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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. As per Step 1, the claims are directed to an apparatus and method claims which are under the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. As per Step 2A, the claimed invention is directed to distance, time calculations and object determination which is the judicial exception of being an abstract idea. The claims recite calculation of either time difference of flight or difference in distance and object determination. These limitations involve mathematical processes done either mentally or pen and paper or programmable machines. Such calculations are forms of mental processes, which are identified as abstract ideas under the judicial exceptions to patent eligibility. The same is true with the object determination which simply states that the object is determined based on the result which can mean any conditional, or threshold or if-then statement or mental determination which are mental steps of abtract ideas. As per Step 2B, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it appears to be . The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no specific limitations beyond the well understood, routine and conventional previously known and specified to a high level of generality. There is no inventive concept or meaningful integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. They do not add any meaningful limitations that would remedy the deficiency of the claims or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 7, 11, and 17 have phrasing that is in the alternative namely claiming time of flight of plurality of waves or difference in distance corresponding to time of flight. It is unclear if this is a plurality is concerning transmitted or received waves or both and time of flight and difference in distance both appear to be effectively the same thing as distance and time are closely related when calculating ultrasonic distance measurement since time relates to distance travelled. Additionally, determining the object based on the difference does not make clear to a person of ordinary skill what the claim limitations are in order to avoid infringement. Any processing of time of flight or time difference or distance difference would read on the claim. The claim does not explain how the type of object is being determined. It simply says it happens and this appears to be a black box of claiming a result than actual structural limitations.
Claims 3 and 13 have plurality of ultrasonic waves corresponding to the difference. It is unclear what this means. It can mean the ultrasonic waves that are used to calculate time of flight/time difference of arrival or it can mean that there are waves that are received corresponding to that that are again transmitted. For purpose of compact prosecution examiner is assuming applicant meant the initial transmitted waves continue transmission.
The terms “threshold, difference, predetermined range, maximum value” in claims 1-20 are a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “threshold, difference, predetermined range, maximum value” 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.
Any arbitrarily chosen value would read on the claim and a person of ordinary skill would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention in order to avoid infringement.
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 (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.
Claims 1, 7, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sassa (US 2025/0044433 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sassa discloses a calculation circuitry which, in operation, calculates a difference in time of flight of a plurality of ultrasonic waves reflected by an object and received by a plurality of sonar apparatuses, or a difference in distance corresponding to the time of flight[Fig 4 has multiple waves and sonar apparatuses, 0037 has TOF, Abstract, 0006 as difference in distances Fig 9 shows difference in distance calculation. See also fig 6];
and a determination circuitry which, in operation, determines a type of the object based on the difference[0052-0055 has object identification among items such as pole, step ie curb, pedestrian]..
Regarding claim 7, Sassa discloses a calculation circuitry which, in operation, calculates a difference between a time of flight of an ultrasonic wave reflected by an object and an estimated value of the time of flight obtained under an assumption that the object is a stationary object, or a difference between a distance corresponding to the time of flight and an estimated value of the distance obtained under the assumption that the object is a stationary object[Fig 4 has multiple waves and sonar apparatuses, 0037 has TOF, Abstract, 0006 as difference in distances Fig 9 shows difference in distance calculation. See also fig 6];
and a determination circuitry which, in operation, determines a type of the object based on the difference[0052-0055 has object identification among items such as pole, step ie curb, pedestrian].
Regarding claim 11, Sassa discloses calculating a difference in time of flight of a plurality of ultrasonic waves reflected by an object and received by a plurality of sonar apparatuses, or a difference in distance corresponding to the time of flight[Fig 4 has multiple waves and sonar apparatuses, 0037 has TOF, Abstract, 0006 as difference in distances Fig 9 shows difference in distance calculation. See also fig 6];
and determining a type of the object based on the difference.[0052-0055 has object identification among items such as pole, step ie curb, pedestrian].
Regarding claim 17, Sassa discloses calculating a difference between a time of flight of an ultrasonic wave reflected by an object and an estimated value of the time of flight obtained under an assumption that the object is a stationary object, or a difference between a distance corresponding to the time of flight and an estimated value of the distance obtained under the assumption that the object is a stationary object[Fig 4 has multiple waves and sonar apparatuses, 0037 has TOF, Abstract, 0006 as difference in distances Fig 9 shows difference ind distance calculation. See also fig 6];
and determining a type of the object based on the difference.[0052-0055 has object identification among items such as pole, step ie curb, pedestrian].
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 2-3, 8, 12-13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sassa (US 20250044433 A1) as applied to claims 1, 7, 11 and 17 above, and further in view of Nishi(US 12,078,719 B2).
Regarding claim 2, 8, 12, and 18, Sassa teaches wherein the determination circuitry which, in operation, determines the type based on a maximum value of the difference in [0053-0054, 0068 for predetermined threshold and determination]…
Sassa does not explicitly teach a plurality of transmission periods.
Nishi teaches in a plurality of transmission periods. [Col 10. Lines 45-55 has multiple transmissions]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the object determination of Sassa with the more transmission in Nishi in order have more signal data.
Moreover having more transmission periods would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified thresholds, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 3, Sassa, as modified, teaches that….. wherein the control circuitry which, in operation, causes the sonar apparatus that transmits the ultrasonic wave corresponding to the difference to continue transmission in a next transmission period in a case where the type is determined to be a pedestrian based on the difference. [0037 has each unit #14 being able to transmit waves; 0052-0054 have pedestrian determination]
Sassa does not explicitly teach a control circuitry which, in operation, switches, among the plurality of sonar apparatuses, a sonar apparatus that transmits an ultrasonic wave of the plurality of ultrasonic waves for each transmission period…
Nishi teaches a control circuitry which, in operation, switches, among the plurality of sonar apparatuses[Col 10. Lines 40-55 has multiple transmissions; See also Fig 6 for transmitter selection], a sonar apparatus that transmits an ultrasonic wave of the plurality of ultrasonic waves for each transmission period[Col 10. Lines 40-55 has multiple transmissions; See also Fig 6 for transmitter selection]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the object determination of Sassa with the multiple transmitters of Nishi in order have more signal data.
Regarding claim 13, Sassa, as modified, teaches that causing a sonar apparatus that transmits an ultrasonic wave of the plurality of ultrasonic waves corresponding to the difference to continue transmission in a next transmission period in a case where the type is determined to be a pedestrian based on the difference. [0037 has each unit #14 being able to transmit waves; 0052-0054 have pedestrian determination]
Claims 4-6, 9-10, 14-16 and 19-20 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 Sassa (US 20250044433 A1).
Regarding claims 4, 9, 14 and 19, Sassa teaches wherein the determination circuitry which, in operation, determines that the type is a pole in a case where the difference is smaller than a first threshold, and determines that the type is a pedestrian in a case where the difference is between a second threshold and a third threshold, the second threshold being larger than the first threshold, the third threshold being larger than the second threshold. [0052-0055, 0075 has pole or pedestrian based on predetermined threshold; See also 0067-0069 for pedestrian thresholds which would naturally be different from a pole; Said another way any arbitrarily chosen thresholds to distinguish between and define pedestrians and poles would read on the claim].
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified thresholds, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Moreover 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).
Regarding claims 5, and 15, Sassa teaches wherein the determination circuitry which, in operation, calculates coordinates of the object, and determines that the type is a pole in a case where the difference is smaller than the first threshold and the coordinates of the object do not vary beyond a predetermined range. [0050-0055, 0075 has pole based on predetermined threshold as well as coordinates in 0050, 0070-0073; Said another way any arbitrarily chosen thresholds to define poles would read on the claim]
Regarding claims 6, 10, 16 and 20, Sassa teaches wherein the determination circuitry which, in operation, determines that the type is a curb in a case where the difference is between the first threshold and the second threshold. [0052 have a step greater than a predetermined height, ie a curb; Said another way any arbitrarily chosen thresholds to define a curb would read on the claim]
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