DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 3-7, 15-19 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “the single-sensor-based diffuse reflection noise based on a relative positional relationship of intersections of a direct wave and two indirect waves”, wherein the claim 2 recites “the single-sensor-based diffuse reflection noise includes diffuse reflection noise detected from sensor data obtained based on an ultrasonic wave which is transmitted by any one of the plurality of ultrasonic sensors” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 4, 15, 16 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim 3.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation “the single-sensor-based diffuse reflection noise is included in the obtained sensor data, when a relative positional relationship of two intersections of direct and indirect waves …”, and the claim 2 recites “the single-sensor-based diffuse reflection noise includes diffuse reflection noise detected from sensor data obtained based on an ultrasonic wave which is transmitted by any one of the plurality of ultrasonic sensors” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 17 is rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim 5.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “another intersection (Pb) of … an indirect wave received from the first sensor”, and further claims “wherein the direct and indirect waves of the intersection (Pb) are obtained based on an ultrasonic wave transmitted from the second sensor”. The two limitations contradict each other by claiming the indirect wave for the point Pb is from the first sensor and the second sensor. The scope of the claim cannot be determined and is considered indefinite.
Claims 7, 18, 19 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim 6.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 9-11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li [US 20030222773].
As to claim 1. Li discloses An apparatus for detecting diffuse reflection noise with respect to ultrasonic sensor values comprising:
a plurality of ultrasonic sensors, [fig. 1, 0019] multiple ultrasonic sensors 71-74 of sensor array 70; and
a processor, [fig. 1, 0019] processor 10, including a diffuse reflection noise detector configured to detect diffuse reflection noise in sensor values obtained from the ultrasonic sensors, [0031, 0033] processor 10 detects stray signals from each of the sensors 71-74, based on a threshold dependent on the duration of time for the signal to travel and reflect back to the receiver, which reads on the claimed diffuse reflection noise,
wherein the diffuse reflection noise detector is configured to:
detect single-sensor-based diffuse reflection noise in obtained sensor data, [fig. 5A, 0032] stray signal detection for the first sensor is performed; and
in response to not detecting the single-sensor-based diffuse reflection noise, detect multi-sensor-based diffuse reflection noise, [figs. 5A-5F, 0028, 0035] the process of determining stray signals repeats for each of the plurality of sensors sequentially, including when the first sensor does not detect a stray signal.
As to claim 9. Li discloses The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the diffuse reflection noise detector is configured to: ignore or remove the obtained sensor data when the single-sensor-based diffuse reflection noise or the multi-sensor-based diffuse reflection noise is detected, [0033] only when at least one of the sensors indicates the presence of an object in the detection range is regarded as the actual distance from the object.
As to claim 10. Li discloses A vehicle including an apparatus for detecting diffuse reflection noise according to claims 1, [0031] system implemented in a vehicle.
As to claim 11. Li discloses A method for detecting diffuse reflection noise with respect to ultrasonic sensor values by a diffuse reflection noise device that includes a plurality of ultrasonic sensors, [fig. 1, 0019] multiple ultrasonic sensors 71-74 of sensor array 70, and a processor including a diffuse reflection noise detector configured to detect diffuse reflection noise in sensor values obtained from the ultrasonic sensors, [0031, 0033] processor 10 detects stray signals from each of the sensors 71-74, based on a threshold dependent on the duration of time for the signal to travel and reflect back to the receiver, which reads on the claimed diffuse reflection noise, the method comprising:
attempting to detect single-sensor-based diffuse reflection noise in obtained sensor data, [fig. 5A, 0032] stray signal detection for the first sensor is performed; and
attempting to detect multi-sensor-based diffuse reflection noise when the single-sensor- based diffuse reflection noise is not detected, [figs. 5A-5F, 0028, 0035] the process of determining stray signals repeats for each of the plurality of sensors sequentially, including when the first sensor does not detect a stray signal.
As to claim 13. is rejected using the same prior arts and reasoning as to that of claim 9.
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 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) 2, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Ishikawa [US 20210096247].
As to claim 2. Li fails to disclose The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein: the single-sensor-based diffuse reflection noise includes diffuse reflection noise detected from sensor data obtained based on an ultrasonic wave which is transmitted by any one of the plurality of ultrasonic sensors; and the multi-sensor-based diffuse reflection noise includes diffuse reflection noise detected from sensor data obtained based on ultrasonic waves which are transmitted by two ultrasonic sensors among the plurality of ultrasonic sensors.
Ishikawa teaches an object detection device for a vehicle 1, [fig. 1], comprising a plurality of ultrasonic transceivers 401, [fig. 11, 0297]; wherein a CPU 102 determines an abnormality detection for a transceiver 106/107 based on comparing the received signal to a threshold, [0139], to filter out erroneous detection due to noise, [0154]; wherein the threshold is set based on a propagation time for the received signal, [0147, 0151]; wherein the system implements the abnormality detection for the plurality of transceivers 401 by comparing a received indirect wave, [0304] to an abnormality detection threshold, [figs. 11, 13, 0304, 0310]; wherein the .
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Li with that of Ishikawa so that the system can cross verify transceivers.
As to claim 12. is rejected using the same prior arts and reasoning as to that of claim 2.
Claim(s) 8, 14, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Ishikawa as applied to claim 2 above, further in view of Fukuman et al. [US 20160116585].
As to claim 8. The combination of Li and Ishikawa fails to disclose The apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the diffuse reflection noise detector is configured to:
determine that the multi-sensor-based diffuse reflection noise is included in the obtained sensor data, when a relative positional relationship between an intersection (Pa) of a direct wave received from a first sensor of the two ultrasonic sensors, [figs. 3-5, 0038, 0046] object 50a based on direct wave 26 from sensor 21 and direct wave 26a from sensor 22, and an indirect wave received from a second sensor of the two ultrasonic sensors, [figs. 3-5, 0038, 0046] object 50b based on indirect wave 27 from sensor 21 and indirect wave 27a from sensor 22,
wherein the direct and indirect waves of the intersection (Pa) are obtained based on an ultrasonic wave transmitted from the first sensor, [figs. 3-5, 0038, 0046] object 50a based on direct wave 26 from sensor 21 and direct wave 26a from sensor 22, and another intersection (Pb) of a direct wave received from the second sensor and an indirect wave received from the first sensor, [figs. 3-5, 0038, 0046] object 50b based on indirect wave 27 from sensor 21 and indirect wave 27a from sensor 22,
wherein the direct and indirect waves of the intersection (Pb) are obtained based on an ultrasonic wave transmitted from the second sensor, does not correspond to a relative positional relationship between the first sensor and the second sensor, and when a distance between the two intersections is longer than a reference distance determined based on the distance between the first sensor and the second sensor, [fig. 4, 0044].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Li and Ishikawa with that of Fukuman so that the system can detect ghost objects.
As to claim 14. Li discloses A vehicle including an apparatus for detecting diffuse reflection noise according to claim 2, [0031] system implemented in a vehicle.
As to claim 20. Li discloses A vehicle including an apparatus for detecting diffuse reflection noise according to claim 8, [0031] system implemented in a vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENYAM HAILE whose telephone number is (571)272-2080. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 5:30 PM Mon. - Thur..
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, Steven Lim can be reached at (571)270-1210. 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.
/Benyam Haile/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights