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
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities: It claims "The object detection device of according to 3". It should be properly written as "The object detection device according to claim 1". 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 1-13 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
The term “predetermined” in claims 1 and 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “predetermined” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term can mean any arbitrarily chosen threshold or value and a person of ordinary skill would not be able to meaningfully determined the metes and bounds of the claim limitation to avoid infringement. Moreover the concept of baselines, or thresholds or triggers or any such arbitrarily chosen variable would be known by a person of ordinary skill in the art as part of routine optimization.
Regarding claims 1 and 13 the term fluctuation signal is also indefinite. It can mean any signal received, it can mean any change in amplitude or frequency which would be caused by distance or movement of the object from the doppler effect. It can mean noise or anything processed when received that is used to find the object. A person of ordinary skill would not be able to meaningfully ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed limitation in order to avoid infringement.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the minimum cycle" in claim 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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, 2, 5, 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Watabe (US 20240118402 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Watabe discloses a transmitter that transmits a long pulse signal, in which a pulse width is longer than a predetermined time, as a transmission wave, the transmission wave being an ultrasonic wave[Fig 1 has transmitter #10 emitting pulses of certain length or pulse width as seen in 0040, 0061, 0064];
a receiver that obtains a received signal corresponding to a reflected wave reflected by an object of the transmission wave[Fig 1 has receiver #11 receiving signal reflected by object #3];
a signal processor that obtains a fluctuation signal based on the received signal and detects the object based on the fluctuation signal[Fig 2 has controller #13 and abstract concerns object detection],
wherein the fluctuation signal is a signal corresponding to a composite wave generated when receiving the reflected wave and a wave which frequency is different from the reflected wave, or a signal generated by a phase change of the reflected wave when the distance to the object changes[0003 has doppler effect due to movement meaning different frequency/phase change. 0085-0086 has object detection with comparison of phase and amplitude changes. Moreover sensors detect all sound meaning the detected sound is inherently a composite]
In the event that the prior art does not explicitly disclose receiving more than one signal or processing different frequencies or phase changes, it is pointed out that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to use receivers to detect all the sound that it receives and to handle various frequencies and phase changes based on the doppler effect and principles of physics detect sound and objects using it as performing such actions are a basic concept in the principles of ultrasonic object detection.
Regarding claim 13, Watabe discloses transmitting a long pulse signal, in which a pulse width is longer than a predetermined time, as a transmission wave, the transmission wave being an ultrasonic wave[Fig 1 has transmitter #10 emitting pulses of certain length or pulse width as seen in 0040, 0061, 0064];
acquiring a received signal corresponding to a reflected wave reflected by an object of the transmission wave[Fig 1 has receiver #11 receiving signal reflected by object #3];
obtaining a fluctuation signal based on the received signal[Fig 1 has receiver #11 receiving signal reflected by object #3];
and detecting the object based on the fluctuation signal[Fig 2 has controller #13 and abstract concerns object detection],
wherein the fluctuation signal is a signal corresponding to a composite wave generated when receiving the reflected wave and a wave which frequency is different from the reflected wave, or a signal generated by a phase change of the reflected wave when the distance to the object changes[0003 has doppler effect due to movement meaning different frequency/phase change. 0085-0086 has object detection with comparison of phase and amplitude changes. Moreover sensors detect all sound meaning the detected sound is inherently a composite]
In the event that the prior art does not explicitly disclose receiving more than one signal or processing different frequencies or phase changes, it is pointed out that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to use receivers to detect all the sound that it receives and to handle various frequencies and phase changes based on the doppler effect and principles of physics detect sound and objects using it as performing such actions are a basic concept in the principles of ultrasonic object detection.
Regarding claim 2, Watabe discloses wherein the pulse width of the long pulse signal is set to a time longer than the minimum cycle assumed in advance as the cycle of the fluctuation signal.[ Fig 1 has transmitter #10 emitting pulses of certain length or pulse width as seen in 0040, 0061, 0064]
Regarding claim 5, Watabe discloses wherein, the receiver is positioned to directly receive the transmission wave transmitted from the transmitter. [Fig 1 has receiver directly positioned to receive transmission in a similar manner as applicant's fig 3]
Regarding claim 6, Watabe discloses wherein the signal processor obtains a Doppler shift frequency generated by the relative speed between the object and the object detection device based on the fluctuation signal. [0003 has doppler effect. Moreover a doppler shift is caused by relative speed and is found by the processor to calculate speed as a basic concept in the principles of physics]
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe (US 20240118402 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koyama (WO 2020129449 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Watabe does not explicitly teach wherein the signal processor is configured to obtain the composite wave by adding a base signal based on a frequency of the transmission wave to the received signal.
Koyama teaches that wherein the signal processor is configured to obtain the composite wave by adding a base signal based on a frequency of the transmission wave to the received signal. [0115 has white noise or impulse signal added]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the detection device in Watabe with the frequency mixing in Koyama in order to mix frequencies to create the drive signal.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe (US 20240118402 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Norris (US5889870A).
Regarding claim 4, Watabe does not explicitly teach wherein the signal processor is configured to obtain the composite wave by heterodyne detection using a base signal based on the received signal and a frequency of the transmission wave.
Norris teaches that wherein the signal processor is configured to obtain the composite wave by heterodyne detection using a base signal based on the received signal and a frequency of the transmission wave. [Title, Claim 4 has heterodyne detection based on frequency]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the detection device in Watabe with the heterodyne detection of Norris in order to use well known detection methods to detect the signal.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe (US 20240118402 A1) in view of Koyama (WO 2020129449 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Lee (US 20220120797 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Watabe does not explicitly teach wherein the signal processor stores a signal corresponding to the received signal obtained by the receiver in a state where the object is not detected in the memory as a constant signal, and detects the object based on a signal obtained by removing the constant signal from the fluctuation signal.
Lee teaches that wherein the signal processor stores a signal corresponding to the received signal obtained by the receiver in a state where the object is not detected in the memory as a constant signal, and detects the object based on a signal obtained by removing the constant signal from the fluctuation signal. [0044 has baseline removal and object detection]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the detection device in Watabe with the baselines of Lee in order to detect objects using baselines and thresholds.
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe (US 20240118402 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rowen (US 20240263972 A1) or Nishiguchi (US 20200041411 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Watabe does not explicitly teach wherein the signal processor includes a drive control unit that controls the transmitter,the drive control unit transmits as the transmission wave a long pulse signal and a short pulse signal in which pulse width is less than the predetermined time.
Rowen[0034 and 0063 has various long and short pulses] or Nishiguchi [0003 and 0048 has long and short pulses] teaches that wherein the signal processor includes a drive control unit that controls the transmitter, the drive control unit transmits as the transmission wave a long pulse signal and a short pulse signal in which pulse width is less than the predetermined time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the detection device in Watabe with the different pulses of Rowen or Nishiguchi in order to have different pulses for improving resolution when detecting objects.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, at the time of invention to have various pulses with different frequencies, duration, amplification, processing or transmission arrangements, etc, since has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable values or ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 9, Watabe does not explicitly teach wherein The drive control unit has the transmitter transmit the long pulse signal and the short pulse signal alternately as the transmission wave.
Rowen[0034 and 0063 has various long and short pulses] or Nishiguchi [0003 and 0048 has long and short pulses] wherein The drive control unit has the transmitter transmit the long pulse signal and the short pulse signal alternately as the transmission wave.
Regarding claim 10, Watabe does not explicitly teach wherein The drive control unit has the transmitter transmit the long pulse signal and the short pulse signal at different frequencies simultaneously.
Rowen.[0034 and 0063 has multi-frequency pulses] or Nishiguchi [Fig 1 and 0048 has simultaneous transmission and various frequency] teaches wherein The drive control unit has the transmitter transmit the long pulse signal and the short pulse signal at different frequencies simultaneously
Regarding claim 11, Watabe does not explicitly teach wherein an amplification ratio of the long pulse signal at the receiver is smaller than the amplification ratio of the short pulse signal at the receiver.
Rowen[0051 and 0055 has amplification and filtering of pulses] or Nishiguchi [0003 and 0048 has long and short pulses] teaches that wherein an amplification ratio of the long pulse signal at the receiver is smaller than the amplification ratio of the short pulse signal at the receiver.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe (US 20240118402 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshimura (US 20210001866 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Watabe does not explicitly teach wherein the signal processor includes a drive control unit that controls the transmitter, the drive control unit has the transmitter transmit the long pulse signal as the transmission wave when the object is detected by other equipment.
Yoshimura teaches that wherein the signal processor includes a drive control unit that controls the transmitter, the drive control unit has the transmitter transmit the long pulse signal as the transmission wave when the object is detected by other equipment. [Fig 6 and 0016 has trigger for starting process using other sensors following which 0050 has pulse wave detection]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the detection device in Watabe with the other sensors of Yoshimura in order to use other sensors for trigger conditions. Moreover this appears to be an intended use and it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIKAS NMN ATMAKURI whose telephone number is (571)272-5080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at (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 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.
/VIKAS ATMAKURI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/JAMES R HULKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights