DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 12, 2026 has been entered.
2. Claims 1-21 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-21 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground rejection necessitate by applicant amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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), in further view of Bybee et al. US 2017/0309066 (hereinafter, Bybee).
6. 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 that is use as direct input to the cost function (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, and wherein at least one of an angle error parameter, a distance error parameter, or a module error parameter.
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]).
Muhammad in view of Wang does not disclose:
wherein at least one of an angle error parameter, a distance error parameter, or a module error parameter.
However, Bybee discloses:
wherein at least one of an angle error parameter, a distance error parameter, or a module error parameter ([0044], [0055], [0076]).
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 at least one of an angle error parameter, a distance error parameter, or a module error parameter as taught by Bybee. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to determine enhanced lidar coordinates for each lidar point as a function of minimizing the misregistration errors (Bybee, [0076]).
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 in view of Bybee 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 in view of Bybee 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 in view of Bybee 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 view of Bybee, 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 in view of Bybee 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 in view of Bybee 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 in view of Bybee 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. 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
Prosecution Insights