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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The following addresses applicant’s remarks/amendments 12 December 2025.
Claims 1 and 8-12 were amended; claims 4 and 15 were cancelled; no new claims were added; therefore, claims 1-3, 5-14, and 16-18 are pending in the current application and will be addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-18 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the specific combination of the references being used in the current rejection.
In response to applicant’s argument that references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “position of the vehicle relative to the first target”, “using the second target…the position information indicating the detected position of the vehicle relative to the first target” of amended claim 9; “detecting a position of the vehicle relative to a first target disposed in a first region”, “using a second target…based on position information indicating the detected position of the vehicle relative to the first target” of amended claim 11) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Here, although these limitations are similar to previous claims 9 and 11 (and related to previous claims 4 and 15), the scope of the instant claims differ. Additionally, these claim limitations were not present in the previous claims and were presented by amendment on 12 December 2025. Therefore, the issue of whether Abari addresses these limitations are not relevant. These amended claims containing new limitations have been addressed by Abari as detailed below in the present Office Action.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the cited prior art does not teach “a dedicated ‘evaluation region’ or ‘evaluation target’ performing the validating function of the spatially separate and distinct third region as described above” (Applicant’s arguments pgs. 8-11): Applicant further states “Abari does not disclose a post-calibration verification process” (Applicant’s arguments pg. 9). However, Applicant’s amended claims recite the three separate targets in three regions with statements of intended use (e.g. “for detecting…”, “for detecting…” and “for evaluating…”), with no details or structure recited on what performs these actions or how these actions occur. Therefore, minimal patentable weight can be given to these statements. Additionally, “evaluating the attitude/position” is broadly claimed such that one of ordinary skill in the art would consider Valois’s fusion and analysis as an evaluation (Valois: [0028-31]; examiner notes that paragraph [0028] was cited in the previous rejection and paragraphs [0029-31] (and others) give more detail on the analysis/evaluation). Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Examiner would recommend clarifying how the claimed “evaluating” is performed, including any necessary structure and steps.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“Attitude/position detection device” in claims 1-7, 9-10, 12-18 (see Fig. 4 and pg. 10 for the device 10 including elements such as a CPU).
“change mechanism” in claims 1, 4-7, 9-10, 12, and 15-18 (examiner notes that claims 2-3 and 13-14 further define the change mechanism) (see pgs. 7-8 for structures such as the turntable or pgs. 25-26 for structure for the target rotating device 121)
“target rotating device” in claims 3 and 14 (see pgs. 25-26 for structure for the target rotating device 121)
“position determination device” in claims 5, 9-10, and 16 (see pgs. 31-32 for sensors to determine position)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
(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 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abari US 2190204427 A1.
Regarding claim 9, Abari teaches an attitude/position detection system for detecting an attitude/position of at least one detector mounted to a vehicle, comprising:
a plurality of targets including a first target disposed in a first region and a second target disposed in a second region (plurality of targets 102 used for calibrating multiple sensors including cameras and Lidars in sensor array 144, Fig. 1, [0034]; other targets for radar and IMU, [0036]; each shown in different locations/regions);
a position determination device configured to detect a position of the vehicle relative to the first target (position sensors, [0040]; pressure sensors, [0043]; detects when platform (with vehicle) is moved to predetermined positions relative to all targets; ; plurality of targets 102 used for calibrating multiple sensors including cameras and Lidars in sensor array 144, Fig. 1, [0034]; other targets for radar and IMU, [0036]); and
an attitude/position detection device configured to detect, using the second target, the attitude/position of the at least one detector based on position information acquired from the position determination device, the position information indicating the detected position of the vehicle relative to the first (plurality of targets 102 used for calibrating multiple sensors including cameras and Lidars in sensor array 144, Fig. 1, [0034]; other targets for radar and IMU, [0036]; pauses at pre-determined locations, [0034-35]; calibration software uses collected data for calibration of sensor arrays, [0037]; computing system communicating with AV to calibrate sensor array and position vehicle at predetermined positions, [0040-42]; using data from both camera and lidar for extrinsic calculations and the plurality of targets 102, [0034-39]; examiner notes that this uses the knowledge of the location(s) the vehicle stops relative to targets to then perform extrinsic calibrations).
Regarding claim 10, Abari as modified above teaches the attitude/position detection system according to claim 9, further comprising a change mechanism configured to change the position of vehicle relative to the first target and the second target; wherein the attitude/position detection device is configured to control the change mechanism to cause the vehicle to face the first target and then cause the vehicle to face the second target (platform 104 moves relative to targets and pauses at pre-determined locations, [0034-35]).
Regarding claim 11, Abari teaches an attitude/position detection method for detecting an attitude/position of at least one detector mounted to a vehicle, comprising:
detecting a position of the vehicle relative to at least one of a first target disposed in a first region (position sensors, [0040]; pressure sensors, [0043]; detects when platform (with vehicle) is moved to predetermined positions relative to all targets; plurality of targets 102 used for calibrating multiple sensors including cameras and Lidars in sensor array 144, Fig. 1, [0034]; other targets for radar and IMU, [0036]); and
detecting, by using a second target, the attitude/position of the at least one detector based on position information indicating the detected position of the vehicle relative to the first target (plurality of targets 102 used for calibrating multiple sensors including cameras and Lidars in sensor array 144, Fig. 1, [0034]; other targets for radar and IMU, [0036]; pauses at pre-determined locations, [0034-35]; calibration software uses collected data for calibration of sensor arrays, [0037]; computing system communicating with AV to calibrate sensor array and position vehicle at predetermined positions, [0040-42]; using data from both camera and lidar for extrinsic calculations and the plurality of targets 102, [0034-39]; examiner notes that this uses the knowledge of the location(s) the vehicle stops relative to targets to then perform extrinsic calibrations).
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 12-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abari US 2190204427 A1 in view of Papadelis US 20180292526 A1 and further in view of Valois US 20170343654 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Abari teaches an attitude/position detection system for detecting an attitude/position of at least one detector mounted to a vehicle, comprising:
at least one target used to detect the attitude/position of the at least one detector, the at least one target comprising a plurality of targets suitable for a detection scheme of the at least one detector (targets 102 used for calibrating multiple sensors including cameras and Lidars in sensor array 144, Fig. 1, [0034]; other targets for radar and IMU, [0036]);
a change mechanism configured to change a position of the vehicle relative to the at least one target (platform 104 moves relative to targets, Fig. 1, [0034]); and
an attitude/position detection device configured to control the change mechanism to maintain the position of the vehicle relative to the at least one target for a period of time, and detect the attitude/position of the at least one detector using a result of detection of the at least one target by the at least one detector (pauses at pre-determined locations, [0034-35]; calibration software uses collected data for calibration of sensor arrays, [0037]; computing system communicating with and calibrating sensor array and position vehicle at predetermined positions, [0040-42]), wherein
the at least one detector comprises a plurality of detectors placed on the vehicle, the plurality of detectors including a reference detector (sensor array 144 can include GPS, IMU, LiDAR, cameras, RF transceivers, ultrasonic sensors, etc., [0027]; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that any detector can be a reference detector),
the at least one target comprises a first target for detecting the attitude/position of the reference detector relative to the vehicle, the first target being disposed in a first region (plurality of targets 102, [0027, 34-37]),
a second target for detecting the attitude/position of another detector among the plurality of detectors, the second target being disposed in a second region different from the first region (using data from both camera and lidar for extrinsic calculations and the plurality of targets 102, [0034-39]), and
a third target for evaluating the attitude/position of the plurality of detectors, the third target being disposed in a third region (plurality of targets 102, Fig.1 has more than 3 targets, [0027, 34-37]).
Abari does not explicitly the period of time is a predefined period of time, and using the detection result of the reference detector to detect the attitude/position of another detector; and the third target is for evaluating the attitude/position of each of the plurality of detectors.
Papadelis teaches calibrating based on targets unmoving for a predetermined time period ([0069])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Abari such that the period of time is a predefined period of time similar to Papadelis with a reasonable expectation of success. This have the predictable result of ensuring the detectors had time to collect enough data before calibration.
Valois teaches targets can combine patterns for LiDAR and camera systems, [0028]; and fusing the acquired data of each sensor during calibration ([0028]; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that either the camera or lidar could be the reference detector).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Abari to include using the detection result of the reference detector to detect the attitude/position of another detector; and the third target is for evaluating the attitude/position of each of the plurality of detectors similar to Valois with a reasonable expectation of success. This have the predictable result of ensuring the data from each sensor can be fused together while the vehicle is driving after calibration.
Regarding claim 12, Abari teaches an attitude/position detection system for detecting an attitude/position of at least one detector mounted to a vehicle, comprising:
at least one target used to detect the attitude/position of the at least one detector, the at least one target comprising a target suitable for a plurality of detection schemes of the at least one detector (targets 102 used for calibrating multiple sensors including cameras and Lidars in sensor array 144 which use different detection schemes based on the type of target required for each, Fig. 1, [0034, 36]; other targets for radar and IMU, [0036]);
a change mechanism configured to change a position of the vehicle relative to the at least one target (platform 104 moves relative to targets, Fig. 1, [0034]); and
an attitude/position detection device configured to control the change mechanism to maintain the position of the vehicle relative to the at least one target for a period of time, and detect the attitude/position of the at least one detector using a result of detection of the at least one target by the at least one detector (pauses at pre-determined locations, [0034-35]; calibration software uses collected data for calibration of sensor arrays, [0037]; computing system communicating with AV to calibrate sensor array and position vehicle at predetermined positions, [0040-42]), wherein
the at least one detector comprises a plurality of detectors placed on the vehicle, the plurality of detectors including a reference detector (sensor array 144 can include GPS, IMU, LiDAR, cameras, RF transceivers, ultrasonic sensors, etc., [0027]; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that any detector can be a reference detector),
the at least one target comprises a first target for detecting the attitude/position of the reference detector relative to the vehicle, the first target being disposed in a first region (plurality of targets 102, [0027, 34-37]),
a second target for detecting the attitude/position of another detector among the plurality of detectors, the second target being disposed in a second region different from the first region (using data from both camera and lidar for extrinsic calculations and the plurality of targets 102, [0034-39]), and
a third target for evaluating the attitude/position of the plurality of detectors, the third target being disposed in a third region (plurality of targets 102, Fig.1 has more than 3 targets, [0027, 34-37]),
Abari does not explicitly the period of time is a predefined period of time, and using the detection result of the reference detector to detect the attitude/position of another detector; and the third target is for evaluating the attitude/position of each of the plurality of detectors.
Papadelis teaches calibrating based on targets unmoving for a predetermined time period ([0069])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Abari such that the period of time is a predefined period of time similar to Papadelis with a reasonable expectation of success. This have the predictable result of ensuring the detectors had time to collect enough data before calibration.
Valois teaches targets can combine patterns for LiDAR and camera systems, [0028]; and fusing the acquired data of each sensor during calibration ([0028]; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that either the camera or lidar could be the reference detector).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Abari to include using the detection result of the reference detector to detect the attitude/position of another detector; and the third target is for evaluating the attitude/position of each of the plurality of detectors similar to Valois with a reasonable expectation of success. This have the predictable result of ensuring the data from each sensor can be fused together while the vehicle is driving after calibration.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Abari as modified above teaches the attitude/position detection system according to claim 1 and claim 12, wherein the change mechanism is a vehicle rotating device that includes a rotatable stage to have the vehicle placed thereon and is configured to rotate the vehicle placed on the stage relative the at least one target by rotating the stage, and the at least one target is disposed around the vehicle rotating device (rotatable platform, [0037]).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Abari teaches the attitude/position detection system according to claim 1 and claim 12, wherein the change mechanism is a target rotating device with the at least one target around the vehicle and is configured to rotate the at least one target relative to the vehicle (service vehicle 602 moves targets relative to vehicle, Figs. 6B-7, [0049-55]).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Abari teaches the attitude/position detection system according to claim 1 and claim 12, further comprising a position determination device configured to detect a position of the at least one target relative to the vehicle, wherein the attitude/position detection device is configured to detect the attitude/position of the at least one detector using position information acquired from the position determination device (position sensors, [0040]; pressure sensors, [0043]).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Abari teaches the attitude/position detection system according to claim 1 and claim 12, wherein the attitude/position detection device is further configured to calibrate the at least one detector using a detected attitude/position of the at least one detector (calibration of sensory array, [0040-42]).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Abari teaches the attitude/position detection system according to claim 1 and claim 12, wherein the attitude/position detection device is configured to be mounted to the vehicle (computing system of the AV can control platform movement, [0040-42]).
Regarding claim 8, Abari teaches an attitude/position detection method for detecting an attitude/position of at least one detector mounted to a vehicle, comprising:
changing a position of at least one target relative to the vehicle, the at least one target being used to detect the attitude/position of the at least one detector relative to the vehicle and comprising a plurality of targets suitable, each for a detection scheme of a corresponding one of the at least one detector (platform 104 moves relative to targets, Fig. 1, [0034]; targets 102 used for calibrating multiple sensors including cameras and Lidars in sensor array 144 which use different detection schemes based on the type of target required for each, Fig. 1, [0034, 36]; other targets for radar and IMU, [0036]);
maintaining the position of at least one target relative to the vehicle for a period of time (pauses at pre-determined locations, [0034-35]) and
detecting the attitude/position of the at least one detector using a result of detection of the at least one target by the at least one detector (calibration software uses collected data for calibration of sensor arrays, [0037]; computing system communicating with AV to calibrate sensor array and position vehicle at predetermined positions, [0040-42]) , wherein
the at least one detector comprises a plurality of detectors placed on the vehicle, the plurality of detectors including a reference detector (sensor array 144 can include GPS, IMU, LiDAR, cameras, RF transceivers, ultrasonic sensors, etc., [0027]; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that any detector can be a reference detector),
the at least one target comprises a first target for detecting the attitude/position of the reference detector relative to the vehicle, the first target being disposed in a first region (plurality of targets 102, [0027, 34-37]),
a second target for detecting the attitude/position of another detector among the plurality of detectors, the second target being disposed in a second region different from the first region (using data from both camera and lidar for extrinsic calculations and the plurality of targets 102, [0034-39]), and
a third target for evaluating the attitude/position of the plurality of detectors, the third target being disposed in a third region (plurality of targets 102, Fig.1 has more than 3 targets, [0027, 34-37]),
Abari does not explicitly the period of time is a predefined period of time, and using the detection result of the reference detector to detect the attitude/position of another detector; and the third target is for evaluating the attitude/position of each of the plurality of detectors.
Papadelis teaches calibrating based on targets unmoving for a predetermined time period ([0069])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Abari such that the period of time is a predefined period of time similar to Papadelis with a reasonable expectation of success. This have the predictable result of ensuring the detectors had time to collect enough data before calibration.
Valois teaches targets can combine patterns for LiDAR and camera systems, [0028]; and fusing the acquired data of each sensor during calibration ([0028]; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that either the camera or lidar could be the reference detector).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Abari to include using the detection result of the reference detector to detect the attitude/position of another detector; and the third target is for evaluating the attitude/position of each of the plurality of detectors similar to Valois with a reasonable expectation of success. This have the predictable result of ensuring the data from each sensor can be fused together while the vehicle is driving after calibration.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C FRITCHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5533. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached on 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.
/J.C.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645