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 2-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-11 recite “A sensor as claimed” in line 1, which should be “The sensor as claimed.”
Claims 13-17 recite “A control system of claim” in line 1, which should be “The control system of claim.”
Claim 3 recites “a signal indicative of a movement or vibration of the sensing surface” while claim 1 recites the same limitation. Therefore, the limitation should be “the signal indicative of the movement or vibration of the sensing surface.”
Claim 12 recites “a test signal for controlling output of the test signal” while claim 1 recites “a test signal.” Examiner interprets that “a test signal for controlling” is different from “a test signal” of claim 1. Examiner suggests to use a different name for “a test signal” for controlling to avoid confusion.
Claim 12 recites “an operational characteristic for the sensor” while claim 1 recites the same limitation. Therefore, the limitation should be “the operational characteristic for the sensor.”
Claim 18 recites “apply a test signal” and “a test signal for controlling.” Examiner interprets that “a test signal for controlling” is different from “a test signal.” Examiner suggests to use a different name for “a test signal” for controlling to avoid confusion.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 17 is 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.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase "or otherwise" renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or otherwise"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 12, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Behnke et al. (US 6146268 A, hereinafter “Behnke”).
Regarding claim 1, Behnke discloses a sensor for monitoring one or more grain parameters associated with material processed by a harvesting machine, the sensor comprising:
a sensing surface (Behnke at col. 4, ln. 51-53: “the vibration sensor 1 is screwed directly to a plate-shaped pulse detector 10. The pulse detector 10 is formed by a plate”);
a first transducer element operably coupled to the sensing surface and responsive, in use, to movement of the sensing surface (Behnke at col. 5, ln. 11-15: “FIG. 4 shows the underside of a plate-shaped pulse detector 10 with a mounted vibration sensor 1 and a mounted pulse emitter 21. This arrangement makes it possible to monitor the coupling point between the vibration sensor 1 and the pulse detector 10”);
a second transducer element operably coupled to the sensing surface and operable, in use, to apply a test signal to the sensing surface (Behnke at col. 5, ln. 11-16: “FIG. 4 shows the underside of a plate-shaped pulse detector 10 with a mounted vibration sensor 1 and a mounted pulse emitter 21. This arrangement makes it possible to monitor the coupling point between the vibration sensor 1 and the pulse detector 10. The pulse detector 10 is subjected to a specific vibration by means of the pulse emitter 21”); and
a communication unit for outputting sensor data indicative of a sensor response of the first transducer element for analysis to determine an operational characteristic of the sensor therefrom (Behnke at col. 4, ln. 63-67: “The measurement signals are then transmitted via the signal line 13 communication network 40, or bus system 41 to a subsequent evaluation unit 12A, operational testing unit 38 or display unit 39”; col. 5, ln. 16-20: “The evaluation, operational testing and display units are set to the excitation as known by definition. If the measured value does not lie in the predetermined or programmed desired vibrational range, then an error exists in the sensor system”).
Regarding claim 2, Behnke discloses a sensor as claimed in claim 1.
Behnke further discloses wherein the first transducer element is operable to output a signal indicative of a movement or vibration of the sensing surface corresponding to the location of the sensing element (Behnke at col. 4, ln. 32-35: “Vibrations are generated by means of particles of harvested material dropping onto the pulse detector, e.g. 10, which are transmitted via a coupling surface 2 directly into the vibration sensor 1”; col. 5, ln. 11-15: “FIG. 4 shows the underside of a plate-shaped pulse detector 10 with a mounted vibration sensor 1 and a mounted pulse emitter 21. This arrangement makes it possible to monitor the coupling point between the vibration sensor 1 and the pulse detector 10”).
Regarding claim 3, Behnke discloses a sensor as claimed in claim 2.
Behnke further discloses wherein the first transducer element is operable to output a signal indicative of a movement or vibration of the sensing surface corresponding to the location of the sensing element caused by application of the test signal by the second transducer element (Behnke at col. 2, ln. 49-50: “The vibration of the pulse detector is introduced directly into the vibration sensor”; col. 5, ln. 15-20: “The pulse detector 10 is subjected to a specific vibration by means of the pulse emitter 21. The evaluation, operational testing and display units are set to the excitation as known by definition. If the measured value does not lie in the predetermined or programmed desired vibrational range, then an error exists in the sensor system”).
Regarding claim 4, Behnke discloses a sensor as claimed in claim 1.
Behnke further discloses wherein the two or more transducer elements are substantially equally spaced with respect to the sensing surface (Behnke at FIG. 4 (reproduced below): The vibration sensor 1 and the pulse emitter 21 are substantially equally spaced with respect to the longitudinal edges of the pulse detector 10 formed by a plate (i.e., “sensing surface”)).
PNG
media_image1.png
473
793
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG. 4 of Behnke
Regarding claim 5, Behnke discloses a sensor as claimed in claim 1.
Behnke further discloses wherein the sensing surface comprises a membrane defining a material facing side and a component side (Behnke at col. 5, ln. 11-15: “FIG. 4 shows the underside of a plate-shaped pulse detector 10 with a mounted vibration sensor 1 and a mounted pulse emitter 21”; The pulse detector plate (i.e., “membrane”) defines the underside (i.e., “component side”) and the opposite side of the underside (i.e., “material facing side”)).
Regarding claim 6, Behnke discloses a sensor as claimed in claim 5.
Behnke further discloses wherein the first and second transducer elements are mounted or otherwise coupled to the component side of the membrane (Behnke at col. 5, ln. 11-15: “FIG. 4 shows the underside of a plate-shaped pulse detector 10 with a mounted vibration sensor 1 and a mounted pulse emitter 21”; The vibration sensor 1 (i.e., “first transducer”) and the pulse emitter 21 (i.e., “second transducer”) are coupled to the underside (i.e., “component side”) of the pulse detector plate (i.e., “membrane”)).
Regarding claim 8, Behnke discloses a sensor as claimed in claim 1.
Behnke further discloses wherein the first and/or second transducer elements comprise piezoelectric transducer elements (Behnke at col. 2, ln. 16-19: “The above objects are achieved by a sensor for monitoring the threshing and separating performance and harvesting losses, the sensor having a pulse detector and a piezoelectric vibration sensor for measuring structure-borne vibrations”).
Regarding claim 12, Behnke discloses a sensor as claimed in claim 1.
Behnke further discloses a control system for the sensor of claim 1, the control system comprising one or more controllers (Behnke at col. 4, ln. 63-67: “The measurement signals are then transmitted via the signal line 13 communication network 40, or bus system 41 to a subsequent evaluation unit 12A, operational testing unit 38 or display unit 39”) and being configured to:
generate and output a test signal for controlling output of the test signal by the second transducer element (Behnke at col. 5, ln. 15-16: “The pulse detector 10 is subjected to a specific vibration by means of the pulse emitter 21”);
receive sensor data indicative of the sensor response of the first transducer element to the test signal (Behnke at col. 2, ln. 49-50: “The vibration of the pulse detector is introduced directly into the vibration sensor”; col. 5, ln. 15-16: “The pulse detector 10 is subjected to a specific vibration by means of the pulse emitter 21”);
process the sensor data to determine an operational characteristic for the sensor (Behnke at col. 5, ln. 16-20: “The evaluation, operational testing and display units are set to the excitation as known by definition. If the measured value does not lie in the predetermined or programmed desired vibrational range, then an error exists in the sensor system”); and
generate and output one or more control signals for controlling one or more operable components associated with the harvesting machine in dependence on the determined operational characteristic (Behnke at col. 6, ln. 57-61: “When predetermined threshold values are exceeded or not reached, an error message is generated in the desired vibration range. This can be accomplished in optical, acoustic or any other known form by an error message generating means 41”).
Regarding claim 17, Behnke discloses a control system of claim 12.
Behnke further discloses wherein the one or more operable components comprises a user interface of or otherwise associated with the harvesting machine; and the control system is configured to generate and output one or more control signals for the user interface for displaying or otherwise conveying information indicative of the determined operational characteristic to an operator of the harvesting machine (Behnke at col. 6, ln. 57-61: “When predetermined threshold values are exceeded or not reached, an error message is generated in the desired vibration range. This can be accomplished in optical, acoustic or any other known form by an error message generating means 41”).
Regarding claim 18, Behnke discloses a system comprising:
a sensor for monitoring one or more grain parameters associated with material processed by a harvesting machine (Behnke at col. 2, ln. 16-19: “The above objects are achieved by a sensor for monitoring the threshing and separating performance and harvesting losses, the sensor having a pulse detector and a piezoelectric vibration sensor for measuring structure-borne vibrations”), the sensor comprising:
a sensing surface (Behnke at col. 4, ln. 51-53: “the vibration sensor 1 is screwed directly to a plate-shaped pulse detector 10. The pulse detector 10 is formed by a plate”),
a first transducer element operably coupled to the sensing surface and responsive, in use, to movement of the sensing surface (Behnke at col. 5, ln. 11-15: “FIG. 4 shows the underside of a plate-shaped pulse detector 10 with a mounted vibration sensor 1 and a mounted pulse emitter 21. This arrangement makes it possible to monitor the coupling point between the vibration sensor 1 and the pulse detector 10”),
a second transducer element operably coupled to the sensing surface and operable, in use, to apply a test signal to the sensing surface (Behnke at col. 5, ln. 11-16: “FIG. 4 shows the underside of a plate-shaped pulse detector 10 with a mounted vibration sensor 1 and a mounted pulse emitter 21. This arrangement makes it possible to monitor the coupling point between the vibration sensor 1 and the pulse detector 10. The pulse detector 10 is subjected to a specific vibration by means of the pulse emitter 21”), and
a communication unit for outputting sensor data indicative of a sensor response of the first transducer element for analysis to determine an operational characteristic of the sensor therefrom (Behnke at col. 4, ln. 63-67: “The measurement signals are then transmitted via the signal line 13 communication network 40, or bus system 41 to a subsequent evaluation unit 12A, operational testing unit 38 or display unit 39”; col. 5, ln. 16-20: “The evaluation, operational testing and display units are set to the excitation as known by definition. If the measured value does not lie in the predetermined or programmed desired vibrational range, then an error exists in the sensor system”); and
a control system for the sensor, the control system comprising one or more controllers (Behnke at col. 4, ln. 63-67: “The measurement signals are then transmitted via the signal line 13 communication network 40, or bus system 41 to a subsequent evaluation unit 12A, operational testing unit 38 or display unit 39”) and being configured to:
generate and output a test signal for controlling output of the test signal by the second transducer element (Behnke at col. 5, ln. 15-16: “The pulse detector 10 is subjected to a specific vibration by means of the pulse emitter 21”),
receive sensor data indicative of the sensor response of the first transducer element to the test signal (Behnke at col. 2, ln. 49-50: “The vibration of the pulse detector is introduced directly into the vibration sensor”; col. 5, ln. 15-16: “The pulse detector 10 is subjected to a specific vibration by means of the pulse emitter 21”),
process the sensor data to determine an operational characteristic for the sensor (Behnke at col. 5, ln. 16-20: “The evaluation, operational testing and display units are set to the excitation as known by definition. If the measured value does not lie in the predetermined or programmed desired vibrational range, then an error exists in the sensor system”), and
generate and output one or more control signals for controlling one or more operable components associated with the harvesting machine in dependence on the determined operational characteristic (Behnke at col. 6, ln. 57-61: “When predetermined threshold values are exceeded or not reached, an error message is generated in the desired vibration range. This can be accomplished in optical, acoustic or any other known form by an error message generating means 41”).
Regarding claim 19, Behnke discloses the sensor of claim 1.
Behnke further discloses an agricultural machine comprising the sensor of claim 1 (Behnke at col. 1, ln. 4-6: “The present invention relates generally to agricultural machinery and, more particularly, to improvements to harvesting machines”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behnke in view of Bischoff et al. (US 2016/0025531 A1, hereinafter “Bischoff”).
Regarding claim 7, Behnke discloses a sensor as claimed in claim 5.
However, Behnke does not explicitly state:
wherein the sensing surface comprises an aluminum membrane.
In the same field of endeavor, Bischoff teaches:
wherein the sensing surface comprises an aluminum membrane (Bischoff at para. [0010]: “The impact plate is typically made of relatively rigid material, such as fiber reinforced plastic, aluminum,
or steel that is a few millimeters thick”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor of Behnke by adding the aluminum membrane of Bischoff with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the sensor of Behnke in view of Bischoff is to provide a material suitable for the sensing surface.
Claims 9-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behnke in view of Dybro et al. (US 2019/0183047 A1, hereinafter “Dybro”).
Regarding claim 9, Behnke discloses a sensor of claim 1.
However, Behnke does not explicitly state:
comprising one or more additional transducer elements operably coupled to the sensing surface and responsive, in use, to movement of the sensing surface.
In the same field of endeavor, Dybro teaches:
comprising one or more additional transducer elements operably coupled to the sensing surface and responsive, in use, to movement of the sensing surface (Dybro at para. [0042]: “FIG. 8 illustrates material flow sensor 104. Material flow sensor 104 comprises an electromagnetic plane formed by a two-dimensional array or grid of individual electromagnetic field and sensing units 106A, 106B, 106C, 106D, 106E, 106F, 106G and 106H (collectively referred to as units 106). Each of units 106 may have a configuration corresponding to any of the individual material flow sensors 44-94. Each unit 106 comprises at least one emitter and at least one detector extending along are adjacent a central opening through which crop material flows or passes”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor of Behnke by adding the additional transducer elements of Dybro with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the sensor of Behnke in view of Dybro is to estimate material flow based upon the relative locations of the transducer elements. Further, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP §2144.04(VI)(B)).
Regarding claim 10, Behnke discloses a sensor of claim 9.
However, Behnke does not explicitly state:
comprising three additional transducer elements operably coupled to the sensing surface and responsive, in use, to movement of the sensing surface.
In the same field of endeavor, Dybro teaches:
comprising three additional transducer elements operably coupled to the sensing surface and responsive, in use, to movement of the sensing surface (Dybro at para. [0042]: “FIG. 8 illustrates material flow sensor 104. Material flow sensor 104 comprises an electromagnetic plane formed by a two-dimensional array or grid of individual electromagnetic field and sensing units 106A, 106B, 106C, 106D, 106E, 106F, 106G and 106H (collectively referred to as units 106). Each of units 106 may have a configuration corresponding to any of the individual material flow sensors 44-94. Each unit 106 comprises at least one emitter and at least one detector extending along are adjacent a central opening through which crop material flows or passes”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor of Behnke by adding the three additional transducer elements of Dybro with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the sensor of Behnke in view of Dybro is to estimate material flow based upon the relative locations of the transducer elements. Further, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP §2144.04(VI)(B)).
Regarding claim 11, Behnke in view of Dybro teaches a sensor of claim 9.
Dybro further teaches:
wherein the second transducer element is positioned substantially central on the sensing surface and substantially equidistant from the first transducer element and each of the one or more additional transducer elements (Dybro at para. [0042]: “FIG. 8 illustrates material flow sensor 104. Material flow sensor 104 comprises an electromagnetic plane formed by a two-dimensional array or grid of individual electromagnetic field and sensing units 106A, 106B, 106C, 106D, 106E, 106F, 106G and 106H (collectively referred to as units 106). Each of units 106 may have a configuration corresponding to any of the individual material flow sensors 44-94. Each unit 106 comprises at least one emitter and at least one detector extending along are adjacent a central opening through which crop material flows or passes”; Each unit 106 includes at least one emitter and the unit 106D (i.e., “second transducer element”) is positioned substantially central and substantially equidistant from the units 106A, B, C, E, F, G, and H (i.e., “first transducer element” and “each of the one or more additional transducer elements”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor of Behnke in view of Dybro by adding the position of the second transducer element of Dybro with a reasonable expectation of success. Specifically, it is obvious to one skilled in the art to arrange the sensor of Behnke by utilizing the specific geometric placement of Dybro. The motivation to modify the sensor of Behnke in view of Dybro is to estimate material flow based upon the relative location of the sensor elements.
Regarding claim 13, Behnke discloses a control system of claim 12.
Behnke further discloses wherein:
receive sensor data indicative of the sensor response of the first transducer element (Behnke at col. 2, ln. 49-50: “The vibration of the pulse detector is introduced directly into the vibration sensor”; col. 5, ln. 15-16: “The pulse detector 10 is subjected to a specific vibration by means of the pulse emitter 21”);
process the sensor data to determine an overall sensor response for the sensor to the test signal (Behnke at col. 5, ln. 16-20: “The evaluation, operational testing and display units are set to the excitation as known by definition. If the measured value does not lie in the predetermined or programmed desired vibrational range, then an error exists in the sensor system”); and
determine the operational characteristic in dependence thereon (Behnke at col. 6, ln. 57-61: “When predetermined threshold values are exceeded or not reached, an error message is generated in the desired vibration range. This can be accomplished in optical, acoustic or any other known form by an error message generating means 41”).
However, Behnke does not explicitly state:
the sensor comprises one or more additional transducer elements operably coupled to the sensing surface and responsive, in use, to movement of the sensing surface,
receive sensor data indicative of the sensor response of the first transducer element and each of the one or more additional transducer elements.
In the same field of endeavor, Dybro teaches:
the sensor comprises one or more additional transducer elements operably coupled to the sensing surface and responsive, in use, to movement of the sensing surface (Dybro at para. [0042]: “FIG. 8 illustrates material flow sensor 104. Material flow sensor 104 comprises an electromagnetic plane formed by a two-dimensional array or grid of individual electromagnetic field and sensing units 106A, 106B, 106C, 106D, 106E, 106F, 106G and 106H (collectively referred to as units 106). Each of units 106 may have a configuration corresponding to any of the individual material flow sensors 44-94. Each unit 106 comprises at least one emitter and at least one detector extending along are adjacent a central opening through which crop material flows or passes”),
receive sensor data indicative of the sensor response of the first transducer element and each of the one or more additional transducer elements (Dybro at para. [0042]: “FIG. 8 illustrates material flow sensor 104. Material flow sensor 104 comprises an electromagnetic plane formed by a two-dimensional array or grid of individual electromagnetic field and sensing units 106A, 106B, 106C, 106D, 106E, 106F, 106G and 106H (collectively referred to as units 106). Each of units 106 may have a configuration corresponding to any of the individual material flow sensors 44-94. Each unit 106 comprises at least one emitter and at least one detector extending along are adjacent a central opening through which crop material flows or passes”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system of Behnke in view of Dybro by adding the additional transducer elements of Dybro with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the control system of Behnke in view of Dybro is to estimate material flow based upon the relative locations of the transducer elements. Further, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP §2144.04(VI)(B)).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behnke in view of Moradian et al. (US 2022/0129698 A1, hereinafter “Moradian”).
Regarding claim 14, Behnke discloses a control system of claim 12.
However, Behnke does not explicitly state:
wherein the operational characteristic of the sensor comprises a measure of material build up on the sensing surface.
In the same field of endeavor, Moradian teaches:
wherein the operational characteristic of the sensor comprises a measure of material build up on the sensing surface (Moradian at para. [0029]: “one or more of sensors 124-133 may be a piezoelectric sensor, such as a quartz crystal microbalance (QCM) sensor” “as material builds up on the quartz component, it will vibrate at a lower rate as the result of the increased mass. When placed inside the foreline 106, for example, at locations indicated by one or more of sensors 124-133, as deposition build-up occurs on the QCM sensor, the signals generated by the sensor will change in correlation with the build-up”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system of Behnke by adding the measure of material build up of Moradian with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the control system of Behnke in view of Moradian is to predict when cleaning or preventive maintenance will be needed.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behnke in view of Schumann (US 2019/0324131 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Behnke discloses a control system of claim 12.
However, Behnke does not explicitly state:
where operational characteristic comprises a measure of the function of the first transducer element.
In the same field of endeavor, Schumann teaches:
where operational characteristic comprises a measure of the function of the first transducer element (Schumann at para. [0024]: “The calibration method for detecting and correcting the individual measuring inaccuracies of ultrasonic transducers 12 through 15 provides, in a first step 101, that central ultrasonic transducer 11 is operated in the transmission mode and the four ultrasonic transducers 12 through 15 surrounding central ultrasonic transducer 11 are operated in the receiving mode”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system of Behnke by adding the measure of the function of the first transducer element of Schumann with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the control system of Behnke in view of Schumann is to detect measurement inaccuracies of sensors.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behnke in view of Dybro further in view of Schumann.
Regarding claim 16, Behnke in view of Dybro teaches a control system of claim 13.
However, Behnke in view of Dybro does not explicitly state:
wherein the operational characteristic comprises a measure of the relative functionality of the first transducer element and the one or more additional transducer elements to identify any faults therewith.
In the same field of endeavor, Schumann teaches:
wherein the operational characteristic comprises a measure of the relative functionality of the first transducer element and the one or more additional transducer elements to identify any faults therewith (Schumann at para. [0004]: “behavior of the ultrasonic transducers is known, their relative measuring accuracy with respect to one another may therefore be adapted, and so an improved and more precise measurement of an object distance is made possible”; para. [0024]: “The calibration method for detecting and correcting the individual measuring inaccuracies of ultrasonic transducers 12 through 15 provides, in a first step 101, that central ultrasonic transducer 11 is operated in the transmission mode and the four ultrasonic transducers 12 through 15 surrounding central ultrasonic transducer 11 are operated in the receiving mode”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system of Behnke in view of Dybro by adding the measure of the relative functionality Schumann with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the control system of Behnke in view of Dybro further in view of Schumann is to detect measurement inaccuracies of sensors.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be found in the attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JISUN CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-0710. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9:00 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, Scott Browne can be reached at (571)270-0151. 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.
/JISUN CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights