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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Coddington fails to “filter an existing map based on the selected metric, as required by amended Claim 24 “which is wrong. Paragraphs 82, 90 explicitly teaches “In one embodiment of the system 30, the control logic 404 may perform a filtering method for removing such statistical outliers from the transformed ScanN+1 data before it is added to the point cloud data 412” where [0092] teaches ” In step 1005, the control logic 404 uses the latest global pose to transform the latest scan Cartesian points from the RFLD's frame of reference to the global frame of reference by rotating and translating Cartesian scan data in sensor frame of reference to the 3D laser scan point cloud in the global frame using the new global pose estimate for time t2. This process is also known in the art as registration. In step 1006, the control logic 404 removes statistical outliers from the transformed scan data that lies in the global frame of reference. In step 1007, the control logic 404 performs a filter method that removes redundant scan data resulting from non-movement of the operator 1 during data collection. In this regard, when the operator does not move and the sensors, i.e., the RFLD 9, the zupt IMUS 6 and 7, and the attitude IMU 8, continue to collect measurements and perform calculations, redundant scan data will unnecessarily accumulate. Thus, in order to ensure that such redundant data does not unnecessarily appear in the point cloud data 412, the control logic 404 removes such redundant scan data and does not add that data to the point cloud. ” It is important to note that each point is represented by distance and angle , in order to identify whether data is redundant data one need to compare position of the existing data with newly collected data and hence if not explicit then at least it is obvious to compare direction and angle as representatives of the coordinate in spherical coordinate frame.
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.
Claim(s) 24 and claims bellow is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coddington US 20170123066 A1 in view of Mei US 20170185089 A1.
24. (Original) A system comprising:
a laser scanning device(9); and
a computing system in communication with laser scanning device, wherein the computing system comprises at least one processor[0061-0062, 0066-0068, 0084] adapted to(no patentable weight) software that when executed causes the system to:
acquire with the laser scanning device a scan frame comprising a point cloud comprising a first plurality of points; [0061-0062, 0066-0068, 0084]
attribute each of the first plurality of points with a selected metric(411);
wherein the selected metric is selected from the group consisting of a surface normal and a direction[0065](411 range and angle data) from the point to the laser scanning device
filter an existing map comprised of a second plurality of points based, at least in part, on the selected metric; and(494 tracks motion and uses gather point cloud data 412, compare a new set of previous data based on shift )[0090])(filtering redundant data metrics implicit/obvious as each point represented by range and angle )
localize each of the first plurality of points to the filtered second plurality of points.(fig. 8a-9, [0081-0084, 0090])
wherein each of the first plurality of points represents a first location in a three dimensional space of an environment;[0032](wall)
wherein each of the second plurality of points represents a second location matching or adjacent to the first location,[0032](door edge)
but does not teach
wherein filtering removes a portion of the second plurality of points that comprise false positive point matches;
Mei teaches
wherein filtering removes a portion of the second plurality of points that comprise false positive point matches;[0046]
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by Coddington with teaching by Mei in order to avoid additional computation power associated with analysis and presentation of the false positives.
38. (Original) A system comprising:
acquire with a scanning device a scan frame comprising a point cloud comprising a first plurality of points; [0061-0062, 0066-0068, 0084]
identify from a subset of the first plurality of points a generally planar surface with which each of subset of the first plurality of points is associated;([0067-0068, 0070-0072,0074-0079])
acquire at least one second point with the laser scanning device associated with a location within an environment;; and([0067-0068, 0070-0072,0074-0079])
wherein the at least one second point does not match an existing point in the first plurality of points;[0032](door , walls)[0090]
associate the at least one second point with the identified generally planar surface.([0074-0079, RFLD 9 may be rotated to collect data for different section of walls and then performing pattern matching])
25. (Original) The system of claim 24, wherein the selected metric is selected from the group consisting of a surface normal and a direction from the point to the acquiring device.[0065-0071]
26. (Original) The system of claim 25, wherein the surface normal is a proxy attribute.(does not have to happen if selected a direction from the point to the acquiring device but just in case using normal vectors for matching is well known see Jensen US 20190101649 A1 [0061] or Lynch US 20140002440 A1[0048])
27. (Original) The system of claim 26, wherein the proxy attribute is an angle between the laser scanning device and one of the first plurality of points.(claim 27 contradict to the claim 26 as surface normal is a proxy attribute.)
28. (Original) The system of claim 25, wherein localizing further comprises assigning a confidence level to a spatial accuracy of a portion of the first plurality of points. [0065-0071]
29. (Original) The system of claim 28, wherein the portion comprises all of the first plurality of points.(first plurality set of points is completely arbitrary and therefore [0081-0084,0090] read on claim language)
30. (Original) The system of claim 28, wherein the portion comprises a sub-portion of the first plurality of points.(similarly as for claim 29 )
31. (Original) The system of claim 28, wherein localizing further comprises giving a higher priority the portion of the first plurality of points based, at least on part, on the confidence level of each of the portion of the first plurality of points. [0081-0084,0090](removing statistical outliers.)
32. (Original) The system of claim 28, wherein localizing further comprises dropping at least of the portion of the first plurality of points having a confidence level below a predefined threshold. [0081-0084,0090](removing statistical outliers.)
33. (Original) The system of claim 24, wherein the selected metric is a point density of each of the first plurality of points.[0079](clustering of the points)
37. (Original) The system of claim 24, wherein the selected metric is a distance from the scanning device of each of the first plurality of points.[0065-0071]
39. (Original) The system of claim 38, further comprising computing additional points for association with the generally planar surface.[0074-0079]
40. (Original) The system of claim 39, wherein computing additional points comprises interpolating among a number of points previously associated with the generally planar surface. [0074-0079](rotating calculating estimated changein [0077])
41. (Original) The system of claim 39, wherein computing additional points comprises extrapolating from a number of points previously associated with the generally planar surface.[0074-0079]
42. (Original) The system of claim 38, wherein the generally planar surface represents a floor.(doe not have patentable weight as what you call planar surface does not affect the invention)
43. (Original) The system of claim 42, wherein the at least one second point is acquired after entering into a room that is different from a room in which the first plurality of points was acquired.[0046]
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.
Claim(s) 44 and claims bellow are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coddington in view of Lopez “combining Object Recognition and Metric Mapping for Spatial Modeling Robots”(from IDS) .
Regarding claim 44 Coddington teaches(see rejection for claim 24)
44. (Original) A system comprising:
a laser scanning device; and
a computing system in communication with laser scanning device, wherein the computing system comprises at least one processor adapted to software that when executed causes the system to:
acquire with the laser scanning device a scan frame comprising a point cloud comprising a first plurality of points; [0061-0062, 0066-0068, 0084]
identify from a subset of the first plurality of points a first generally planar surface with which each of subset of the first plurality of points is associated with normal vector 1 [0010](identifying surfaces is well known)
acquire with the scanning device a second plurality of points;(identify for example second surface)
identify from a subset of the second plurality of points a second generally planar surface[0032](wall point are plananar) with which each of subset of the second plurality of points is associated with normal vector 2; ;(identify for example second surface)
but does not teach
assigning a first normal vector to the first generally planar surface;
assigning a second normal vector to the second generally planar surface
associate the first generally planar surface with a first side of a wall and the second generally planar surface with a second side of the wall in the instance that a difference between the first normal vector and the second normal vector is approximately one hundred and eighty (180) degrees.
Lopez teaches
assigning a first normal vector to the first generally planar surface;(just a geometrical procedure if surface is identified )
assigning a second normal vector to the second generally planar surface(just a geometrical procedure if surface is identified )
associate the first generally planar surface with a first side of a wall and the second generally planar surface with a second side of the wall in the instance that a difference between the first normal vector and the second normal vector is approximately one hundred and eighty (180) degrees.(fig. 5.2-5.3 page 32-34 page 33 specifically (same wall would be seen from opposite perspective, so the opposite vector would be seen obtained ))
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by Coddington with teaching by Lopez in order to create the indoor mapping which indicates all walls.
45. (Original) The system of claim 44, wherein the processor further attributes a location of each of a subset of the second plurality of points each location coincident with the second generally planar surface.[0074-0079]
46. (Original) The system of claim 44, wherein the second generally planar surface is identified as being separated from the first generally planar surface by a predetermined amount.[0068, 0074-0079]
Claim(s) 34 and claims bellow are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coddington.
Although Coddington does not explicitly say
34. (Original) The system of claim 33, wherein the point density is based, at least in part, on a predefined threshold distance between points.
35. (Original) The system of claim 34, wherein the threshold distance is variable.
36. (Original) The system of claim 35, wherein the threshold distance varies based, at least in part, on a structure of the existing map.
Coddington teaches the clustering and one of ordinary skills in the art would recognize that one of the major parameters of the clustering is distance between points and due to the fact that object can be partially oriented under the angle the threshold distance can be variable due to the constant scan rate to.
Therefore It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of filing to modify teachings by Coddington in order to perform correct clustering for the objects which takes into consideration of the orientation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7845. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7am - 5 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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached on 5712726970. 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.
/HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
