DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 12 depends on claim 10 however it appears that the claim should depend on claim 11 and will be examined as such. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim(s) below is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Wang, Xun, and JianGuo Wang. "Detecting glass in simultaneous localisation and mapping." Robotics and Autonomous Systems 88 (2017): 97-103 (herein after called Wang).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims below is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang, Xun, and JianGuo Wang. "Detecting glass in simultaneous localisation and mapping." Robotics and Autonomous Systems 88 (2017): 97-103 (herein after called Wang) in view of Zhang (20190235083).
Referring to claims 1 and 11, Wang shows a method for detecting an object, comprising:
collecting measurements using a sensor as a robot navigates along a route in an environment (see the robot that uses a SLAM procedure to map an area using a laser range finder as shown in the introduction), the measurements comprising a plurality of points localized on a computer readable map (see the map as shown in figure 1(b), note this is an invalid map due to the presence of glass walls);
identifying one or more first points of the collected measurements based on a first threshold (see section 3 note 3.1 note the glassTrigIntensity that filters out low intensity data from high intensity glass also see figure 6);
identifying one or more of the first points of the measurement as an object based on a second threshold value (note section 3.1 the glassIntensityDelta that filters out low intensity variations), the object comprises either a glass or specular surface (see figure 6 note the identification of points of a glass or spectral surface based on the three filtering techniques as shown in section 3.1); and
updating the computer readable map to comprise the object in the environment (see section 3.2 note the integration of the glass surfaces with the SLAM process, also see figures 8b and 9).
However Wang fails to show where the first threshold comprises a point density threshold, wherein the one or more first points exhibit a point density lower than a point tensity of other points of the plurality of points.
Zhang shows a similar device that uses a SLAM process to identify one or more first points of the collected measurement points that comprises either a glass or specular surface (see paragraph 203) and includes the first threshold comprises a point density threshold, wherein the one or more first points exhibit a point density lower than a point tensity of other points of the plurality of points (see paragraph 29 note that the specular surface can use a combination of intensity parameter as well as a point density parameter as shown in paragraph 149). It would have been obvious to include the point density threshold as well as the intensity threshold as shown by Zhang because this allows for a more complete classification of an anomalous object
Referring to claims 5 and 15, Wang shows wherein the one or more identified first points are separated apart from each other at a greater distance compared to separation between other points of the plurality of points, the first points corresponding to the object and the other points corresponding to another object, the another object corresponding to non-glass or non-specular surface.
Referring to claim 8, Wang shows the identification of the one or more first points is performed after the robot has navigated the route based on the computer readable map generated at least in part during navigation of the route (see figure 10a note the glass walls are not detected until after the robot begins navigating).
Claims 6, 16, 7, 17, and 18-20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang, Xun, and JianGuo Wang. "Detecting glass in simultaneous localisation and mapping." Robotics and Autonomous Systems 88 (2017): 97-103 (herein after called Wang) in view of Zhang (20190235083) and Cochran (20210026368).
Referring to claims 6 and 16, Wang shows navigating the robot to the object based on the computer readable map (see figure 5a and 5b); and
However Wang fails to show but Cochran shows utilizing a camera sensor to detect a reflection of the robot to verify the object comprises glass or a specular surface (see paragraph 54). It would have been obvious to include the camera to look for the robot reflection to confirm that the reflection was a glass wall as shown by Cochran.
Referring to claims 7 and 17, the combination of Wang and Cochran shows performing a visual display upon navigating the robot to the object; and
Referring to claim 19, note that the combination of Wang and Cochran shows the visual display comprises at least one of the, (1) blinking or changing colors of one or more lights, or (ii) moving a feature of the robot (note the navigation to avoid glass walls as shown by Wang.
detecting a reflection of the visual display using the camera sensor to verify the object comprises glass or a specular surface (see the grid maps of buildings as shown in figure 10a and 10b).
Referring to claim 20, the combination of Wang and Cochran obviously shows the detection of the reflection comprises use of an image recognition algorithm to identify images comprising of, at least in part, the robot (see Cochran paragraph 54 note that if the robot recognizes it’s reflection there is an obvious recognition algorithm being used to detect the reflection).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 9, 10, 12-14, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Referring to the arguments that the combination of Wang and Cochran fail to teach or suggest all elements of claim 18: The applicant admits that the combination of Wang and Cochran shows both a laser range finder as well as a camera to determine if the detected object comprises a glass or reflective surface. The claimed limitations are therefore taught and while the rejection shows the addition of a laser range finder the claimed invention is still taught by the combination of Wang and Cochran.
Referring to the argument that “blinking or change colors of one or more lights or moving a feature of a robot” is not taught: Because the combination of Wang and Cochran show the robot itself is moving a moving feature of the robot is captured by the camera.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LUKE D RATCLIFFE whose telephone number is (571)272-3110. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM 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.
/LUKE D RATCLIFFE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights