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 .
Detailed Action
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the correspondence on 06/29/2026. Applicant’s argument, filed on 06/29/2026 has been entered and carefully considered. Claims 1-16 are pending.
The application claims foreign priority under 35 U.S.C § 119(a)-(d). Claimed foreign priority to CHINA 202211140938.4 filed on 09/20/2022. The certified copy of priority has been filed on 11/01/2023.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments in the 06/29/2026 Remarks have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because of the following:
Regarding claims, on page 11-16 argues “wherein the first point cloud data set ….secondary LiDAR”, “selecting a target transformation matrix from a plurality of candidate transformation matrices …”. While the applicant’s argument points are understood, the examiner respectfully disagrees it is because Wang in view of Omar teaches (MPEP 2141.I, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §103 likely bars its patentability”, Omar teaches, [0046], three-dimensional point cloud of an environment generated by the lidar, Omar, [0002], “data from one or more other sensors such as lidar or radar”, Omar, [0010], [0012], “transformation matrix is selected”, Wang, [0069], second pose transformation matrix, so, it is obvious to the ordinary skill in the art that the cited prior arts teach the current scope of the claim, the rejection is maintained).
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 1-11, and 16 refer to "A data fusion method”, Claims 12-13 refer to "A data fusion apparatus”, Claim 14 refers to "A computer device”, and Claim 15 refers to "A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”. Claims 12-15 are similarly rejected in light of rejection of claims 1-11, and 16 any obvious combination of the rejection of claims 1-11, and 16 or the differences are obvious to the ordinary skill in the art. It is requested to keep the scope of all the independent claims similar for advancing the prosecution.
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.
Claims 1-11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20220244057 A1), hereinafter Wang, in view of Omar et al. (US 20230306621 A1), hereinafter Omar.
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a data fusion method for a system, wherein the system comprises a source and at least one secondary system, and the data fusion method comprises (Abstract): obtaining a first point cloud data set of the system at a first time point and a second point cloud data set of the system at a second time point separately, wherein the first point cloud data set comprises first point cloud data of the source and first point cloud data of the at least one secondary, and the second point cloud data set comprises second point cloud data of the source and second point cloud data of the at least one secondary (Fig. 2, [0022]); determining a plurality of candidate transformation matrix sets based on the first point cloud data set, wherein each candidate transformation matrix set corresponds to one secondary and comprises a plurality of candidate transformation matrices for transforming point cloud data of the corresponding secondary into a coordinate system of the source (Fig. 3); selecting a target transformation matrix from a plurality of candidate transformation matrices in each of the plurality of candidate transformation matrix sets based on the second point cloud data set ([0069]); and fusing point cloud data of the source and point cloud data of the at least one secondary based on a target transformation matrix corresponding to each secondary (Fig. 2-4).
Wang discloses all the elements of claim 1 but Wang does not appear to explicitly disclose in the cited section for a LiDAR system.
However, Omar from the same or similar endeavor teaches for a LiDAR system ([0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang to incorporate the teachings of Omar for alignment of image data processing (Omar, Abstract). Similar reasoning/motivation of modification can be applied/extended to the other related/dependent claims.
Regarding claim 2, Wang in view of Omar discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the determining a plurality of candidate transformation matrix sets based on the first point cloud data set comprises: for each of the at least one secondary LiDAR: determining a plurality of corresponding sets of homologous points from each of first point cloud data of the secondary LiDAR and the first point cloud data of the source LiDAR; calculating, based on the plurality of corresponding sets of homologous points, a plurality of preselected transformation matrices corresponding to the secondary LiDAR, wherein a preselected transformation matrix from coordinates in the point cloud data of the secondary LiDAR to coordinates in the point cloud data of the source LiDAR is determined based on homologous points in each set of the plurality of corresponding sets of homologous points; and 29 determining a plurality of candidate transformation matrices respectively based on the plurality of preselected transformation matrices, to form a candidate transformation matrix set corresponding to the secondary LiDAR (Wang, Fig. 2-4, [0022], Omar, [0010], [0019]).
Regarding claim 3, Wang in view of Omar discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the determining a plurality of candidate transformation matrices respectively based on the plurality of preselected transformation matrices, to form a candidate transformation matrix set corresponding to the secondary LiDAR comprises: applying the plurality of preselected transformation matrices to the first point cloud data of the corresponding secondary LiDAR separately to obtain a plurality of pieces of first transformed point cloud data in the coordinate system of the source LiDAR; calculating a first error value between each piece of first transformed point cloud data and the first point cloud data of the source LiDAR; and performing an iterative calculation on the corresponding preselected transformation matrix based on the first error value to determine a corresponding candidate transformation matrix (Wang, Fig. 2-4, [0022], Omar, [0010], [0019], [0051]).
Regarding claim 4, Wang in view of Omar discloses the method according to claim 3, wherein the calculating a first error value between each piece of first transformed point cloud data and the first point cloud data of the source LiDAR comprises: calculating a plurality of first distances between a plurality of points in each piece of first transformed point cloud data and corresponding points in the first point cloud data of the source LiDAR; and determining the first error value based at least on the plurality of first distances (Wang, Fig. 2-4, [0022], [0051], Omar, [0010], [0019], [0051]).
Regarding claim 8, Wang in view of Omar discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising: performing orientation calibration on the first point cloud data set and/or the second point cloud data set; and removing noise or dynamic points from the first point cloud data set or the second point cloud data set (It is obvious to the ordinary skill in the art).
Regarding claim 9, Wang in view of Omar discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising: obtaining a third point cloud data set of the LiDAR system online at a third time point, wherein the third point cloud data set comprises third point cloud data of the source LiDAR and third point cloud data of the at least one secondary LiDAR; and correcting the plurality of selected target transformation matrices based on the third point cloud data set (Wang, Fig. 2-4, [0022], [0051], Omar, [0010], [0019], [0051]).
Regarding claim 16, Wang in view of Omar discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the target transformation matrix has a highest transformation accuracy among the plurality of candidate transformation matrices in each of the plurality of candidate transformation matrix sets based on the second point cloud data set (It is obvious to the ordinary skill in the art that the highest accuracy matrix will be selected).
Regarding claim 12-15, See Examiner’s Note. Prior art not relied on for rejection but considered, Liu et al., US 2024034289 A1, Claims 1-2; Longman et al., US 20230211798 A1, [0044]
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5-7, and 10-11 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.
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 MOHAMMAD J RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7190. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571) 272-7327. 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.
/Mohammad J Rahman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights