DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 13 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 13,
“a history of echoes detected using he second ultrasonic sensor” should read -- a history of echoes detected using the second ultrasonic sensor –
Regarding claim 20,
“the altrasound- based driver assistance system” should read – the ultrasound-based driver assistance system--
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 11-12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumann (DE 102018200688 A1, “Schumann”. For all text citations, refer to attached machine translation) in view of Wieland et al. (US 20090128398 A1, “Wieland”).
Regarding claim 11, Schumann discloses method for calibration of azimuth angles of ultrasonic sensors (Fig. 2 (1))
a) detecting an echo of an ultrasonic pulse from an object using the first ultrasonic sensor, the detecting of the echo using the first ultrasonic sensor including detection of an azimuth angle of the echo (pg. 3, the acoustic signal is a chirp or pulsed signal. The acoustic signal of the acoustic sensor can, after reflection on an object, can be distinguished from those signals emitted by other sensors) (pg. 8, a trilateration is performed based on the measured values of a plurality of acoustic sensors in order to determine a position of the object relative to the acoustic sensor in an azimuthal angle);
b) detecting an echo of an ultrasonic pulse from the object using the second ultrasonic sensor, the detecting of the echo using the second ultrasonic sensor including detection of an azimuth angle of the echo (pg. 3, the acoustic signal is a chirp or pulsed signal. The acoustic signal of the acoustic sensor can, after reflection on an object, can be distinguished from those signals emitted by other sensors) (pg. 8, a trilateration is performed based on the measured values of a plurality of acoustic sensors in order to determine a position of the object relative to the acoustic sensor in an azimuthal angle);
c) ascertaining a target azimuth angle of the echo for the first ultrasonic sensor and a target azimuth angle of the echo for the second ultrasonic sensor based on a position determination of the object by trilateration (pg. 8, a trilateration is performed based on the measured values of a plurality of acoustic sensors in order to determine a position of the object relative to the acoustic sensor in an azimuthal angle);
d) ascertaining a correction value for the detecting of the azimuth angle using the first ultrasonic sensor based on the ascertained target azimuth angle of the echo for the first ultrasonic sensor(pg. 8, in this case, a correction of the directional characteristics takes places based on the azimuth angle. Each measured azimuth angle has its own directional characteristic. Thus influence of positional deviation in a azimuthal direction can be described, compensated and does not lead to distortion of a further determined elevation angle);
e) ascertaining a correction value for the detecting of the azimuth angle using the second ultrasonic sensor based on the ascertained target azimuth angle of the echo for the second ultrasonic sensor(pg. 8, in this case, a correction of the directional characteristics takes places based on the azimuth angle. Each measured azimuth angle has its own directional characteristic. Thus influence of positional deviation in a azimuthal direction can be described, compensated and does not lead to distortion of a further determined elevation angle).
Schumann fails to teach
The ultrasonic sensors are arranged as an ultrasonic sensor row
Wieland teaches
The ultrasonic sensors are arranged as an ultrasonic sensor row ([0038], distance sensors (303) are developed as ultrasound sensors)(Fig. 3 illustrates distance sensors (303a), (303b), (303c), (303d) arranged in a row along the bumper of motor vehicle (301))
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Schumann, to include ultrasonic sensor row arrangement of Wieland, so as to yield an object detection system that can detect objects in front the motor vehicle in order to prevent collisions with objects or obstacles in the direction of travel, thus increasing safety and preventing damage or injury. Such a modification would amount to combining prior elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale A.
Regarding claim 12, Schumann, as modified in view of Wieland teaches the method according to claim 11. Schumann further teaches the method further comprises the following steps:
f) ascertaining a reflection characteristic of the object based on the echo detected using the first ultrasonic sensor and the echo detected using the second ultrasonic sensor (pg. 8-9, echo amplitude is measured for each echo and is normalized by multiplication with a frequency-dependent correction factor, which is used to ascertain the objects height);
wherein at least steps d) and e) are carried out when a punctiform or linear reflection characteristic is ascertained in step f), and at least steps d) and e) are not carried out when a punctiform or linear reflection characteristic is not ascertained in step f) (Implicit, pg. 4, the evaluation of the received acoustic signal is carried out in response to the system comprising the acoustic sensor has been started or a presence of an object has been detected. The method is repeated until a predetermined period of time has elapsed, no object is detected, or an alternative system is ready for operation) .
Regarding claim 20, Schumann discloses a motor vehicle (Fig. 2 (5)), comprising:
an ultrasound-based driver assistance system (pg. 5, the method according to the invention is started when a vehicle is put into operation) configured to calibrate azimuth angles of ultrasonic sensors (Fig. 2 (1))
a) detecting an echo of an ultrasonic pulse from an object using the first ultrasonic sensor, the detecting of the echo using the first ultrasonic sensor including detection of an azimuth angle of the echo(pg. 3, the acoustic signal is a chirp or pulsed signal. The acoustic signal of the acoustic sensor can, after reflection on an object, can be distinguished from those signals emitted by other sensors) (pg. 8, a trilateration is performed based on the measured values of a plurality of acoustic sensors in order to determine a position of the object relative to the acoustic sensor in an azimuthal angle);
b) detecting an echo of an ultrasonic pulse from the object using the second ultrasonic sensor, the detecting of the echo using the second ultrasonic sensor including detection of an azimuth angle of the echo(pg. 3, the acoustic signal is a chirp or pulsed signal. The acoustic signal of the acoustic sensor can, after reflection on an object, can be distinguished from those signals emitted by other sensors) (pg. 8, a trilateration is performed based on the measured values of a plurality of acoustic sensors in order to determine a position of the object relative to the acoustic sensor in an azimuthal angle);
c) ascertaining a target azimuth angle of the echo for the first ultrasonic sensor and a target azimuth angle of the echo for the second ultrasonic sensor based on a position determination of the object by trilateration(pg. 8, a trilateration is performed based on the measured values of a plurality of acoustic sensors in order to determine a position of the object relative to the acoustic sensor in an azimuthal angle);
d) ascertaining a correction value for the detecting of the azimuth angle using the first ultrasonic sensor based on the ascertained target azimuth angle of the echo for the first ultrasonic sensor(pg. 8, in this case, a correction of the directional characteristics takes places based on the azimuth angle. Each measured azimuth angle has its own directional characteristic. Thus influence of positional deviation in a azimuthal direction can be described, compensated and does not lead to distortion of a further determined elevation angle);
and e) ascertaining a correction value for the detecting of the azimuth angle using the second ultrasonic sensor based on the ascertained target azimuth angle of the echo for the second ultrasonic sensor(pg. 8, in this case, a correction of the directional characteristics takes places based on the azimuth angle. Each measured azimuth angle has its own directional characteristic. Thus influence of positional deviation in a azimuthal direction can be described, compensated and does not lead to distortion of a further determined elevation angle).
Schumann fails to teach
The ultrasonic sensors are arranged as an ultrasonic sensor row
Wieland teaches
The ultrasonic sensors are arranged as an ultrasonic sensor row ([0038], distance sensors (303) are developed as ultrasound sensors)(Fig. 3 illustrates distance sensors (303a), (303b), (303c), (303d) arranged in a row along the bumper of motor vehicle (301))
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the motor vehicle of Schumann, to include ultrasonic sensor row arrangement of Wieland, so as to yield an object detection system that can detect objects in front the motor vehicle in order to prevent collisions with objects or obstacles in the direction of travel, thus increasing safety and preventing damage or injury. Such a modification would amount to combining prior elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale A.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumann in view of Wieland in view of Kawahara et al. (JP 2021098494 A, “Kawahara”).
Regarding claim 18, Schumann, as modified in view of Wieland teaches the method according to claim 11. Schumann further teaches following steps:
Storing the correction values ascertained in steps d) and e) (pg. 8, a trilateration is performed based on the measured values of a plurality of acoustic sensors in order to determine a position of the object relative to the acoustic sensor in an azimuthal angle. in this case, a correction of the directional characteristics takes places based on the azimuth angle. Each measured azimuth angle has its own directional characteristic. Thus influence of positional deviation in a azimuthal direction can be described, compensated and does not lead to distortion of a further determined elevation angle. directional characteristics may be stored to allow for comparison with measured data).
Schumann fails to teach
k) detecting a temperature while at least one of steps a) to e) is being carried out;
and m) storing the temperature detected in step k).
Kawahara teaches
k) detecting a temperature while at least one of steps a) to e) is being carried out (pg. 3, communication unit transmits temperature measured by the temperature sensor along with the determination result regarding the presence or absence of the object determined by the sonar ECU);
and m) storing the temperature detected in step k) (pg. 6, storage unit of the sonar ECU sequentially stores information related to detection temperature detect by the temperature sensor).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Schumann, as modified in view of the teachings of Wieland, to include the temperature value detection and storage of Kawahara, so as to yield an motor vehicle ultrasonic object detection system that can further correct measurement inaccuracies arising due to the speed of sound changing based on temperature fluctuations in the environment surrounding the vehicle, leading to more precise positioning of detected objects. Such a modification would amount to applying a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale D.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-17 and 19 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:
Regarding claim 13, Schumann, as modified in view of Wieland teaches the method according to claim 11. Schumann further teaches the following step:
g) ascertaining a reflection characteristic of the object based on a history of echoes detected using the first ultrasonic sensor and based on a history of echoes detected using he second ultrasonic sensor(pg. 8, transmission frequency of acoustic sensor is varied over as large of a range as possible in order to vary the aperture angle and analyze the normalized echo amplitude)(pg. 9, gradient of the normalized echo amplitude act as a directional characteristic. Measured data may be compared with stored data through techniques such as fitting, correlation analysis);
Schumann, as modified in view of Wieland fails to teach
wherein at least steps d) and e) are carried out when a multi-reflective reflection characteristic is not ascertained in step g), and at least steps d) and e) are not carried out when a multi-reflective reflection characteristic is ascertained in step g)(Schumann is the closest prior art, however Schumann fails to make any recitation regarding conditionally executing steps d) and e) in response to whether or not a multi-reflective reflection characteristic is not ascertained in step g), or whether to not execute steps d) and e) when a multi-reflective characteristic is ascertained in step g). In other words, Schumann does not specify any conditional criteria that would dictate when the correction values are ascertained, and instead determines the correction values as part of its standard distance measurement routine. No other identified prior art teaches the specific conditional sequence of method steps regarding carrying out steps d) and e) depending on the presence or absence of a detected multi-reflective reflection characteristic, either wholly or in part, with sufficient motivation to combine).
Regarding claim 14, Schumann, as modified in view of Wieland teaches the method according to claim 11. Schumann further teaches further comprising the following step:
h) analyzing the echo detected using the first ultrasonic sensor (Fig. 2 (1)) and/or the echo detected using the second ultrasonic sensor (Fig. 2 (1)), as to whether a disturbance (Fig. 2 (2)) is present(pg. 3, the acoustic signal is a chirp or pulsed signal. The acoustic signal of the acoustic sensor can, after reflection on an object, can be distinguished from those signals emitted by other sensors);
Schumann, as modified in view of Wieland fails to teach
wherein at least steps d) and e) are carried out when a disturbance is not ascertained in step h), and at least steps d) and e) are not carried out when a disturbance is ascertained in step h)( Schumann is the closest prior art, however Schumann fails to make any recitation regarding conditionally executing steps d) and e) in response to a determination that a disturbance is not ascertained, or to conditionally not execute steps d) and e) in response to a determination that a disturbance is ascertained. No other identified prior art teaches the specific conditional sequence of method steps regarding carrying out steps d) and e) depending on the presence or absence of a detected disturbance, either wholly or in part, with sufficient motivation to combine).
Regarding claim 15, Schumann, as modified in view of Wieland teaches the method according to claim 11. Schindler, as modified in view of Schumann fails to teach:
i) analyzing the position determination of the object of step c) as to whether the object is within a specified permissible range;
wherein at least steps d) and e) are carried out when the analysis of step i) shows that the object is within the specified permissible range, and at least steps d) and e) are not carried out when the analysis of step i) shows that the object is outside the specified permissible range.
Kutomi et al. (WO 2020115957 A1, “Kutomi”. For all text citations, refer to attached machine translation) teaches
i) analyzing the position determination of the object of step c) as to whether the object is within a specified permissible range (pg. 10, object position estimation unit estimates the relative position of the object when the difference between the measured distance measurement information and the reference distance information is within a predetermined value);
Kutomi fails to teach
wherein at least steps d) and e) are carried out when the analysis of step i) shows that the object is within the specified permissible range, and at least steps d) and e) are not carried out when the analysis of step i) shows that the object is outside the specified permissible range (Kutomi fails to recite the required steps of d) and e) being carried, or not being carried out, based on the results of step i). No other prior art teaches the required conditions for carrying out steps d) and e), either wholly or in part with sufficient motivation to combine).
