DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species IV in the reply filed on 03/04/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-4,6-13,16-20 are examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “An autonomous mobile robot with a 3D laser range finder for 3D exploration and digitalization of indoor environments” (Surmann et al.) in view of WO 2020126123 A2 (Dold et al.).
Claim 1. (Original) Surmann teaches a system for providing 3D surveying of an environment by an autonomous robotic vehicle (pg. 182, left col. Para 1 note SLAM and robot with 3D laser range finder), the system comprising:
a simultaneous localization and mapping unit, SLAM unit, configured to carry out a simultaneous localization and mapping process, SLAM process, the SLAM process comprising reception of perception data providing a representation of the surroundings of the autonomous vehicle at a current position, use of the perception data to generate a map of an environment, and determination of a trajectory of a path that the autonomous vehicle has passed within the map of the environment (pg. 182, left col., 1st paragraph; pg. 188, chapter 4, 1st paragraph; pg. 190, chapter 5, 1st paragraph; pg. 191, chapter 5.1),
a path planning unit, configured to determine a path to be taken by the autonomous robotic vehicle based on the map of the environment (pg. 192, chapter 5.2; pg. 193-194, chapter 5.3), and
a lidar device specifically foreseen to be mounted on the autonomous robotic vehicle and configured to generate lidar data to provide a coordinative scan of the environment relative to the lidar device, wherein the system is configured to generate the lidar data during a movement of the lidar device and to provide a referencing of the lidar data with respect to a common coordinate system for determining a 3D survey point cloud of the environment(p. 182-183, chapter 2.2; p. 184, chapter 3), wherein:
the SLAM unit is configured to receive the lidar data as part of the perception data and, based thereof, to generate the map of the environment and to determine the trajectory of the path that the autonomous vehicle has passed within the map of the environment (pg. 182, left col., 1st paragraph; pg. 188, chapter 4, 1st paragraph; pg. 190,
chapter 5, 1st paragraph; pg. 191, chapter 5.1),
and the path planning unit is configured to determine the path to be taken by carrying out an evaluation of a further trajectory within the map of the environment in relation to an estimated point distribution map for an estimated 3D point cloud, which is provided by the lidar device on the further trajectory and projected onto the map of the environment (pg. 182-183, chapter 2.2; pg. 184, chapter 3).
Surmann fails to explicitly teach the lidar device is configured to have a field-of-view of 360 degrees about a first axis and 130 degrees about a second axis perpendicular to the first axis. However, Surmann teaches the lidar device is configured to have a field-of-view of 120 degrees about a first axis and 180 degrees about a second axis perpendicular to the first axis (pg. 182-183, chapter 2.2). Surmann discloses the claimed invention except for 130 degrees and 360 degrees field of view and instead teaches a field of view of 180 degrees and 120 degrees . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the device such that the field of view is 360 degrees about a first axis and 130 degrees about a second axis , since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Surmann fails to explicitly teach but Dold teaches generating lidar data with a point acquisition rate of at least 300'000 points per second (pg. 6 line 9-14).
It would have been obvious to have combined the references of Surmann and Dold and modify the system such that it can generate lidar data with a point acquisition rate of at least 300'000 points per second. The motivation to have such high acquisition rate would be to quickly assess an actual condition of a room or a construction progress of a construction site, respectively, e.g. to efficiently plan the next work steps (Dold pg. 1 line 5-12).
Claim 3 and 16 (mutatis mutandis). (Original) Surmann as modified in view of Dold teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the path planning unit is configured to receive an evaluation criterion defining different measurement specifications of the system, particularly different target values for the survey point cloud, and to take into account the evaluation criterion for the evaluation of the further trajectory, wherein the evaluation criterion defines at least one of:
a desired path through the environment (Surmann pg. 192 chapter 5.2 note desired path is collision free path. pg. 182-183, chapter 2.2; pg. 184 chapter 3),
a point density of the survey point cloud projected onto the map of the environment, particularly at least one of a minimum, a maximum, and a mean point density of the survey point cloud projected onto the map of the environment e, for the system for completing the further trajectory and providing the survey point cloud (Surmann pg. 185 left col. Table 1 and para below table 1),
an energy consumption threshold, particularly a maximum allowable energy consumption, for the system for completing the further trajectory and providing the survey point cloud,
a time consumption threshold, particularly a maximum allowable time, for the system for completing the further trajectory and providing the survey point cloud (Surmann pg. 185 left col. Table 1 and para below table 1),
a path length threshold, particularly a minimal path length and/or a maximum allowable path length, of the further trajectory (pg. 196 chapter 6.2),
a minimal area of the trajectory to be covered,
a minimal spatial volume covered by the survey point cloud, and
a minimum or maximum horizontal angle between a heading direction at the end of the trajectory of the path that the autonomous vehicle has passed and a heading direction at the beginning of the further trajectory.
Claim 4. (Original) Surmann as modified in view of Dold teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the path planning unit is configured to receive a path of interest and is configured to optimize and/or extend the path of interest to determine the path to be taken (Surmann pg. 196 chapter 6.2).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “An autonomous mobile robot with a 3D laser range finder for 3D exploration and digitalization of indoor environments” (Surmann et al.) in view of WO 2020126123 A2 (Dold et al.) further in view of US 20190170855 A1 (Keller et al.).
Claim 2. (Original) Surmann as modified in view of Dold teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the lidar device is embodied as laser scanner, which is configured to generate the lidar data using a rotation of a laser beam about two rotation axes, wherein: the laser scanner comprises a rotating body configured to rotate about one of the two rotation axes and to provide for a variable deflection of an outgoing and a returning part of the laser beam, thereby providing a rotation of the laser beam about the one of the two rotation axes, fast axis, the rotating body is rotated about the fast axis with at least 50 Hz and the laser beam is rotated about the other of the two rotation axes, slow axis, with at least 0.5 Hz (Dold pg. 6 line 9-14),the laser beam is emitted as pulsed laser beam (Dold pg. 63 line 10, […]and for the rotation of the laser beam about the two axes the field-of-view […] about the slow axis 360 degrees (Dold pg. 65 lines 22-26 ).
It would have been obvious to have combined the references of Surmann and Dold and modify the system such that the laser scanner is configured to generate the lidar data using a rotation of a laser beam about two rotation axes because the rotation mechanism allows for efficient data collection as the scanner can move quickly through large areas capturing data points in short time.
Surmann as modified in view of Dold fails to explicitly teach a field of view of 130 degrees about the fast axis. However, Surmann teaches the lidar device is configured to have a field-of-view of 180 degrees about the fast axis (pg. 182-183, chapter 2.2). Surmann discloses the claimed invention except for 130 degrees field of view and instead teaches a field of view of 180 degrees . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the device such that the field of view is 130 degrees about the fast axis , since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Surmann as modified in view of Dold fails to explicitly teach but Keller teaches that the laser beam comprises 1.5 million pulses per second (para 107).
It would have been obvious to have combined the references of Surmann, Dold and Keller and modify the system such that the laser beam comprises 1.5 million pulses per second . The motivation to do so would be to reduce ambiguity in range measurement (Keller para 107).
Claim(s) 6-8,17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “An autonomous mobile robot with a 3D laser range finder for 3D exploration and digitalization of indoor environments” (Surmann et al.) in view of WO 2020126123 A2 (Dold et al.) further in view of US 20170285648 A1 (Welty et al).
Claim 6. (Original) Surmann as modified in view of Dold teaches the system according to claim 1. Surmann fails to explicitly teach but Welty teaches wherein the system comprises:
a fiducial marker configured to provide an indication of a local trajectory direction relative to the fiducial marker, particularly a visible mark providing for visual determination of the local trajectory direction (para 35-51 note fiducial marker),
a fiducial marker detector configured to detect the fiducial marker and to determine the local trajectory direction, and the path planning unit is configured to take into account the local trajectory direction in the evaluation of the further trajectory (para 35-51 note fiducial marker ).
It would have been obvious to have combined the references of Surmann, Dold and Welty and modify the system such that a fiducial marker is used to determine the local trajectory direction and the local trajectory direction is used by the path planning unit to determine further trajectory. The motivation to do so would be to efficiently navigate.
Claim 7. (Original) Surmann as modified in view of Dold and Welty teaches the system according to claim 6, wherein the fiducial marker is configured to provide a, particularly visible, indication of the directions of at least two, particularly three, of the three main axes which span the common coordinate system, wherein the system is configured to determine the directions of the three main axes by using the fiducial marker detector, and the system is configured to take into account the directions of the three main axes for providing the referencing of the lidar data with respect to the common coordinate system (Welty para 45 note coordinates ).
It would have been obvious to have combined the references of Surmann, Dold and Welty and modify the system such that a fiducial marker can provide visible indication of the directions of main axes and the system is configured to determine the directions of the three main axes by using the fiducial marker detector, and the system is configured to take into account the directions of the three main axes for providing the referencing of the lidar data with respect to the common coordinate system. The motivation to do so would be to efficiently navigate.
Claim 8 and 17 (mutatis mutandis). (Original) Surmann as modified in view of Dold and Welty teaches the system according to claim 6, wherein the fiducial marker comprises a reference value indication, which provides positional information, particularly 3D coordinates, regarding a set pose of the fiducial marker in the common coordinate system or in an outer coordinate system, particularly a world-coordinate system, wherein the system is configured to derive the set pose and to take into account the set pose to determine the local trajectory direction, particularly by determining a pose of the fiducial marker in the common coordinate system or in the world coordinate system and carrying out a comparison of the determined pose of the fiducial marker and the set pose (Welty para 43-47).
It would have been obvious to have combined the references of Surmann, Dold and Welty and modify the system such that the fiducial marker comprises a reference value indication, which provides positional information, regarding a set pose of the fiducial marker in the common coordinate system or in an outer coordinate system and take into account the set pose to determine the local trajectory direction. The motivation to do so would be to efficiently navigate.
Claim(s) 9,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “An autonomous mobile robot with a 3D laser range finder for 3D exploration and digitalization of indoor environments” (Surmann et al.) in view of WO 2020126123 A2 (Dold et al.) further in view of US 20170285648 A1 (Welty et al) further in view of WO2018024370A1 (Tobias et al.).
Claim 9 and 18. (Original) Surmann as modified in view of Dold and Welty teaches the system according to claim 6. Surmann fails to explicitly teach but Tobias teaches wherein the fiducial marker is configured to provide an indication of a corresponding action to be carried out by the system, wherein the system is configured to determine the corresponding action by using the fiducial marker detector, particularly wherein the indication of the corresponding action is provided by a visible code, particularly a barcode, more particularly a matrix barcode (line 48-51 bar code, multi-dimensional pattern ), wherein the corresponding action is at least one of:
a stop operation of the system,
a pause operation of the system,
a restart operation of the system,
a return to an origin of a measurement task,
an omission of entering an area in the vicinity of the fiducial marker,
and a time-controlled entry into an area in the vicinity of the fiducial marker, wherein the path planning unit is configured to take into account the corresponding action in the evaluation of the further trajectory (line 53 and claim 1-2 note route clearance imformation is retrieved and if route is clear then the vehicle will enter).
It would have been obvious to have combined the references of Surmann, Dold ,Welty and Tobias and modify the system such that the fiducial marker is configured to provide an indication of a corresponding action to be carried out by the system. The motivation to do so would be to increase safety in operating the autonomous vehicle (Tobias line 53)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10-13 and 19-20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 10 and 19, The closest prior art, neither alone nor in combination, sufficiently discloses the claimed invention in such a way that the combination of limitations would be rendered anticipatory or obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The closest prior art Surmann, fails to explicitly teach determining geometric features in an intensity image of the pattern, wherein the intensity image of the pattern is acquired by a scanning of the pattern with a lidar measurement beam of the lidar device and a detection of an intensity of a returning lidar measurement beam, and carrying out a plane fit algorithm in order to determine an orientation of a pattern plane, by analyzing an appearance of the geometric features in the intensity image of the pattern.
However, the prior art, when taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant, nor would there exist a reasonable motivation to combine prior art with similar components in such a way that does not render the original invention inoperable for its intended purpose.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANJIDA NASER whose telephone number is (571)272-5233. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at (571)272-6970. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SANJIDA NASER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights