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 .
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 04/29/2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendment to claims 1-18 overcomes the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. The rejection is hereby withdrawn.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirsch et al. (U.S. 2021/0088641 A1) in view of Hung et al. (U.S. 2010/0031072 A1).
Claim 1, Kirsch teaches:
A method for distinguishing objects to assist in parking a vehicle (Kirsch, Fig. 1, Paragraph [0053], The system can be utilized when entering and leaving parking spaces (see Kirsch, Paragraphs [0007-0008]). Additionally, operation of the vehicle may be performed based on object information (see Kirsch, Paragraph [0058]).), the method comprising:
setting, by a controller (Kirsch, Fig. 1: 102), an ultrasonic sensor (Kirsch, Fig. 1: 104) measuring mode (Kirsch, Paragraph [0038], The system may be configured to measure, for example, complete, horizontal or vertical trilateration.);
sending, by the ultrasonic sensor, the signal (Kirsch, Fig. 1: 110) and receiving a received signal (Kirsch, Fig. 1: 114) that is reflected from an object (Kirsch, Fig. 1: 112, Paragraph [0053], The ultrasonic sensor 104 transmits ultrasonic signals 110 which are partially reflected from an object 112 as an echo 114.);
determining, by the controller, whether the received signal contains noise (Kirsch, Paragraphs [0059-0060], In addition to receiving echoes 114, the vehicle 100 receives an interfering ultrasonic signal 126 from an adjacent object. The reception of echoes 114 accompanied by interfering ultrasonic signals 126 is interpreted as the received signal containing noise.);
distinguishing, by the controller, the object based on a height of the object by using the received signal (Kirsch, Paragraph [0056], A height of the object may be determined.); and
determining, by the controller, whether the vehicle can be parked by using the height of the object (Kirsch, Paragraph [0058], The control device 102 determines, based on object information 118, whether the vehicle needs to be (partially) automatically controlled. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the operation of the vehicle 100 to include situations in which the vehicle 100 needs to park (see Kirsch, Paragraphs [0007-0008]).).
Kirsch does not specifically teach:
Setting, by a controller, an ultrasonic sensor to a first mode or a second mode that differ based on frequency of a signal,
wherein distinguishing the object comprises distinguishing the object by using a combination of the frequency of the signal and an echo order including at least one of a first echo, a second echo, or a third echo.
Hung teaches:
Setting, by a controller, an ultrasonic sensor to a first mode or a second mode that differ based on frequency of a signal (Hung, Paragraph [0033], The sensor 13 is driven by frequency controller 11, which controls whether the sensor 13 sends a low-frequency ultrasonic signal or a high-frequency ultrasonic signal.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Kirsch by integrating the teaching of a power management and safety protection method, as taught by Hung.
The motivation would be to yield the advantages of low-frequency ultrasonic signals, i.e. wide directivity for detecting objects in a wide scale, and high-frequency ultrasonic signals, i.e. narrow directivity to perform a precise measurement (see Hung, Paragraph [0033]).
As per the limitation of wherein distinguishing the object comprises distinguishing the object by using a combination of the frequency of the signal and an echo order including at least one of a first echo, a second echo, or a third echo, the combination of Kirsch in view of Hung teaches the object is determined based on echo 114, which represents at least a first echo, which is reflected by an object based on a transmitted ultrasonic signal 110 (see Kirsch, Paragraph [0056]). In the combination of Kirsch in view of Hung, the frequency of the transmitted ultrasonic signal can be modified to be at least a low or high-frequency ultrasonic signal (see Hung, Paragraph [0033]). Therefore, the determined object is thus distinguished using the frequency of the signal and corresponding echo, e.g. a first echo. It is further noted that objects may also be determined based on an interfering signal 126, which generates noise in different frequency ranges based on conditions of the road (see Kirsch, Paragraph [0060]).
Claim 2, Kirsch in view of Hung further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the received signal contains at least one of the first echo, the second echo, and the third echo (Kirsch, Paragraphs [0055-0056], Each ultrasonic sensor 104 transmits ultrasonic signals 110 which are partially reflected from an object 112 as an echo 114 (see Kirsch, Paragraph [0053]). Therefore, in an array of ultrasonic sensors 104, e.g. at least three sensors, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for at a plurality of echoes 114 to be generated in response to the plurality of ultrasonic sensor 104, e.g. at least three echoes.).
Claim 3, Kirsch in view of Hung further teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein distinguishing the object comprises distinguishing the object by determining that the object is either a first type object or a second type object (Kirsch, Paragraph [0029], Example object classes include pedestrian, truck, passenger car, pillar, fence, wall, object that can be driven over, and object that cannot be driven over.).
Claim 4, Kirsch in view of Hung further teaches:
The method of claim 3, wherein determining whether the vehicle can be parked comprises determining that the vehicle can be parked even if the first type object is present, if the vehicle can be parked with one side’s wheels over the first type object (Kirsch, Paragraphs [0029] and [0058], The control device 102 in combination with the computer 120 can determine whether the vehicle 100 can be driven despite the presence of an object 112. Therefore, if an object 112 is classified as an object that can be driven over, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the control device 102 and computer 120 to determine that the vehicle 100 may be controlled to drive over said object, including situations where parking is to be performed (see Kirsch, Paragraphs [0007-0008]). Thus, it is within the scope of the teachings of Kirsch in view of Hung for one side’s wheels of the vehicle 100 to park over an object 112 if the object 112 is an object that can be driven over.).
Claim 5, Kirsch in view of Hung further teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein distinguishing the object comprises distinguishing the object by using a low frequency 1st echo and a high frequency 1st echo (Kirsch, Paragraphs [0053-0057], Each of the plurality of ultrasonic sensors 104 of an array of ultrasonic sensors 104 generates an ultrasonic signal 110, which is partially reflected by an object 112 as an echo 114. Therefore, a plurality of ultrasonic sensors 104 generate corresponding plurality of echoes 114, i.e. 1st, 2nd, 3rd echoes etc. In the combination of Kirsch in view of Hung, the ultrasonic sensors can send either low-frequency ultrasonic signals or high-frequency ultrasonic signals (see Hung, Paragraph [0033]).).
Claim 6, Kirsch in view of Hung further teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein distinguishing the object comprises distinguishing the object by using a low frequency 2nd echo and a high frequency 2nd echo (Kirsch, Paragraphs [0053-0057], Each of the plurality of ultrasonic sensors 104 of an array of ultrasonic sensors 104 generates an ultrasonic signal 110, which is partially reflected by an object 112 as an echo 114. Therefore, a plurality of ultrasonic sensors 104 generate corresponding plurality of echoes 114, i.e. 1st, 2nd, 3rd echoes etc. In the combination of Kirsch in view of Hung, the ultrasonic sensors can send either low-frequency ultrasonic signals or high-frequency ultrasonic signals (see Hung, Paragraph [0033]).).
Claim 7, Kirsch in view of Hung further teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein distinguishing the object comprises distinguishing the object by using a low frequency 1st echo and a high frequency 2nd echo (Kirsch, Paragraphs [0053-0057], Each of the plurality of ultrasonic sensors 104 of an array of ultrasonic sensors 104 generates an ultrasonic signal 110, which is partially reflected by an object 112 as an echo 114. Therefore, a plurality of ultrasonic sensors 104 generate corresponding plurality of echoes 114, i.e. 1st, 2nd, 3rd echoes etc. In the combination of Kirsch in view of Hung, the ultrasonic sensors can send either low-frequency ultrasonic signals or high-frequency ultrasonic signals (see Hung, Paragraph [0033]).).
Claim 8, Kirsch in view of Hung further teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein determining whether the received signal contains noise comprises determining whether the received signal corresponds to noise (Kirsch, Paragraph [0059], The interfering ultrasonic signal 126 can be received as sensor data 116 from any direction, based on the location of the source of the ultrasonic signal 126.) by using a low frequency 3rd echo and a high frequency 3rd echo (Kirsch, Paragraphs [0053-0057], Each of the plurality of ultrasonic sensors 104 of an array of ultrasonic sensors 104 generates an ultrasonic signal 110, which is partially reflected by an object 112 as an echo 114. Therefore, a plurality of ultrasonic sensors 104 generate corresponding plurality of echoes 114, i.e. 1st, 2nd, 3rd echoes etc. In the combination of Kirsch in view of Hung, the ultrasonic sensors can send either low-frequency ultrasonic signals or high-frequency ultrasonic signals (see Hung, Paragraph [0033]).).
Claim 9, Kirsch in view of Hung further teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein determining whether the received signal contains noise (Kirsch, Paragraph [0059], The interfering ultrasonic signal 126 can be received as sensor data 116 from any direction, based on the location of the source of the ultrasonic signal 126.) comprises determining whether the received signal corresponds to noise by using a low frequency 3rd echo and a high frequency 2nd echo (Kirsch, Paragraphs [0053-0057], Each of the plurality of ultrasonic sensors 104 of an array of ultrasonic sensors 104 generates an ultrasonic signal 110, which is partially reflected by an object 112 as an echo 114. Therefore, a plurality of ultrasonic sensors 104 generate corresponding plurality of echoes 114, i.e. 1st, 2nd, 3rd echoes etc. In the combination of Kirsch in view of Hung, the ultrasonic sensors can send either low-frequency ultrasonic signals or high-frequency ultrasonic signals (see Hung, Paragraph [0033]).).
Claim 10, Kirsch in view of Hung further teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising adjusting the direction of the ultrasonic sensor (Kirsch, Paragraphs [0053-0056], The ultrasonic sensors 104 may be placed on a plurality of different surfaces of the vehicle 100, effectively adjusting the direction(s) that the ultrasonic sensors 104 are facing. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to make the ultrasonic sensor 104 movable, as a matter of engineering choice. Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system, as a whole, and would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2144.04.).
Claim 11, Kirsch in view of Hung further teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising excluding the received signal from signals for distinguishing the object if the received signal is deemed as noise (Kirsch, Paragraph [0059] and [0063], Interfering ultrasonic signals 126 represent signals that did not originate from ultrasonic sensors 104, and the object(s) that generate the ultrasonic signals 126 are classified and excluded when determining the presence of objects 112 that reflect the ultrasonic signals 110 as echoes 114.).
Claim 12, Kirsch teaches:
An apparatus for distinguishing objects (Kirsch, Fig. 1, Paragraph [0053], The system can be utilized when entering and leaving parking spaces (see Kirsch, Paragraphs [0007-0008]). Additionally, operation of the vehicle may be performed based on object information (see Kirsch, Paragraph [0058]).), the apparatus comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions (Kirsch, Paragraphs [0009] and [0018]); and
at least one processor (Kirsch, Fig. 1: 102, 120, Paragraph [0046]), wherein the at least one processor sets an ultrasonic sensor (Kirsch, Fig. 1: 104) to a measuring mode (Kirsch, Paragraph [0038], The system may be configured to measure, for example, complete, horizontal or vertical trilateration.), sends the signal (Kirsch, Fig. 1: 110) and receives a signal (Kirsch, Fig. 1: 114) reflected from an object, by using the ultrasonic sensor (Kirsch, Fig. 1: 112, Paragraph [0053], The ultrasonic sensor 104 transmits ultrasonic signals 110 which are partially reflected from an object 112 as an echo 114.), determines whether the received signal contains noise (Kirsch, Paragraphs [0059-0060], In addition to receiving echoes 114, the vehicle 100 receives an interfering ultrasonic signal 126 from an adjacent object. The reception of echoes 114 accompanied by interfering ultrasonic signals 126 is interpreted as the received signal containing noise.), distinguishes the object based on a height of the object by using the received signal (Kirsch, Paragraph [0056], A height of the object may be determined.), and determines whether the vehicle can be parked by using the height of the object (Kirsch, Paragraph [0058], The control device 102 determines, based on object information 118, whether the vehicle needs to be (partially) automatically controlled. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the operation of the vehicle 100 to include situations in which the vehicle 100 needs to park (see Kirsch, Paragraphs [0007-0008]).).
Kirsch does not specifically teach:
The at least one processor sets an ultrasonic sensor to a first mode or a second mode that differ based on frequency of a signal,
wherein distinguishing the object comprises distinguishing the object by using a combination of the frequency of the signal and an echo order including at least one of a first echo, a second echo, or a third echo.
Hung teaches:
Setting, by a controller, an ultrasonic sensor to a first mode or a second mode that differ based on frequency of a signal (Hung, Paragraph [0033], The sensor 13 is driven by frequency controller 11, which controls whether the sensor 13 sends a low-frequency ultrasonic signal or a high-frequency ultrasonic signal.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Kirsch by integrating the teaching of a power management and safety protection method, as taught by Hung.
The motivation would be to yield the advantages of low-frequency ultrasonic signals, i.e. wide directivity for detecting objects in a wide scale, and high-frequency ultrasonic signals, i.e. narrow directivity to perform a precise measurement (see Hung, Paragraph [0033]).
As per the limitation of wherein distinguishing the object comprises distinguishing the object by using a combination of the frequency of the signal and an echo order including at least one of a first echo, a second echo, or a third echo, the combination of Kirsch in view of Hung teaches the object is determined based on echo 114, which represents at least a first echo, which is reflected by an object based on a transmitted ultrasonic signal 110 (see Kirsch, Paragraph [0056]). In the combination of Kirsch in view of Hung, the frequency of the transmitted ultrasonic signal can be modified to be at least a low or high-frequency ultrasonic signal (see Hung, Paragraph [0033]). Therefore, the determined object is thus distinguished using the frequency of the signal and corresponding echo, e.g. a first echo. It is further noted that objects may also be determined based on an interfering signal 126, which generates noise in different frequency ranges based on conditions of the road (see Kirsch, Paragraph [0060]).
Claim 13, Kirsch in view of Hung further teaches:
The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the at least one processor receives a signal containing at least one of the first echo, the second echo, or the third echo (Kirsch, Paragraphs [0055-0056], Each ultrasonic sensor 104 transmits ultrasonic signals 110 which are partially reflected from an object 112 as an echo 114 (see Kirsch, Paragraph [0053]). Therefore, in an array of ultrasonic sensors 104, e.g. at least three sensors, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for at a plurality of echoes 114 to be generated in response to the plurality of ultrasonic sensor 104, e.g. at least three echoes.).
Claim 14, Kirsch in view of Hung further teaches:
The apparatus of claim 13, wherein the at least one processor distinguishes the object by determining that the object is either a first type object or a second type object (Kirsch, Paragraph [0029], Example object classes include pedestrian, truck, passenger car, pillar, fence, wall, object that can be driven over, and object that cannot be driven over.).
Claim 15, Kirsch in view of Hung further teaches:
The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the at least one processor determines that the vehicle can be parked even if the first type object is present, if the vehicle can be parked with one side’s wheels over the first type object (Kirsch, Paragraphs [0029] and [0058], The control device 102 in combination with the computer 120 can determine whether the vehicle 100 can be driven despite the presence of an object 112. Therefore, if an object 112 is classified as an object that can be driven over, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the control device 102 and computer 120 to determine that the vehicle 100 may be controlled to drive over said object, including situations where parking is to be performed (see Kirsch, Paragraphs [0007-0008]). Thus, it is within the scope of the teachings of Kirsch in view of Hung for one side’s wheels of the vehicle 100 to park over an object 112 if the object 112 is an object that can be driven over.).
Claim 16, Kirsch in view of Hung further teaches:
The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the at least one processor adjusts the direction of the ultrasonic sensor (Kirsch, Paragraphs [0053-0056], The ultrasonic sensors 104 may be placed on a plurality of different surfaces of the vehicle 100, effectively adjusting the direction(s) that the ultrasonic sensors 104 are facing. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to make the ultrasonic sensor 104 movable, as a matter of engineering choice. Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system, as a whole, and would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2144.04.).
Claim 17, Kirsch in view of Hung further teaches:
The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the at least one processor excludes the received signal from signals for distinguishing the object if the received signal is deemed as noise (Kirsch, Paragraph [0059] and [0063], Interfering ultrasonic signals 126 represent signals that did not originate from ultrasonic sensors 104, and the object(s) that generate the ultrasonic signals 126 are classified and excluded when determining the presence of objects 112 that reflect the ultrasonic signals 110 as echoes 114.).
Claim 18, Kirsch in view of Hung further teaches:
A vehicle comprising the apparatus of claim 12 (Kirsch, Fig. 1: 100).
Claim 19, Kirsch teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (Kirsch, Paragraph [0018]) containing program instructions (Kirsch, Paragraphs [0009] and [0018]) executed by a processor (Kirsch, Fig. 1: 102, 120, Paragraph [0046]), the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium comprising:
program instructions that send a signal (Kirsch, Fig. 1: 110) and receive a received signal (Kirsch, Fig. 1: 114) that is reflected from an object (Kirsch, Fig. 1: 112, Paragraph [0053], The ultrasonic sensor 104 transmits ultrasonic signals 110 which are partially reflected from an object 112 as an echo 114.);
program instructions that determine whether the received signal contains noise (Kirsch, Paragraphs [0059-0060], In addition to receiving echoes 114, the vehicle 100 receives an interfering ultrasonic signal 126 from an adjacent object. The reception of echoes 114 accompanied by interfering ultrasonic signals 126 is interpreted as the received signal containing noise.);
program instructions that distinguish the object based on a height of the object by using the received signal (Kirsch, Paragraph [0056], A height of the object may be determined.); and
program instructions that determine whether the vehicle can be moved by using the height of the object (Kirsch, Paragraph [0058], The vehicle may be (partially) automatically controlled based on object information 118, which includes the heigh of the object (see Kirsch, Paragraphs [0056-0057]).),
wherein distinguishing some objects comprises distinguishing the object by using a frequency of the signal (Kirsch, Paragraph [0060], An object that generates an interfering ultrasonic signal 126 may generate additional noise having a frequency range.) and an echo order including at least one of a first echo, a second echo, or a third echo (Kirsch, Paragraph [0056], A height of the object may be determined based on at least one echo 114, e.g. a first echo.).
Kirsch does not explicitly teach:
Determine whether the vehicle can be parked by using the height of the object,
wherein distinguishing the object comprises distinguishing the object by using a combination of the frequency of the signal and an echo order including at least one of a first echo, a second echo, or a third echo.
However, the control device 102 determines, based on object information 118, whether the vehicle needs to be (partially) automatically controlled (see Kirsch, Paragraph [0058]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the operation of the vehicle 100 to include situations in which the vehicle 100 needs to park, as a parking situation requires the operating of the vehicle (see Kirsch, Paragraphs [0007-0008]).
Hung teaches:
Setting an ultrasonic sensor to a first mode or a second mode that differ based on frequency of a signal (Hung, Paragraph [0033], The sensor 13 is driven by frequency controller 11, which controls whether the sensor 13 sends a low-frequency ultrasonic signal or a high-frequency ultrasonic signal.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Kirsch by integrating the teaching of a power management and safety protection method, as taught by Hung.
The motivation would be to yield the advantages of low-frequency ultrasonic signals, i.e. wide directivity for detecting objects in a wide scale, and high-frequency ultrasonic signals, i.e. narrow directivity to perform a precise measurement (see Hung, Paragraph [0033]).
As per the limitation of wherein distinguishing the object comprises distinguishing the object by using a combination of the frequency of the signal and an echo order including at least one of a first echo, a second echo, or a third echo, the combination of Kirsch in view of Hung teaches the object is determined based on echo 114, which represents at least a first echo, which is reflected by an object based on a transmitted ultrasonic signal 110 (see Kirsch, Paragraph [0056]). In the combination of Kirsch in view of Hung, the frequency of the transmitted ultrasonic signal can be modified to be at least a low or high-frequency ultrasonic signal (see Hung, Paragraph [0033]). Therefore, the determined object is thus distinguished using the frequency of the signal and corresponding echo, e.g. a first echo. It is further noted that objects may also be determined based on an interfering signal 126, which generates noise in different frequency ranges based on conditions of the road (see Kirsch, Paragraph [0060]).
Claim 20, Kirsch in view of Hung further teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable recording medium of claim 19, wherein the received signal contains at least one of the first echo, the second echo, or the third echo (Kirsch, Paragraphs [0055-0056], Each ultrasonic sensor 104 transmits ultrasonic signals 110 which are partially reflected from an object 112 as an echo 114 (see Kirsch, Paragraph [0053]). Therefore, in an array of ultrasonic sensors 104, e.g. at least three sensors, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for at a plurality of echoes 114 to be generated in response to the plurality of ultrasonic sensor 104, e.g. at least three echoes.), and the object is distinguished by determining that the object is either a first type object or a second type object (Kirsch, Paragraph [0029], Example object classes include pedestrian, truck, passenger car, pillar, fence, wall, object that can be driven over, and object that cannot be driven over.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that the cited references fail to teach Applicant’s amendment, i.e. wherein distinguishing the object comprises distinguishing the object by using a combination of the frequency of the signal and an echo order including at least one of a first echo, a second echo, or a third echo, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although Fig. 2 of the Applicant’s specification discloses the various frequencies used for distinguishing objects, the claims, in view of the Applicant’s specification, do not define how the frequencies and the echo orders are used to distinguish an object. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
As disclosed in the rejection above, Kirsch discloses the use of echoes 114, as a result of transmitted ultrasonic signals 110 for identifying objects 112 (see Kirsch, Paragraph [0056]). Kirsch further discloses that ultrasonic noise generated by objects, e.g. a truck in Fig. 1, have a frequency range that distinguishes specific conditions (see Kirsch, Paragraph [0060]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the combination of Kirsch in view of Hung to teach that the objects are identified based on the transmitted ultrasonic signals 110, the echoes 114 reflected by objects, and for ultrasonic signals 110 and echoes 114 to have at least one frequency. Although the Applicant’s claims, as amended, require the distinguishing to use a combination of frequency of the signal and an echo, the claims do not define how the frequency and the echo order are used, e.g. in Fig. 2 of the Applicant’s specification and corresponding description.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 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