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 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)(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, 2, 4, 7, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by McArthur (2020/0019160).
With respect to claim 1, McArthur discloses a first sensor ([0125], lines 2-3) which, in operation, measures a distance to an object using an ultrasonic wave in a first period ([0125], lines 1-6), the first sensor being configured to be provided on a vehicle ([0045]); a second sensor ([0125], line 6) which, in operation, measures the distance to the object using the ultrasonic wave in a second period after the first period ([015], lines 6-8), the second sensor being configured to be provided on the vehicle ([0045]); and a control circuitry ([0082]) which, in operation, sets a noise monitoring period by the second sensor between the first period and the second period, and when noise is detected in the noise monitoring period, sets a next second period after a next noise monitoring period and a wait period ([0125]-[0126]).
With respect to claim 2, McArthur teaches the control circuitry which, in operation, sets another noise monitoring period before the first period ([0125], lines 1-4).
With respect to claim 4, McArthur teaches determination circuitry which, in operation, determines the same object as the object when the same object is detected a predetermined number of times by any of the first sensor and the second sensor ([0116]).
With respect to claim 7, McArthur discloses measuring a distance to an object using an ultrasonic wave in a first period ([0125], lines 1-6) by a first sensor ([0125], lines 2-3) configured to be provided on a vehicle ([0045]); performing noise monitoring using the ultrasonic wave in a noise monitoring period after the first period by a second sensor ([0125], line 6) configured to be provided on the vehicle ([0045]); measuring the distance to the object using the ultrasonic wave in a second period after the noise monitoring period ([015], lines 6-8) by the second sensor; and setting, when noise is detected in the noise monitoring period, a next second period after a next noise monitoring period and a wait period ([0125]-[0126]).
With respect to claim 8, McArthur teaches the control circuitry which, in operation, sets another noise monitoring period before the first period ([0125], lines 1-4).
With respect to claim 10, McArthur teaches determination circuitry which, in operation, determines the same object as the object when the same object is detected a predetermined number of times by any of the first sensor and the second sensor ([0116]).
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 5, 6, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McArthur in view of Luebbert (2015/0331098).
With respect to claim 5, McArthur teaches a first sensor ([0125], lines 2-3) which, in operation, measures a distance to an object using an ultrasonic wave in a first period ([0125], lines 1-6), the first sensor being configured to be provided on a vehicle ([0045]); a second sensor ([0125], line 6) which, in operation, measures the distance to the object using the ultrasonic wave in a second period after the first period ([015], lines 6-8), the second sensor being configured to be provided on the vehicle ([0045]); and a control circuitry ([0082]) which, in operation, sets a noise monitoring period by the second sensor between the first period and the second period ([0125]-[0126]). However, it does no teach when noise is detected in the noise monitoring period, sets a next monitoring period using a second threshold between the next first period and the next second period, the second threshold being larger than the first threshold.
Luebbert teaches adaptively setting detection thresholds for noise in wave based vehicle object detections ([0052]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of McArthur with the adjustable thresholds of Luebbert since such a modification would have allowed the method to be more adaptable to changing conditions.
With respect to claim 6, McArthur teaches determination circuitry which, in operation, determines the same object as the object when the same object is detected a predetermined number of times by any of the first sensor and the second sensor ([0116]).
With respect to claim 11, McArthur teaches measuring a distance to an object using an ultrasonic wave in a first period ([0125], lines 1-6) by a first sensor ([0125], lines 2-3) configured to be provided on a vehicle ([0045]); performing noise monitoring using the ultrasonic wave in a noise monitoring period after the first period by a second sensor ([0125], line 6) configured to be provided on the vehicle ([0045]); measuring the distance to the object using the ultrasonic wave in a second period after the noise monitoring period ([015], lines 6-8) by the second sensor. However, it does not teach setting, when noise is detected in the noise monitoring period, a next monitoring period using a second threshold between the next first period and the next second period, the second threshold being larger than the first threshold.
Luebbert teaches adaptively setting detection thresholds for noise in wave based vehicle object detections ([0052]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of McArthur with the adjustable thresholds of Luebbert since such a modification would have allowed the method to be more adaptable to changing conditions.
With respect to claim 12, McArthur teaches determination circuitry which, in operation, determines the same object as the object when the same object is detected a predetermined number of times by any of the first sensor and the second sensor ([0116]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 9 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.
Conclusion
The prior art which is cited but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The references made herein are done so for the convenience of the applicant. They are in no way intended to be limiting. The prior art should be considered in its entirety.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRYSTINE E BREIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7614. The examiner can normally be reached Monday (9:30am-6:30pm); Tuesday & Friday (11:30am-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.
/KRYSTINE E BREIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights