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 9th July, 2026. No Claim(s) were amended; No Claim(s) were cancelled, and No Claim(s) were added. Therefore, Claim(s) 1-20 are pending in current application and are addressed below. Examiner appreciates the courtesies extended by applicant throughout the prosecution of this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/10/2026, 12/09/2024 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
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks Pg. 7-14 of 15) filed 9th July, 2026, with respect to the rejection of Claim(s) 1, 8, 15 under 35 U.S.C. 102“(a)(1)” as being anticipated by SCHUMANN (US 2015/0260833 A1) have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant has stated that “With regard to independent claims 1, 8, 15 element “wherein generating and emitting the sound signals includes controlling a firing sequence of the plurality of ultrasonic sensors”, Applicant respectfully asserts that the Examiner is incorrect in citing that the Schumann reference teaches that detailed element.”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in the prior Office Action, the claimed firing sequence is implicit in SCHUMANN’s disclosed operation. [0044] does not merely disclose an isolated ultrasonic pulse; rather, SCHUMANN discloses an ultrasound unit 17 having a pulse generator 20 and a receive unit 28, wherein piezoactuator 26 is controlled by pulse generator 20 and receive unit 28, wherein piezoactuator 26 is controlled by pulse generator 20 to transmit ultrasonic pulses and is also connected to receive unit 28 for receiving echo signals or detecting the decay characteristic. SCHUMANN further stated that the associated signal processing may be performed by sensor-individual units 28, central electronic unit 16, or distributed between those units. This disclosure is red in the context of SCHUMANN’s overall system. [0043] expressly provides “a plurality of ultrasound sensors 18, 19 positioned at the front and at the rear on vehicle 10 and controlled by separate devices 20 and a higher-order unit 16”. [0029] further teaches “control signals generated by the electronic device trigger the distance sensor to send out transmit pulses having a defined transmit spectrum.” SCHUMANN also expressly describes in [0014]-[0015] successive transmit pulses and the temporal sequence of transmit, decay, receive, and subsequent transmission intervals. Accordingly, the Examiner’s statements that a firing sequence is implicit in not based merely on abstract fact that “a pulse exists”. Rather it is based on Schumann’s disclosed plurality of controlled ultrasonic sensors, pulse generators, centrally generated controlled signals that trigger transmission, and successive transmit/receive cycles. A plurality of ultrasonic sensors being caused to emit ultrasonic pulses under this disclosed control necessarily involves controlling the temporal firing of those sensors; otherwise, the disclosed controlled transmission operation could not be carried out. Further, Applicant’s assertion that SCHUMANN must expressly disclose “re-ordering, re-prioritizing or dynamically scheduling individual sensors” reads additional requirements into the claim. The recited claim requires only controlling a firing sequence of the plurality of ultrasonic sensors” without specifying any particular algorithm or manner of altering that sequence. Thus, the rejection is maintained (Refer to the discussion and/or motivation in Claim 1, 8, and 15 below).
Further, Applicant has stated that “With regard to independent claim 1, 8, 15 element “calculating, at the controller, a plurality of relevancy scores for the plurality of ultrasonic sensors, wherein each of the plurality of relevancy scores corresponds to a relevance of one of the plurality of ultrasonic sensors to the at least one object”, Applicant respectfully asserts that the Examiner is incorrect in citing that the Schumann reference teaches that detailed element.”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. SCHUMANN teaches that the ultrasonic sensors detect objects around the vehicle and that sensor processing may be performed by the central electronics unit (see [0044]-[0045]). SCHUMANN further teaches assessing the functional capacity of each ultrasonic sensor and in [0059], calculating a quantitative difference between the sensor’s determined inherent frequency and a stored target value to determine whether the sensor is fully functional, partially bling, or nonfunctional. Thus, Schumann calculates a sensor-specific quantitative value that reflects the usefulness of each ultrasonic sensor for detecting objects. This corresponds to the claimed relevancy score, which indicates the relevance of a respective ultrasonic sensor to the object-detection function. Thus, the rejection is maintained (Refer to the discussion and/or motivation in Claim 1, 8, and 15 below).
Further, Applicant has stated that “With regard to independent claim 1, 8, 15 element “adjusting, at the controller, the firing sequence of the plurality of ultrasonic sensors based on the plurality of relevancy scores”, Applicant respectfully asserts that the Examiner is incorrect in citing that the Schumann reference teaches that detailed element.”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. SCHUMANN teaches in [0044], that processing of the ultrasonic sensor signals may be performed by sensor-individual units and/or the central electronic unit. SCHUMANN further teaches in [0014], that sensor parameters, including the modulation of successive transmit pulses, are variable and may be adapted to the respective situation. SCHUMANN also teaches in [0046] that the system generates a reliable assessment of the functional capacity of the ultrasonic sensor so that the driver-assisted system can react accordingly in a corresponding manner. And in [0059], calculating a sensor specific difference used to determine whether the sensor is fully functional, partially blind or nonfunctional. Accordingly, SCHUMANN teaches evaluating the condition of the ultrasonic sensors and adapting subsequent ultrasonic transmission based on that evaluation, which corresponds to adjusting the firing sequence based on the calculated relevancy information. Thus, the rejection is maintained (Refer to the discussion and/or motivation in Claim 1, 8, and 15 below).
Further, Applicant has stated that “With regard to independent claim 1, 8, 15 element “controlling, at the controller, the plurality of ultrasonic sensors to generate and emit the sound signals in accordance with the adjusted firing sequence”, Applicant respectfully asserts that the Examiner is incorrect in citing that the Schumann reference teaches that detailed element.”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. SCHUMANN teaches in [0014] that the distance sensor is controlled to send out a transmit pulse, that such control may be performed centrally by an electronic control unit (ECU), and that parameters of successive transmit pulses may be varied and adapted to the respective situation. SCHUMANN further teaches in [0029] that the electronic device generates control signals that trigger the distance sensor to send out transmit spectrum; and in [0043], that the system included a plurality of ultrasonic sensors 18, 19 controlled by sensor-associated devices and a higher-order central control unit 16. [0044] additionally teaches that the pulse generator 20 controls piezoactuator 26 to emit ultrasonic pulses and that signal processing may occur in the central electronics unit 16. Accordingly, SCHUMANN teaches controller-based control of the plurality of ultrasonic sensors, including control signals that cause the sensors to generate and emit ultrasonic pulses, with successive transmissions adapted according to the operating situation. In view of the previously discussed adjustments of the firing sequence, SCHUMANN therefore teaches controlling the plurality of ultrasonic sensors to generate and emit the sound signals in accordance with the adjusted firing sequence. Thus, the rejection is maintained (Refer to the discussion and/or motivation in Claim 1, 8, and 15 below).
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks Pg. 14 of 15) filed 9th July, 2026, with respect to the rejection of dependent Claim(s) 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant has stated that “Claims 2-7 depend directly or indirectly from independent claim 1 and, thus, include all the elements of claim 1. Claims 9-14 depend directly or indirectly from claim 8 and, thus, includes all the elements of claim 8. Claims 16-20 depend directly or indirectly from independent claim 15 and, thus, includes all the elements of claim 15. Accordingly, claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are patentably distinct and non-obvious over the cited references due to their respective dependencies from claims 1, 8 and 15.”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument is premised on the asserted dificiencies of independent Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15. As discussed above, the Examiner maintains that SCHUMANN teaches the disputed limitations of said independent claims, including controller-based control of the ultrasonic sensors calculation of sensor-specific relevancy information, adjustment of successive ultrasonic transmissions based on that information, and control of the sensors in accordance with the adjusted firing sequence. (see [0014]; [0029]; [0043]-[0044]; [0059]). Accordingly, because Applicant has not identified an independent deficiency in the rejection of the aforementioned dependent Claim(s) beyond the arguments directed to their respective independent claims, those dependency-based arguments are not persuasive, and the rejections of the dependent Claim(s) are maintained.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-9, 12-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102“(a)(1)” as being anticipated by SCHUMANN (US 2015/0260833 A1).
Referring to Claim 1, SCHUMANN teaches a method (Fig. 8; [0014]: [...] The method according to the present invention can be carried out in the context of a runtime measurement that is carried. out with the aid of at least one distance sensor. The distance sensor is first controlled to send out a transmit pulse having- a transmit pulse length. The controlling can take place in a driver assistance system, for example being accomplished centrally by a control device (electronic control unit, ECU), [...]. Here, the sensor parameters, such as the transmit current, the frequency, the amp1itude, the transmit pulse length, or the modulation [...] of successive transmit pulses, can be variable and can be adapted to the respective situation. The transmit interval is followed by a decay interval in which for example a membrane of the distance sensor post-oscillates. Subsequently, the sent-out transmit pulses are detected by one or more distance sensors as echo signals when reflected by objects. From the runtime of a transmit pulse, i.e. the time between the sending out of the transmit pulse and the reception of the echo signal, the distance between the object and the distance sensor then results, taking into account the speed of the signal and possibly the speed of the vehicle) performed by a controller (l6 of Fig. 1) of a vehicle (10 Fig 1; [0043]: Vehicle 10 is equipped with a. driver assistance system 14 that includes an u1trasound-based sensor system for monitoring the surrounding environment, having ultrasound sensors 18, 19 at the front and at the rear on vehicle 10. Ultrasound-based sensor system 18 is controlled by separate devices 20 assigned to ultrasound sensors 18, 19, and by a higher-order unit 16, which is typically a central control device of driver assistance system 12 [...]), the method comprising:
generating and emitting sound signals (20 of Fig. 1; [0044]: In the enlarged segment of FIG. 1, the configuration of an ultrasound unit 17 having a pulse generator 20 [...] Here, typically a piezoactuator 26, which is connected to membrane 24 of ultrasound sensor 18, 19, is controlled by pulse generator 20 in order to send out pulses [...]) into an environment around the vehicle (Fig. 1) using a plurality of ultrasonic sensors (18, 19 of Fig. 1) arranged on the vehicle (10 of Fig. 1),wherein generating and emitting the sound signals includes controlling a firing sequence of the plurality of ultrasonic sensors (imp1icit to [0014]-[0015]; [0029]; [0043]-[0044]: the fact that pulses are sent out implies that a firing sequence is controlled);
receiving, at the plurality of ultrasonic sensors (Fig. 1), the sound signals as reflected back toward the vehicle by at least one object in the environment (12, 22 of Fig. l; [0044]: [...] In addition, piezoactuator 26 is connected to a receive unit 28 in order for example to receive an echo signal or to detect a decay characteristic of membrane 24. The signal processing here takes place in sensor-individual units 28 or in central electronics unit 16, partial steps of the signal processing taking place in one of units 16, 28, or in distributed fashion at units 16, 28. 11);
calculating, at the controller, ([0044]: [...] The signal processing here takes place in sensor individual units 28 or in central electronics unit 16, partial steps of the signal processing taking place in one of units 16, 28, or in distributed fashion at units 16, 28) a plurality of relevancy scores for the plurality or ultrasonic sensors ([0045] and [0046]: [...] as is shown schematically in FIG. l, a situation can occur in which for example an ultrasound sensor 18, and in particular membrane 24 of the ultrasound sensor, is covered with snow or mud 22, and as a result is limited in its functional capacity, or is even completely nonfunctional. Ultrasound sensor 18 and driver assistance system 14 are here, in the worst case, blind to obstacles 12, which can lead to dangerous driving situations. [0046]: In such situations, it. is therefore essential to generate a reliable assessment of the functional capacity of ultrasound sensor 18, so that driver assistance system14 can react in a corresponding manner. [...]), wherein each of the plurality of relevancy scores corresponds to a relevance of one of the plurality of ultrasonic sensors to the at least one object ([0046]: if the ultrasound sensor is blind, its relevance to the at least one object is obvious inexistent; [0059]: [...] If the difference is <1-2 kHz, the sensor is fully functional. If the difference is greater, the sensor is partially blind, and if the difference is greater than 5-8 kHz then the sensor is no longer functioning);
adjusting, at the controller, ([0044]) the firing sequence of the plurality of ultrasonic sensors based on the plurality of relevancy scores ([0014]; [0046]; [0059]: [...] here, the sensor parameters, such as the transmit current, the frequency, the amplitude, the transmit pulse length, or the modulation [...] of successive transmit pulses, can be variable and can be adapted to the respective situation [...]); and
controlling, at the controller, the plurality of ultrasonic sensors to generate and emit the sound signals in accordance with the adjusted firing sequence ([0014]; [0029]; [0043]-[0044]).
Referring to Claim 2, SCHUMANN teaches the method of claim 1, wherein calculating the plurality of relevancy scores includes calculating the plurality of relevancy scores based on a portion of the at least one object within respective fields-of-view of the plurality of ultrasonic sensors (22 of Fig. 1: the mud 22 is one of the objects and the relevancy scores are based on portion of the mud).
Referring to Claim 5, SCHUMANN teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising, at the controller, determining an occupancy grid of the environment and calculating the plurality of relevancy scores based on the occupancy grid ([0060]-[0061]; Fig. 5).
Referring to Claim 6, SCHUMANN teaches the method of claim 1, wherein controlling the plurality of ultrasonic sensors in accordance with the adjusted firing sequence includes adjusting respective firing rates of the plurality of ultrasonic sensors ([0014]: [...] Here, the sensor parameters, such as [...] the transmit pulse length, or the modulation [...] of successive transmit pulses, can be variable and can be adapted to the respective situation [...]).
Referring to Claim 7, SCHUMANN teaches the method of claim 1, wherein controlling the plurality of ultrasonic sensors in accordance with the adjusted firing sequence includes assigning time intervals based on the plurality of relevancy scores ([0044]-[0045]).
Claim 8 is essentially the same as Claim 1 and refers to a system configured to monitor an environment around a vehicle, the system comprising the method of Claim 1. Therefore Claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 1 above.
Claim 9 is essentially the same as Claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 2 above.
Claim 12 is essentially the same as Claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 5 above.
Claim 13 is essentially the same as Claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 6 above.
Claim 14 is essentially the same as Claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 7 above.
Claim 15 is essentially the same as Claim 1 and refers to a processor configured to execute instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein executing the instructions causes the processor to perform the method of Claim 1. Therefore Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 1 above.
Claim 16 is essentially the same as Claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 2 above.
Claim 19 is essentially the same as Claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 5 above.
Claim 20 is essentially the same as Claim 6 and 7 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 6 and 7 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 3-4, 10-11, and 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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:
Claim(s) 3 is allowable for disclosing the plurality of relevancy scores includes a plurality of Intersection over Union (IoU) scores. These limitations, in combinations in the claims, were not found in the prior art.
Claim(s) 4 is allowable for disclosing each of the IoU scores corresponds to (1) an area of an intersection between a region in the environment occupied by the at least one object and a field-of-view of one of the plurality of ultrasonic sensors divided by (11) an area corresponding to a union of the region occupied by the object and the field-of-view of the one of the plurality of ultrasonic sensors. These limitations, in combinations in the claims, were not found in the prior art.
Claim 10 is essentially the same as Claim 3 and is allowed for the same reasons as applied to Claim 3 above.
Claim 11 is essentially the same as Claim 4 and is allowed for the same reasons as applied to Claim 4 above.
Claim 17 is essentially the same as Claim 3 and is allowed for the same reasons as applied to Claim 3 above.
Claim 18 is essentially the same as Claim 4 and is allowed for the same reasons as applied to Claim 4 above.
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
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 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 mailing 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