Regarding claim 16, Schumann, as modified in view of Wieland teaches the method according to claim 11. Schumann, as modified in view of Wieland fails to teach wherein:
(i) the correction value is ascertained in step d) by subtracting the azimuth angle of the echo that was detected using the first ultrasonic sensor from the target azimuth angle of the echo for the first ultrasonic sensor, and/or (ii) the correction value is ascertained in step e) by subtracting the azimuth angle of the echo that was detected using the second ultrasonic sensor from the target azimuth angle of the echo for the second ultrasonic sensor(Schumann is the closest prior art, however Schumann fails to teach the ascertained correction values being explicitly ascertained by subtracting the azimuth angle of the detected echoes from the target azimuth angle. No other identified prior art teaches the required correction values being obtained via the azimuthal subtractions outlined in steps i) or ii), either wholly or in part with sufficient motivation to combine).
Regarding claim 17, Schumann, as modified in view of Wieland teaches the method according to claim 11. Schumann further teaches wherein:
(i) at least steps a) to e) are carried out several times (pg. 4, the method is repeated until a predetermined period of time has elapsed).
Schumann, as modified in view of Wieland fails to teach
wherein the correction value is ascertained in step d) by calculating a median value or a mean of differences between the azimuth angles of the echoes that were detected using the first ultrasonic sensor and the target azimuth angles of the echoes for the first ultrasonic sensor, and/or (ii) the correction value is ascertained in step e) by calculating a median value or a mean of differences between the azimuth angles of the echoes that were detected using the second ultrasonic sensor and the target azimuth angles of the echoes for the second ultrasonic sensor (Schumann, at pg. 8, teaches a trilateration is performed based on the measured values of a plurality of acoustic sensors in order to determine a position of the object relative to the acoustic sensor in an azimuthal angle. in this case, a correction of the directional characteristics takes places based on the azimuth angle. Each measured azimuth angle has its own directional characteristic. Thus influence of positional deviation in a azimuthal direction can be described, compensated and does not lead to distortion of a further determined elevation angle, however there is no explicit teaching of the ascertained correction values being determined by calculating a median value or a mean of differences between the azimuth angles detected by either the first or second ultrasonic sensor. No other identified prior art teaches ascertaining the specific correction values by a process involving calculating the median value or a mean of differences between the azimuth angles detected by either the first or second ultrasonic sensors with the target azimuth, either wholly or in part, with sufficient motivation to combine) .
Regarding claim 19, Schumann, as modified in view of Wieland teaches the method according to claim 11. Schumann, as modified in view of Wieland fails to teach the following:
n) detecting an alignment error of the first ultrasonic sensor by analyzing a history of the correction values ascertained in step d), and/or o) detecting an alignment error of the second ultrasonic sensor by analyzing a history of the correction values ascertained in step e).
Dorenkamp (DE 102017215586 A1, “Dorenkamp”. For all text citations, refer to attached machine translation) teaches
detecting an alignment error of an ultrasonic environmental sensor by analyzing a comparison to a reference axis (pg. 5, environmental sensor (fig. 1 (2)) may be an ultrasonic sensor)(pg. 6, sensor axis (Fig. 1 (4)) of the environmental sensor (Fig. 1 (2)) represents the sensors central axis or the axis of highest sensor sensitivity)(pg. 5-6, calculation devices executes a calculation process for determining the deviation (fig. 1 (5)) between the sensor axis (fig. 1 (4)) and the driving axis (Fig. 1 (3))).
However, Dorenkamp fails to teach
n) detecting an alignment error of the first ultrasonic sensor by analyzing a history of the correction values ascertained in step d), and/or o) detecting an alignment error of the second ultrasonic sensor by analyzing a history of the correction values ascertained in step e) (Dorenkamp fails to teach comparing the alignment error to a list of historical correction values calculated using the steps outlined in steps d) and/or e). In other words, Dorenkamp does not explicitly teach any comparison of a sensor axis (alignment) deviation to previously calculated correction values, but instead teaches determining a deviation of the sensor axis (alignment) from the direction of travel of a motor vehicle, which does not satisfy the limitation. No other identified prior art teaches this limitations either wholly or in part with sufficient motivation to combine).
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Schindler et al. (DE 102017010308 A1, “Schindler”) which discloses an ultrasonic sensor array for determining object positioning
Schumann (US 20190324131 A1, “Schumann 2”) which discloses a method of calibrating ultrasonic distance sensors
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6136. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at 571-270-3603. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights