim 1 wherein the transmitter is an ultrasonic transmitter ([0014, 0016]).
With regards to claim 9, Joyce, as combined with Winpenny, teaches (citations to Joyce unless specified otherwise) the adjustable amplitude ultrasonic occupancy sensor of claim 1 wherein the receiver is an ultrasonic receiver ([0014, 0018-0019]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUANG X.L NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1585. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, STEPHEN D. MEIER can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/QXN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights