DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 11/18/2025.
2. Claims 1-21 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed on 11/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, the Applicant argues in substance that:
The cited references, Muhammad and Wang, either alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest the limitation “determining a predicted value that is of the first parameter and that enables a cost function using the first parameter as an independent variable to have an optimal solution, wherein the first variable parameter comprises an error parameter,” as recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
In response to argument:
a) Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the Examiner would like to remind the applicant that the rejection is based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. The Applicant argues on pages 12-14 of the remarks that the cited art does not teach or suggest the limitation “determining a predicted value that is of the first parameter and that enables a cost function using the first parameter as an independent variable to have an optimal solution, wherein the first variable parameter comprises an error parameter.” However, Muhammad discloses a calibration of multi-beam laser scanners. The technique is based on
an optimization process, which gives precise estimation of calibration parameters starting from an initial estimate. The optimization process is based on the comparison of scan data with the ground truth environment (see, Abstract). Further, Muhammad discloses a Geometric model, Each of the 64 lasers in the device is characterized by five parameters that are required to convert the distance value returned by the laser to 3D point coordinates…among the five calibration parameters Dcorr, α, and Ө are the most important. This is because of the fact that errors induced by a bad estimate of these parameters in the precision of 3D coordinates of acquired data changes with the distance of scanned
object/surface (see, page 3, section, IV. Implementation, A, B). Furthermore, Muhammad discloses sufficiently distributed data is necessary to ensure the estimation of calibration parameters to be independent of any bias on a specific distance… 2) Cost function: If it is possible to accurately align the planar surface to be scanned, the cost function can be C defined as the variance of 3D data along the plane normal… 3) Suitability analysis and optimization: as mentioned in section III, the suitability of the cost function for optimization depends on the cost function sensitivity to the variation of the parameters to be estimated. As our chosen cost function depends on the distances of x, y, and z coordinates of 3D data, the suitability of chosen cost function can be ensured by finding the partial derivatives of Px, Py, and Pz with respect to each of the three calibration parameters to be optimized, i.e. Dcorr, α, and Ө (see, pages 4-5, section C. Calibration process, 1-3), which corresponds to the limitation determining a predicted value that is of the first parameter and that enables a cost function using the first parameter as an independent variable to have an optimal solution, wherein the first variable parameter comprises an error parameter within the claim. Examiner uses the broadest reasonable interpretation when examining the phrase "first parameter as independent variable", as any calibration parameters to be independent of any bias. Examiner recommends further limiting or defining the first parameter in specific and/or independent form to advance prosecution. As claimed today, the combination of Muhammad and Wang meets the scope of broadly claimed limitation as currently presented.
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered. In view of Applicant’s arguments and amendments, the rejection has been withdrawn. Independent Clam 1 recites the limitations determining a predicted value that is of the first parameter and that enables a cost function using the first parameter as an independent variable to have an optimal solution, wherein the first variable parameter comprises an error parameter… and calibrating the laser radar by using the first parameter that is assigned the value based on the predicted value. The step of calibrating the laser radar by using the first parameter that is assigned the value based on the predicted value, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations, integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. The claimed invention is patent eligible based on 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Step 2A).
Regarding independent claims 8 and 15, the claims are directed to an apparatus and non-transitory, respectively, and include similar eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claim 1 as discussed above.
The dependent claims were found to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 by incorporating the eligible subject matter of their corresponding independent claim.
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 15-21 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered. The rejection has been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AlA 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 of this title, 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.
6. Claims 1, 2, 6-9, 13-16, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muhammad et al. “Calibration of a rotating multi-beam Lidar”, 2010 (hereinafter, Muhammad), in view of Wang et al. US 2019/0086524 (hereinafter, Wang).
7. Regarding claim 1, Muhammad discloses a method for calibrating a parameter of a laser radar, comprising:
obtaining three-dimensional coordinates, in a coordinate system, of a plurality of sampling points detected on a calibration plane (page 4, section IV, C. 1) Calibration Environment: wide planar wall) by a plurality of beams of laser light transmitted by a laser radar system (page 3, section IV, A. Geometric model: Equations 2-6, and Figs. 2, 3),
wherein the three-dimensional coordinates of the plurality of sampling points are obtained by inputting measurement information of the plurality of sampling points into a point cloud computing algorithm using a first parameter as a variable, three-dimensional coordinates of each of the plurality of sampling points are a function using the first parameter as an independent variable (page 3, section IV, A. Geometric model: calibration parameters, such as Dcorr, α, and Ө), and
the measurement information of the plurality of sampling points is used to determine target angles and target distances of the plurality of sampling points relative to the laser radar system (page 3, section IV, A. Geometric model: Equations 2-6);
determining a predicted value that is of the first parameter and that enables a cost function using the first parameter as an independent variable to have an optimal solution, wherein the first variable parameter comprises an error parameter (Abstract: a calibration of multi-beam laser scanners. The technique is based on an optimization process, which gives precise estimation of calibration parameters starting from an initial estimate. The optimization process is based on the comparison of scan data with the ground truth environment…. [Further], page 3, section, IV, A. Geometric model, B. Sensor characterization: Each of the 64 lasers in the device is characterized by five parameters that are required to convert the distance value returned by the laser to 3D point coordinates…among the five calibration parameters Dcorr, α, and Ө are the most important. This is because of the fact that errors induced by a bad estimate of these parameters in the precision of 3D coordinates of acquired data changes with the distance of scanned object/surface….[Furthermore], pages 4-5, section C. Calibration process, 1-3: Sufficiently distributed data is necessary to ensure the estimation of calibration parameters to be independent of any bias on a specific distance… 2) Cost function: If it is possible to accurately align the planar surface to be scanned, the cost function can be C defined as the variance of 3D data along the plane normal… 3) Suitability analysis and optimization: as mentioned in section III, the suitability of the cost function for optimization depends on the cost function sensitivity to the variation of the parameters to be estimated. As our chosen cost function depends on the distances of x, y, and z coordinates of 3D data, the suitability of chosen cost function can be ensured by finding the partial derivatives of Px, Py, and Pz with respect to each of the three calibration parameters to be optimized, i.e. Dcorr, α, and Ө), wherein the cost function is determined based on the three-dimensional coordinates of the plurality of sampling points and a fitting function for the plurality of sampling points (pages 4-5, section IV, C, 2-3) and Equations 7-9), and the predicted value of the first parameter is used to enable the three-dimensional coordinates of the plurality of sampling points to meet the fitting function (pages 4-5, section IV, C-D),
assigning a value to the first parameter in the point cloud computing algorithm based on the predicted value of the first parameter (pages 4-5, section IV, C-D); and
calibrating the laser radar by using the first parameter that is assigned the value based on the predicted value (Abstract, and pages 3-5, section IV, A, C).
Muhammad does not disclose:
obtaining three-dimensional coordinates, in a same coordinate system, of a plurality of sampling points.
However, Wang discloses:
obtaining three-dimensional coordinates, in a same coordinate system, of a plurality of sampling points (Abstract, [0013]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Muhammad to use obtaining three-dimensional coordinates, in a same coordinate system, of a plurality of sampling points as taught by Wang. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to improve the efficiency of calibrating parameters of the multi-line laser radar (Wang, [0111]).
8. Regarding claims 8 and 15, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 1.
9. Regarding claim 2, Muhammad in view of Wang disclose the method according to claim 1, as disclosed above.
Muhammad further discloses wherein the calibration plane is a plane, and the fitting function is a plane equation (pages 4-5, section C, 1, 2).
10. Regarding claims 9 and 16, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 2.
11. Regarding claim 6, Muhammad in view of Wang disclose the method according to claim 1, as disclosed above.
Muhammad further discloses wherein the first parameter is used to eliminate a computing error of the point cloud computing algorithm (pages 4-5, section IV, A, B, C).
12. Regarding claims 13 and 20, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 6.
13. Regarding claim 7, Muhammad in view of Wang disclose the method according to claim 1, as disclosed above.
Muhammad further discloses wherein the first parameter comprises at least one of a measurement error parameter and a coordinate transformation error parameter, the measurement error parameter is used to eliminate an error of the measurement information of the plurality of sampling points, the coordinate transformation error parameter is used to eliminate an error introduced by a coordinate transformation process, and the coordinate transformation process is used to transform three-dimensional coordinates of sampling points detected by different laser modules in the laser radar system into the same coordinate system (Abstract, page 2, B. Choice of objective function, and pages 4-5, section IV).
14. Regarding claims 14 and 21, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 7.
15. Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muhammad, in view of Wang, in further view of Mirzaei et al. “3D LIDAR–camera intrinsic and extrinsic calibration: Identifiability and analytical least-squares-based initialization”, 2012 (hereinafter, Mirzaei).
16. Regarding claim 3, Muhammad in view of Wang discloses the method according to claim 2 as disclosed above.
Muhammad further discloses the cost function and fitting function, and the first distance is a function using the first parameter as an independent variable (page 4, sections 2, 3).
Muhammad in view of Wang does not disclose:
wherein the cost function is positively correlated with a first cost function; and the first cost function is determined based on first distances from the plurality of sampling points to a plane represented by the fitting function.
However, Mirzaei discloses:
wherein the cost function is positively correlated with a first cost function; and the first cost function is determined based on first distances from the plurality of sampling points to a plane represented by the fitting function (Abstract, pages 456, 460).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Muhammad in view of Wang to use wherein the cost function is positively correlated with a first cost function; and the first cost function is determined based on first distances from the plurality of sampling points to a plane represented by the fitting function as taught by Mirzaei. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to calibrate laser radar accurately (Mirzaei, Abstract).
17. Regarding claims 10 and 17, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 3.
Examiner’s Notes
18. Claims 4-5, 11-12, and 18-19 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
19. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not teach or make obvious the claim invention in claims 4, 11, and 18.
Conclusion
20. Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, and/or paragraphs, and/or pages in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
21. 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.
22. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EYOB HAGOS whose telephone number is (571)272-3508. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Shelby Turner can be reached on 571-272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Eyob Hagos/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857