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.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-15 (and new claims 28-32) in the reply filed on 21 July 2026 is acknowledged. Claim 16 is withdrawn and claims 17-27 were cancelled by Applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-13, and 28-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites “based on the one or more constraint items” and depends on claim 1. However, the “one or more constraint items” were introduced in claim 6. It is unclear what “constraint items” are in claim 7. Therefore, claim 7 is indefinite. For examining purposes, examiner will interpret claim 7 as dependent on claim 6.
Claim 8 recites “the one or more constraint items” and depends on claim 1. However, the “one or more constraint items” were introduced in claim 6. It is unclear what “constraint items” are in claim 8. Therefore, claim 8, and dependent claims 9-13, are indefinite. For examining purposes, examiner will interpret claim 8 as dependent on claim 6.
Claim 28 recites “the probability grid map represents multiple grids and objects in the region. It is unclear how a grid map represents multiple grids. Are the “grids” the cells of a grid? Therefore, claim 28 is indefinite. For examining purposes, examiner will interpret the “grids” as cells of a grid.
Claim 29 recites “includes a plurality of first frames, each of the plurality of first frames corresponds to a first timestamp, the first timestamp indicates a first time point when the corresponding first frame is acquired by the laser radar”. However, it is not clear if each first frame has the same timestamp or different timestamps. Therefore, claim 29, and 30 by dependence, are indefinite. For examining purposes, examiner will interpret each of the plurality of first frames corresponds to one of a plurality of first timestamps.
Claim 30 recites “determining a distance between… and a grid in the reference map”. It is unclear how to determine distance between the object and a grid as a whole. Therefore, claim 30 is indefinite. For examining purposes, examiner will interpret “grid in the reference map” as “a cell in the grid in the reference map”.
Claim 31 recites “includes a plurality of second frames, each of the plurality of second frames corresponds to a second timestamp, the second timestamp indicates a second time point when the corresponding second frame is acquired by the laser radar”. However, it is unclear if each second frame has the same timestamp or different timestamps. Therefore, claim 31, and 32 by dependence, are indefinite. For examining purposes, examiner will interpret each of the plurality of second frames corresponds to one of a plurality of second timestamps.
Claim 32 recites “determining a distance between… and a grid in the reference map”. It is unclear how to determine distance between the object and a grid as a whole. Therefore, claim 32 is indefinite. For examining purposes, examiner will interpret “grid in the reference map” as “a cell in the grid in the reference map”.
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, 4-8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tomono US 20220137638 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Tomomo teaches a system, comprising:
at least one storage device including a set of instructions (Fig. 1, [0028]; it is implicit that the CPU and storage section controlling the operation of the mobile robot includes instructions);
at least one processor in communication with the at least one storage device, wherein when executing the set of instructions (Fig. 1, [0028]), the at least one processor is configured to cause the system to perform operations including:
obtaining odometer data acquired by an odometer of a mobile subject at a current time (Fig. 2, [0044]);
obtaining laser data of a scene around the mobile subject acquired, at the current time, by a laser radar of the mobile subject (Fig. 2, [0027, 29, 44-45]);
obtaining a reference map of a region where the scene is located ([0045]);
determining a first matching result based on the reference map and the laser data (ST31 in Fig. 5, [0047]);
reconstructing a sub map reflecting the scene based on the laser data (ST21 in Fig. 5, [0030, 46]);
determining a second matching result based on the sub map and the laser data (ST21 in Fig. 5, [0046]); and
determining a target pose of the mobile subject based on at least two of the odometer data, the first matching result, or the second matching result (ST14 in Fig. 5, [0048-49]).
Regarding claim 4, Tomomo teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the determining a first matching result based on the reference map with the laser data includes: determining a first portion of the laser data from the laser data, the first portion of the laser data representing one or more original objects in the reference map and not in the sub map; and determining the first matching result by matching the reference map with the first portion of the laser data (LOC, [0029-48]).
Regarding claim 5, Tomomo teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the determining a second matching result based on the sub map with the laser data includes: determining a second portion of the laser data from the laser data, the second portion of the laser data representing one or more new objects in the sub map and not in the reference map; and determining the second matching result by matching the sub map with the second portion of the laser data (SLAM, [0029-48]).
Regarding claim 6, Tomomo teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the determining a target pose of the mobile subject based on at least two of the odometer data, the first matching result, and the second matching result includes: determining one or more constraint items each of which is configured to constrain an error between an actual pose and an estimated pose or an error between an actual pose change and an estimated pose change (reliability and weighting, [0048-54]), wherein the estimated pose or the estimated pose change are determined based on at least one of the odometer data, the first matching result, and the second matching result; and determining, based on the one or more constraint items, the target pose at the current time ([0048-54]).
Regarding claim 7, Tomomo teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the determining, based on the one or more constraint items, the target pose at the current time includes: determining a pose change at a time point closest to the current time by optimizing the one or more constraint items ([0048-54]); and determining, based on the pose change, the odometer data at the current time, and odometer data at the time point, the target pose at the current time ([048-54]).
Regarding claim 8, Tomomo teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more constraint items include at least two of: a first constraint item that is constructed based on the first matching result; a second constraint item that is constructed based on the second matching result; or a third constraint item that is constructed based on the odometer data (reliabilities based on SLAM and LOC, [0048-54]).
Regarding claim 14, Tomomo teaches a method implemented on a computing device including at least one processor and a storage device (Fig. 1, [0028]), the method comprising:
obtaining odometer data acquired by an odometer of a mobile subject at a current time (Fig. 2, [0044]);
obtaining laser data of a scene around the mobile subject acquired, at the current time, by a laser radar of the mobile subject (Fig. 2, [0027, 29, 44-45]);
obtaining a reference map of a region where the scene is located ([0045]);
determining a first matching result based on the reference map and the laser data (ST31 in Fig. 5, [0047]);
reconstructing a sub map reflecting the scene based on the laser data (ST21 in Fig. 5, [0030, 46]);
determining a second matching result based on the sub map and the laser data (ST21 in Fig. 5, [0046]); and
determining a target pose of the mobile subject based on at least two of the odometer data, the first matching result, or the second matching result (ST14 in Fig. 5, [0048-49]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9-13, 28-32 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not explicitly teach nor render obvious:
The system of claim 9, specifically including: determining whether the odometer data is abnormal; and in response to determining that the odometer data is abnormal, determining that the one or more constraint items include the first constraint item and the second constraint item.
The system of claim 12, specifically including: determining whether the first matching result satisfies a condition; and in response to determining that the first matching result does not satisfy the condition, determining that the one or more constraint items include the second constraint item and the third constraint item
The system of claim 28, specifically including: the reference map includes a probability grid map and a distance map, wherein the probability grid map represents multiple grids and objects in the region, and the distance map includes distances each of which is between one of the multiple grids and an object that is closest to the grid
The system of claim 29, specifically including: the determining the first portion of the laser data from the laser data includes: extracting long-term feature data from each of the first frames of the laser data; and the determining the first matching result by matching the reference map with the first portion of the laser data includes: generating the estimated first pose at the first time point by matching the reference map with the corresponding first frame with the first timestamp indicating the first time point
The system of claim 31, specifically including: the determining the second portion of the laser data from the laser data includes: extracting short-term feature data from each of the second frames of the laser data; and the determining the second matching result by matching the reference map with the second portion of the laser data includes: generating the estimated second pose at the second time point by matching the reference map with the corresponding second frame with the second timestamp indicating the second time point
Claims 2-3 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not explicitly teach nor render obvious:
The system of claim 2, specifically including: determining whether a pose change at the current time relative to a previous time exceeds a change threshold based on the odometer data or a difference between the current time and the previous time exceeds a time threshold; and in response to determining that the pose change exceeds the change threshold based on the odometer data or the difference between the current time and the previous time exceeds the time threshold, determining the target pose at the current time based on the at least two of the odometer data, the first matching result, and the second matching result
The system of claim 3, specifically including: determining whether a pose change at the current time relative to a previous time exceeds a change threshold based on the odometer data or a difference between the current time and the previous time exceeds a time threshold; and in response to determining that the pose change does not exceed the change threshold based on the odometer data and the difference between the current time and the previous time does not exceed the time threshold, determining the target pose at the current time based on the odometer data and a target pose of the mobile subject at the previous time
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Afrouzi US 20220026920 A1 teaches simultaneous localization and mapping for a cleaning robot (see claim 1)
Hess US 20210404814 A1 teaches generating submaps using SLAM and multiple sensors ([0051, 72])
Mao US 20210370510 A1 teaches separate static and dynamic map generation and path planning (Fig. 1)
Roumeliotis US 20140316698 A1 teaches extracting persistent and opportunistic features ([0033])
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