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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abari (US20220066002A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 10, Abari teaches the method of obtaining a first position of an object, wherein the first position is an actual position of the object relative to a predetermined reference area [Fig 2, 208 or 210; 0070]; obtaining a second position of the object detected by a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) when the LiDAR reaches the predetermined reference area [Fig 2, 208 or 210; 0069]; obtaining a first distance between the second position and the first position [0074 and 0075], the deviation from the predetermined actual position of the object and the measured position is a distance between each point; and determining a compensation angle of the LiDAR according to the first distance, wherein the compensation angle is configured to compensate an angle detected by the LiDAR [Fig 3, 310; 0069 and 0074], the point cloud data of the object position contains information about the angle of the object, the transformation matrix uses a rotational component of the position. Thus, calibrating the LiDAR using the transformation matrix as taught by Abari, is essentially determining and applying a compensation angle.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Abari does teach wherein after obtaining the first distance between the second position and the first position, the method further comprises: determining the LiDAR meets a predetermined installation standard when the first distance is less than a predetermined distance [Fig 3, 312; 0075].
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Abari teaches the method of claims 2 and 11, Abari also teaches wherein determining the compensation angle of the LiDAR according to the first distance further comprises: determining the compensation angle of the LiDAR according to the first distance when the LiDAR meets the predetermined installation standard [Fig 3, 312; 0075].
Regarding claim 9, Abari teaches the method for the AMR of claim 8. Abari also teaches rotating the initial detection angle clockwise or counterclockwise by N degrees according to the compensation angle [Fig 3, 310; 0069 and 0074], by applying the transformation matrix Abari is compensating the angle by N degrees.
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(s) 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abari (US20220066002A1) in view of Tian-yu et al. (CN115494484A).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Abari teaches the method of claims 2 and 11.
Abari does not teach wherein after obtaining the first distance between the second position and the first position, the method further comprises: determining the LiDAR does not meet the predetermined installation standard when the first distance is greater than the predetermined distance; and outputting a prompt of reinstalling the LiDAR.
Tian-yu does teach determining whether a predetermined installation standard is not met when the first distance is greater than the predetermined distance [0059] and outputting a message [0062].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method disclosed by Abari by determining an installation standard is not met when the first distance is greater than the predetermined distance and outputting a message, similar to Tian-yu with a reasonable expectation of success. Someone of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to improve the efficiency of robot deployment [0032].
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abari (US20220066002A1) in view of Wikipedia (Sep 20, 2023: “Chord (geometry)”).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Abari teaches the method of claim 1. Abari also teaches obtaining a second distance between the predetermined reference area and the object [Fig 2, 208 or 210; 0069].
Abari does not teach obtaining a sinusoidal value of the compensation angle according to a ratio of the first distance and the second distance; and determining the compensation angle of the LiDAR according to the sinusoidal value.
The Wikipedia article on Chord teaches using a ratio of the first distance and the second distance to obtain a sinusoidal value of a compensation angle, which is a well-known technique of calculating a distance between two points. The following equation shows how to determine the chord length, which, as seen in Fig 6 of the drawing, would be d1 [Equation 4, on Sine-based column of the table in the article].
d
1
=
2
d
2
sin
(
X
2
)
This equation can be rearranged to determine the compensation angle (X) using the known distances (d1 and d2).
sin
X
2
=
d
1
2
d
2
This would result in the known technique of using a ratio of the first distance and the second distance to determine a sinusoidal value of the compensation angle.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method disclosed by Abari by employing the known equation of a chord length and rearranging it to use a ratio of the first distance and the second distance to determine a sinusoidal value of the compensation angle, as seen on the “Chord (geometry)” article with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of accurately calculating the angle needed to align the LiDAR measured position of the object with the mapped position of the object.
Claim(s) 6, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abari (US20220066002A1) in view of Park et al. (US20220184811A1).
Regarding claim 6, Abari teaches the method of claim 1.
Abari does not teach wherein the electronic device communicates with a fixed device, the fixed device is located in the predetermined reference area, and before obtaining the second position of the object detected by the LiDAR, the method further comprises: sending a first instruction to the fixed device to fix the LiDAR when the LiDAR reaches the predetermined reference area, and after obtaining the second position of the object detected by the LiDAR, the method further comprises: sending a second instruction to the fixed device to release the LiDAR.
Park does teach sending a signal to a fixed device to fix the LiDAR when the LiDAR reaches the predetermined reference area [0041], the LiDAR is fixed to the base station when it is placed in an idle state; and after obtaining the second position of the object detected by the LiDAR [0046 and 0053], the method further comprises: sending a second instruction to the fixed device to release the LiDAR [0053], by transferring from the idle state to the wake up state Park teaches releasing the LiDAR.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method disclosed by Abari by sending a signal to a fixed device to fix the LiDAR when the LiDAR reaches the predetermined reference area, and after obtaining the second position of the object detected by the LiDAR, sending a second instruction to the fixed device to release the LiDAR, similar to Park with a reasonable expectation of success. Someone of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to improve diagnosis and more stably run the robot [0020].
Regarding claim 15, Park teaches sending a signal to a fixed device to fix the LiDAR when the LiDAR reaches the predetermined reference area [0041].
Regarding claim 16, Park teaches sending a second instruction to the fixed device to release the LiDAR [0053].
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abari (US20220066002A1) in view of Park et al. (US20220184811A1) and further in view of Girardin et al. (US20200323713A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Abari teaches the method of claim 1.
Abari does not teach wherein the electronic device communicates with a pressure sensor, the pressure sensor is located in the predetermined reference area, and before obtaining the second position of the object detected by the LiDAR when the LiDAR reaches the predetermined reference area, the method further comprises: determining the LiDAR reaches the predetermined reference area when a pressure value is detected by the pressure sensor and the pressure value is within a predetermined pressure range.
Girardin does teach a pressure sensor that detects when an apparatus reaches the predetermined reference area, when a pressure value within a predetermined range is detected [Fig 26, 1300; 0119]. In claim 6 we established that Abari in view of Park teaches fixing the LiDAR in place when reaching the predetermined reference area and releasing the LiDAR after obtaining the second position. Thus, it would be obvious to apply the pressure sensor taught by Girardin before obtaining the second position of the object detected by the LiDAR, to determine that the LiDAR successfully reached the predetermined area.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method disclosed by Abari by implementing a pressure sensor that detects when an apparatus reaches the predetermined reference area when a pressure value within a predetermined range is detected before obtaining the second position, similar to Park and Girardin with a reasonable expectation of success. Someone of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to improve the capture security of the apparatus [0119].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
Herman et al. (US20200409382A1) teaches a docking station that when a robot is charging, a target of known dimensions and distance is used to calibrate the robot and compensate for the misalignment [Fig 8A; 0080-0081].
Zeng (US20190235062A1) obtains a first position of an object that is an actual position and obtains a second position using a laser scanner [Fig 2, 201 and 203; 0039 and 0050] then an offset of the actual position from the measured position is obtained [0069-0070].
Purohit et al. (US20220009759A1) takes multiple measurements to determine the misalignment of an expected detection zone, and modifies it based on the ratio of different distances while modifying an angle [Fig 8, 504, 508 and 604/608; 0059-0060]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH N ZERON CERRATO whose telephone number is (571)270-3245. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5:00pm.
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.
/J.N.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
