DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to the following communication: a non-provisional Application filed on May 10, 2023, and two Information Disclosure Statements filed on May 10, 2023 and December 21, 2023, respectively. This action is made non-final.
2. Claims 1-20 are pending in the case; Claims 1, 11, and 20 are independent claims.
3. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1:
A method of calibrating a plurality of sensors attached to a mobile robot, the method comprising:
obtaining, by each sensor of the plurality of sensors, a first measurement scan of a calibration target;
determining, for each sensor of the plurality of sensors, based on the first measurement scan, a pose of the calibration target with respect to each sensor;
computing, for each sensor of the plurality of sensors, a first transform from a reference frame of the pose of the calibration target to a reference frame of each sensor; and
computing, based on the first transform, a second transform from a reference frame of at least one sensor of the plurality of sensors to a reference frame of a fixed reference point.
Step 1 – Statutory Category - Yes
Claim 1 recites a method thus it falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03.
Step 2A, prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental process (and/or mathematical concept)
In Step 2A, Prong one, of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a judicial exception in terms of “mental processes” and/or “mathematical concepts” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper.” See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 1 recites the limitations of determining and computing. These steps, as drafted, are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the human mind (or by a human using a pen and paper). Nothing in the claim precludes these steps from practically being performed in the mind (or by using a pen and paper)1. For example, the claim encompasses a person receiving/observing known data and measurement data obtained by sensors, and determining, for each sensor, a pose of the calibration target with respect to each sensor, and further calculating transform values from a reference frame of the pose of the calibration target to a reference frame of each sensor, and from a reference frame of at least one sensor to a reference frame of a fixed reference point.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A, prong two evaluation – Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP § 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements, such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitations recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 recites obtaining, by each sensor of the plurality of sensors, a first measurement scan of a calibration target, which appears to be insignificant extra solution activities (i.e., acquisition of data in a well-understood, routine, and conventional manner). It is noted that Claim 1 merely recites that computations are performed but does not appear to require any steps in response to such computations2. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not appear to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B – Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See § MPEP 2106.05.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the step of obtaining a first measurement scan was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The instant Specification does not provide any indication that the recited obtaining step is anything other than a conventional sensor data being acquired and communicated. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). There are no improvements of a computer or a technical field recited in the claim and there is no particular transformation of one thing into another. See MPEP § 2106.05(a-e). The limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activities because they represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activities, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Thus, Claim 1 is ineligible under § 101.
With respect to dependent Claims 2-10, these claims are directed to the method of Claim 1 (Step 1: Yes), and they recite subject matter that falls within “mental processes” (and/or “mathematical concepts”) grouping (Step 2A, prong one), but they do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application” (Step 2A, prong two) and do not recite additional elements that add an inventive concept to the claims (Step 2B). Therefore, these claims are ineligible under § 101. These dependent claims recite additional features further describing additional calculations, the calibration target, and/or the fixed reference point, but even in combination, the additional elements recited in these dependent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
With respect to Claims 11-20, these claims are directed to a system and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising steps/features similar to those recited in Claims 1-10, respectively, and are thus rejected under the same rationale as those claims, above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
5. Claims 1-3, 9-13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Domhof et al. (hereinafter Domhof), “A Joint Extrinsic Calibration Tool for Radar, Camera, and Lidar,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, Vol. 6, No. 3, pgs. 571-582, published in September of 2021 (see Cite no. A2 on IDS filed on 12/21/2023).
With respect to independent Claim 1, Domhof teaches a method of calibrating a plurality of sensors attached to a mobile robot (see Abstract, discussing computations of relative transformations between sensors as well as absolute calibration with respect to the mobile robot’s body), the method comprising:
obtaining, by each sensor of the plurality of sensors, a first measurement scan of a calibration target (see pg. 574, § “C. Pairwise Calibration,” showing that a calibration target is positioned at K different locations in FOV of two sensors and that each sensor returns K detections).
determining, for each sensor of the plurality of sensors, based on the first measurement scan, a pose of the calibration target with respect to each sensor (see pg. 575, § “c) Pose and structure estimation (PSE),” showing simultaneous estimation of all sensor poses and calibration target poses).
computing, for each sensor of the plurality of sensors, a first transform from a reference frame of the pose of the calibration target to a reference frame of each sensor (see pg. 575, § “c) Pose and structure estimation (PSE),” showing that both the unknown structure of the true target poses in a fixed coordinate frame and the transformation from the fixed frame to each sensor are estimated).
computing, based on the first transform, a second transform from a reference frame of at least one sensor of the plurality of sensors to a reference frame of a fixed reference point (see pg. 576, § “E) Pose Estimation of Body Reference Frame,” stating “to estimate the pose of the body reference frame of the robot, minimal three 3D reference points on the exterior of the robot are required” and “after the robot reference frame is determined in the external sensor frame too, the sought transformations between the sensor and the robot frame can be computed directly, as illustrated in Fig. 5.”).
With respect to dependent Claim 2, Domhof teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further teaches changing a pose of the mobile robot with respect to the calibration target; obtaining, by at least one sensor of the plurality of sensors, a second measurement scan of the calibration target; and determining, based on the first and second measurement scans for the at least one sensor, a rotational axis of the mobile robot (see pgs. 574-575, § “C. Pairwise Calibration,” showing that the calibration target is positioned at K different locations in FOV of the sensors, and that a different measurement is obtained for each of K positionings, and these measurements can be used to determine the rotation).
With respect to dependent Claim 3, Domhof teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further teaches wherein at least two sensors of the plurality of sensors have an overlapping field of view (FOV) and wherein computing the second transform for said at least two sensors of the plurality of sensors with overlapping FOV is based on the determined poses of the calibration target as viewed simultaneously by each of said at least two sensors with said overlapping FOV (see pg. 574, § “C. Pairwise Calibration,” showing that the calibration target is positioned in the FOV of the sensors (i.e., overlapping FOV) and further showing that the relative rigid transformation can be used to project a point from the coordinate frame of first sensor to the coordinate frame of the second sensor).
With respect to dependent Claim 9, Domhof teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further teaches wherein the fixed reference point is a point on or inside the mobile robot (see pg. 571, § “I. Introduction,” discussing an “absolute calibration” procedure, stating that it estimates sensor poses with respect to a body coordinate frame of the robot, and further stating “if a relative calibration is done first, the absolute calibration only needs to estimate the transformation of one sensor to the robot body to complete the geometric model.”).
With respect to dependent Claim 10, Domhof teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further teaches wherein the fixed reference point is a point in an environment in which the mobile robot operates (see pg. 574, § “C. Pairwise Calibration,” stating that “the calibration target is positioned at K different locations in FOV of two sensors,” thus showing that a fixed reference point (the calibration target) is placed in the environment for the measurements).
With respect to Claims 11-13 and 18-20, these claims are directed to a system and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising steps and/or features similar to those recited in Claim 1-3, 9, and 10, respectively, and are thus rejected under a similar rationale to those claims, as discussed above.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
6. Claims 7, 8, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domhof in view of Hariyono et al. (hereinafter Hariyono), “Accuracy Enhancement of Omnidirectional Camera Calibration for Structure from Motion,” 2013 13th International Conference on Control, Automation and System (ICCAS 2013), pgs. 589-592, published in 2013 (see Cite no. A3 on IDS filed on 12/21/2023).
With respect to dependent Claim 7, Domhof teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further teaches wherein at least one sensor of the plurality of sensors is a camera (see Title, Abstract), but Domhof does not appear to explicitly suggest wherein the calibration target comprises a first plane, a second plane, and a ground plane, and wherein at least one of the first plane, second plane or ground plane comprises at least one of: a color, a pattern, or a combination thereof. However, the teachings of Hariyono can be relied upon for an explicit suggestion of this limitation.
Hariyono is directed towards accuracy enhancement in calibration (see Hariyono, Abstract). Hariyono recognizes the need for sensor calibration and improved accuracy (see Hariyono, Abstract, § 1. Introduction). Hariyono teaches that “two omnidirectional images of a predefined trihedron with checker board” can be used as a calibration target (see Hariyono, Fig. 2, Abstract, § 3). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan, at the time the instant Application was filed, to modify the calibration target of Domhof with the calibration target of Hariyono in order to increase the accuracy of calibration (see Hariyono, Abstract, §§ 1 and 5).
With respect to dependent Claim 8, Domhof in view of Hariyono teaches the method of claim 7, as discussed above, and further teaches wherein the pattern comprises: a non-solid colour pattern; a structured pattern; a random pattern; or a fractal pattern (see Hariyono, Fig. 2).
With respect to Claim 17, this claim is directed to the system comprising steps and/or features similar to those recited in Claim 7, and is thus rejected under a similar rationale as Claim 7, above.
Discussion of Prior Art
7. The prior art of record does not appear to disclose or suggest the combination of steps/features as recited in dependent Claim 4 (and similarly, dependent Claim 14), particularly with respect to the claimed calibration target. Claims 5 and 6 are dependent upon Claim 4 (and similarly, Claims 15 and 16 are dependent upon Claim 14), thus the prior art of record also does not appear to disclose or suggest the combination of steps/features recited therein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DINO KUJUNDZIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5188. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5pm.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached on 571-272-5109. 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.
/DINO KUJUNDZIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
1 Even if the claim required a computer processor to perform these steps (see, for example, Claim 11), such nominal recitation of a computer implementation (i.e., merely automating the determination and computation steps) does not preclude the recited determination and computation steps from being interpreted as being capable of being performed in the mind. It is noted that mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
2 It is noted that reciting a step along the lines of performing a calibration of a sensor of the plurality of sensors, based on the performed computations, would appear to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.