DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abari US 20220066002 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Abari teaches a method comprising:
detecting, by a perception sensor of an automated vehicle, a calibration target (autonomous vehicle’s lidar detects statically mapped objects which act as calibration targets , [0003-5, 48, 59, 65-74]);
generating, by the perception sensor, position information for the calibration target, the position information including a predicted position of the calibration target relative to the perception sensor (generates point cloud data of object in local coordinate system of lidar, Figs. 3-5, [0049, 59, 68-74]);
generating, by a processor (processor of computing device 602, Fig. 6, [0090-101]), a position correction of the sensor based upon comparing the predicted position of the calibration target against an expected location of the calibration target indicated by preconfigured location data (determines transformation matrices, [0074-78]);
calculating, by the processor, a sensor offset and a sensor orientation for the sensor using the position correction and the predicted position of the calibration target (determines transformation matrices and calibration error, [0074-78]); and
updating, by the processor, one or more calibrated settings for the sensor using at least one of the sensor offset, sensor orientation, the position correction, the predicted position, or the expected location (updates the transformation matrix which includes sensor orientation, sensor offset, and position correction information ([0074-78]).
Regarding claim 2, Abari teaches method according to claim 1, wherein updating the one or more calibrated settings includes storing, by the processor, the one or more calibrated settings for the sensor into a non-transitory memory (transformation matrix data can be stored in non-transitory media in data storage 618 or memory 610, [097-100, 118-119]).
Regarding claim 3, Abari teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
generating, by the processor, a predicted vehicle position relative to each calibration target of one or more calibration targets (point cloud generation for each object and iterative redetermination of transformation matrix based on each statically mapped object, [0053, 78]); and calculating, by the processor, a vehicle position for the automated vehicle using the position correction generated for each sensor of one or more sensors of the automated vehicle and the predicted vehicle position (iterative redetermination of transformation matrix based on each statically mapped object, [0053, 78]).
Regarding claim 4, Abari teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein updating the one or more calibrated settings includes updating, by the processor, a vehicle location for the automated vehicle in the one or more calibrated settings (GPS IMU will continually update vehicle location for use in the second transformation matrix, [0052]).
Regarding claim 5, Abari teaches the method according to claim 1, identifying, by the processor, that the sensor is miscalibrated in response to determining that a difference between the predicted position of the sensor and the sensor offset fails a calibration threshold (Figs. 3-5, [0054, 58, 75-78]).
Regarding claim 7, Abari teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein generating the position correction of the sensor includes querying, by the processor, map data indicating the expected location for the calibration target, the map data stored in non-transitory memory in communication with the processor (map data including information on statically mapped objects, [0050]; data storage 618 and memory 610 can contain static map data, [0100]).
Regarding claim 8, Abari teaches the method according to claim 7, wherein the non-transitory memory containing the map data is situated at the automated vehicle (computing device 602 (including memory 610 and data storage 618) can include devices integrated with a vehicle, Fig. 6, [0089]).
Regarding claim 9, Abari teaches the method according to claim 7, wherein the non-transitory memory containing the map data is situated at a remote computing device in networked communication with the processor of the automated vehicle (computing device 602 (including memory 610 and data storage 618) can include devices provided remotely from a vehicle, Fig. 6, [0089]).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abari US 20220066002 A1 in view of Aguiar US 20200184236 A1.
Regarding claim 6, Abari teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising generating, by the processor, a notification indicating an amount of calibration correction for the sensor based upon the at least one of the sensor offset, the sensor orientation, the position correction, the predicted position, or the expected location.
Aguiar teaches generating a notification that a calibration error is above a threshold ([0167, 186, 196]; calibration error above a threshold is an indication of an amount of calibration correction needed for the sensor and, based on Abari, is based on the sensor offset, orientation, correction, predicted position, and expected location).
Additionally, Abari teaches communication of sensor offset, orientation, and correction values (Fig. 6, transformation matrix data, [0089, 100])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Abari to include generating, by the processor, a notification indicating an amount of calibration correction for the sensor based upon the at least one of the sensor offset, the sensor orientation, the position correction, the predicted position, or the expected location similar to Aguiar with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing a technician to have necessary information before the vehicle arrives so that repairs or re-calibration may be quicker.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Torres US 20240393431 A1 teaches online calibration of sensors (Fig. 2)
Bordoley US 20240092375 A1 teaches updating sensor calibration (Fig. 3)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C FRITCHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5533. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 on 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.
/J.C.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights