DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 16, 17 and 20 are amended.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-4, 6 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lustig [US 2023/0120781 A1] in view of Cheuvront et al. [US 2017/0361468 A1].
Regarding claim 1, Lustig teaches a method of automated calibration for a LIDAR system of a mobile robot (systems and methods for calibrating LiDAR sensors of a robot using intersecting LiDAR sensors - 0003), the method comprising:
capturing a plurality of LIDAR measurements including a first set of LIDAR (calibration LiDAR) measurements as the mobile robot (generates a plurality of measurements - 0077) spins in a first direction at a first location, the first location being a first distance to a calibration target (figure 9, as the robot navigates along a route, each turn is considered a spin in that direction and its corresponding location; environmental objects are considered the calibration target – 0129-0130);
processing the plurality of LIDAR measurements to determine calibration data (error measurement calculation – 0082, 0094); and
generating alignment instructions for the LIDAR system based, at least in part, on the calibration data (fitted with servomotors of actuator units configured to adjust the orientation and position of the calibration LiDAR - 0127) (Controller 118 may coordinate and/or manage operative units 104, and/or set timings (e.g., synchronously or asynchronously), turn off/on control power budgets, receive/send network instructions and/or updates, update firmware, send interrogatory signals, receive and/or send statuses, and/or perform any operations for running features of robot 102 – 0053) ( configured to provide directional instructions for robot 102 to navigate – 0056).
While Lustig teaches the above limitations, Lustig does not specifically disclose the mobile robot spins in place in.
However, Cheuvront teaches a method for controlling one or more operations of an autonomous mobile robot by spinning in place (the mobile robot 300 rotates in place around a vertical Z-axis (shown in FIG. 11E) at various waypoint locations L1, L2, L3 . . . Ln throughout the enclosure space – 0245).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Lustig to further have the mobile robot spin in place while capturing a plurality of measurements as taught by Cheuvront for the benefits of ensuring a more thorough collection of information around the robot’s environment; thereby maintaining up to date information of the data collected in the environment (Cheuvront - 0241).
Regarding claim 2, Lustig teaches detecting, by the LIDAR system, facets (surface of the wall – 0079, 0088, 0096) of the calibration target in an environment of the mobile robot.
Regarding claim 3, Lustig teaches receiving information describing one or more characteristics of the calibration target (uneven surfaces or slanted surfaces – 0117, 0123), wherein detecting the facets of the calibration target is based, at least in part, on the received information.
Regarding claim 4, Lustig teaches detecting the facets of the calibration target comprises:
generating, based on information received from the LIDAR system, a first set of clusters (scan groups – 0122, 0124, 0130);
filtering the first set of clusters based, at least in part, on the received information (via digital filter - 0128); and
detecting the facets of the calibration target based, at least in part, on the filtered first set of clusters (surface of the wall – 0079, 0088, 0096).
Regarding claim 6, Lustig teaches the calibration target includes a plurality of facets, and processing the plurality of LIDAR measurements comprises detecting positions of edges of each of the plurality of facets of the calibration target (measuring points localizes the wall – figure 4A(i), 4A(ii), 0082, 0083) (also fig 2(i-ii) – 0072).
Regarding claim 8, Lustig teaches the mobile robot includes a base,
the LIDAR system includes at least two LIDAR units arranged with overlapping fields-of-view in a same plane on the base of the mobile robot, and the first set of LIDAR includes LIDAR measurements from each of the at least two LIDAR units (figure 3, LiDARs located at different areas on the robot – 0077), wherein processing the plurality of LIDAR measurements to determine calibration data comprises using pairs of LIDAR measurements from different LIDAR units to disambiguate one or more of pitch, roll and yaw of the LIDAR units (orientation (yaw, pitch, roll) - 0081, 0084, 0116, 0126).
Regarding claim 9, Lustig teaches the LIDAR system includes a plurality of LIDAR units arranged at different locations on the mobile robot (figure 3, LiDARs located at different areas on the robot – 0077), and generating alignment instructions for the LIDAR system comprises displaying on a user interface (user interface units … may include a display - 0062): an indication of which of the plurality of LIDAR units requires adjustment; and an amount of adjustment required to align a respective LIDAR unit (fitted with servomotors of actuator units configured to adjust the orientation and position of the calibration LiDAR - 0127).
Regarding claim 10, Lustig teaches an alignment of each of the plurality of LIDAR units is configured to be adjusted using a first adjustment mechanism and/or a second adjustment mechanism, and the amount of adjustment required to align the respective LIDAR unit comprises whether to adjust the first adjustment mechanism and/or the second adjustment mechanism and by how much(fitted with servomotors of actuator units configured to adjust the orientation and position of the calibration LiDAR - 0127).
Regarding claim 11, Lustig teaches each of the first adjustment mechanism and the second adjustment mechanism comprises a screw, and generating the alignment instructions for the LIDAR system comprises displaying on the user interface, an indication of how much to rotate one or both of the screws (servomotors – 0127).
Regarding claim 12, Lustig teaches determining whether the calibration data is within an acceptable threshold, wherein generating alignment instructions for the LIDAR system is only performed when it is determined that the calibration data is not within the acceptable threshold (selection threshold – 0078, 0094) (specification threshold – 0116, 0127).
Regarding claim 13, Lustig teaches receiving an indication that the LIDAR system has been aligned in accordance with the alignment instructions; capturing by the LIDAR system, a third set of LIDAR measurements; and validating that the LIDAR system is properly aligned based, at least in part, on the third set of LIDAR measurements (fitted with servomotors of actuator units configured to adjust the orientation and position of the calibration LiDAR - 0127) (Controller 118 may coordinate and/or manage operative units 104, and/or set timings (e.g., synchronously or asynchronously), turn off/on control power budgets, receive/send network instructions and/or updates, update firmware, send interrogatory signals, receive and/or send statuses, and/or perform any operations for running features of robot 102 – 0053) ( configured to provide directional instructions for robot 102 to navigate – 0056).
Regarding claim 14, Lustig teaches processing the plurality of LIDAR measurements to determine calibration data comprises simultaneously estimating roll, pitch and yaw of each of the LIDAR units in the LIDAR system (orientation (yaw, pitch, roll) - 0081, 0084, 0116, 0126).
Regarding claim 15, Lustig teaches capturing a plurality of LIDAR measurements comprises capturing the plurality of LIDAR measurements using a plurality of direct time-of-flight sensors arranged on a base of the mobile robot in a same plane (time of flight cameras – 0059, 0072, 0073).
Regarding claim 16, Lustig teaches capturing the plurality of LIDAR measurements further includes capturing a second set of LIDAR measurements as the mobile robot spins in a second direction at a second location, the second location being a second distance to the calibration target, wherein the first direction and the second direction are different and the second distance is different than the first distance (figure 9, as the robot navigates along a route, each turn is considered a spin in that direction and its corresponding location; environmental objects are considered the calibration target – 0129-0130).
While Lustig teaches the above limitations, Lustig does not specifically disclose the mobile robot spins in place in.
However, Cheuvront teaches a method for controlling one or more operations of an autonomous mobile robot by spinning in place (the mobile robot 300 rotates in place around a vertical Z-axis (shown in FIG. 11E) at various waypoint locations L1, L2, L3 . . . Ln throughout the enclosure space – 0245).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Lustig to further have the mobile robot spin in place while capturing a plurality of measurements as taught by Cheuvront for the benefits of ensuring a more thorough collection of information around the robot’s environment; thereby maintaining up to date information of the data collected in the environment (Cheuvront - 0241).
Regarding claim 17, Lustig teaches a mobile robot (robot 102 - 0072), comprising:
a LIDAR system including a plurality of LIDAR units arranged in a same plane, at least two of the LIDAR units having overlapping fields-of-view (figure 3, LiDARs located at different areas on the robot – 0077); and
at least one hardware processor configured to:
control the mobile robot to capture a plurality of LIDAR measurements by controlling the LIDAR system to capture a first set of LIDAR measurements as the mobile robot spins in a first direction at a first location, the first location being a first distance to a calibration target (figure 9, as the robot navigates along a route, each turn is considered a spin in that direction and its corresponding location; environmental objects are considered the calibration target – 0129-0130);
process the plurality of LIDAR measurements to determine calibration data (error measurement calculation – 0082, 0094); and
generate alignment instructions for the LIDAR system based, at least in part, on the calibration data (fitted with servomotors of actuator units configured to adjust the orientation and position of the calibration LiDAR - 0127) (Controller 118 may coordinate and/or manage operative units 104, and/or set timings (e.g., synchronously or asynchronously), turn off/on control power budgets, receive/send network instructions and/or updates, update firmware, send interrogatory signals, receive and/or send statuses, and/or perform any operations for running features of robot 102 – 0053) ( configured to provide directional instructions for robot 102 to navigate – 0056).
While Lustig teaches the above limitations, Lustig does not specifically disclose the mobile robot spins in place in.
However, Cheuvront teaches a method for controlling one or more operations of an autonomous mobile robot by spinning in place (the mobile robot 300 rotates in place around a vertical Z-axis (shown in FIG. 11E) at various waypoint locations L1, L2, L3 . . . Ln throughout the enclosure space – 0245).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Lustig to further have the mobile robot spin in place while capturing a plurality of measurements as taught by Cheuvront for the benefits of ensuring a more thorough collection of information around the robot’s environment; thereby maintaining up to date information of the data collected in the environment (Cheuvront - 0241).
Regarding claim 18, Lustig teaches a base, wherein the plurality of LIDAR units are arranged in the base (figure 3, LiDAR 304 and 302 mounted onto the robot – 0077).
Regarding claim 19, Lustig teaches the base has four sides, the LIDAR system includes a LIDAR unit arranged in the same plane on each of the four sides of the base, and the first set of LIDAR measurements includes LIDAR measurements from each of the LIDAR units in the LIDAR system (figure 3 shows side view of a robot with LiDAR sensors mounted, LiDAR 304 and 302 mounted onto the robot – 0077).
Regarding claim 20, Lustig teaches a controller for a mobile robot (systems and methods for calibrating LiDAR sensors of a robot using intersecting LiDAR sensors - 0003), the controller comprising:
at least one hardware processor configured to:
control the mobile robot to capture a plurality of LIDAR measurements (calibration LiDAR) by controlling a LIDAR system arranged on the mobile robot (generates a plurality of measurements - 0077) to capture a first set of LIDAR measurements as the mobile robot spins in a first direction at a first location, the first location being a first distance to a calibration target (figure 9, as the robot navigates along a route, each turn is considered a spin in that direction and its corresponding location; environmental objects are considered the calibration target – 0129-0130);
process the plurality of LIDAR measurements to determine calibration data (error measurement calculation – 0082, 0094); and
generate alignment instructions for the LIDAR system based, at least in part, on the calibration data (fitted with servomotors of actuator units configured to adjust the orientation and position of the calibration LiDAR - 0127) (Controller 118 may coordinate and/or manage operative units 104, and/or set timings (e.g., synchronously or asynchronously), turn off/on control power budgets, receive/send network instructions and/or updates, update firmware, send interrogatory signals, receive and/or send statuses, and/or perform any operations for running features of robot 102 – 0053) ( configured to provide directional instructions for robot 102 to navigate – 0056).
While Lustig teaches the above limitations, Lustig does not specifically disclose the mobile robot spins in place in.
However, Cheuvront teaches a method for controlling one or more operations of an autonomous mobile robot by spinning in place (the mobile robot 300 rotates in place around a vertical Z-axis (shown in FIG. 11E) at various waypoint locations L1, L2, L3 . . . Ln throughout the enclosure space – 0245).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Lustig to further have the mobile robot spin in place while capturing a plurality of measurements as taught by Cheuvront for the benefits of ensuring a more thorough collection of information around the robot’s environment; thereby maintaining up to date information of the data collected in the environment (Cheuvront - 0241).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 7 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 17 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Relevant Prior Art / Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ozzo (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0291383 A1) discloses a LIDAR device with a laser beam configured to cover up to 360 degrees around the LIDAR device and a mechanism configured to control a tilt angle of the at least laser beam.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RICKY GO whose telephone number is (571)270-3340. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arleen M. Vazquez can be reached on (571) 272-2619. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RICKY GO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights