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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 17/607,945, filed on 12 May 2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 15 April 2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
All claim limitations that include “and/or” are interpreted as “or”. If applicant disagrees with this interpretation, they are invited to amend the “and/or” to “and”.
Claim Objections
Claim 33 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim preamble repeats the phrase “The method according to”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 21-31, 33-36 and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modica, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0192154).
For claim 21, Modica discloses a method for localization comprising (a) capturing, with at least one ToF (time-of-flight) sensor, at least one sensor image (see para. 0028). Modica does not explicitly disclose a “time of flight” sensor. However, Modica teaches the use of a LIDAR sensor (see para. 0026). One of ordinary skill in the art is aware that time-of-flight sensors are equivalent to a LIDAR sensor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Modica to include a time-of-flight sensor based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve determining the geographic location of an end-user device using a multilateration calculation.
Continuing with the claim, Modica further teaches (b) extracting, with a processing unit, at least one feature from the at least one ToF sensor image (see para. 0003);(c) comparing, with the processing unit, the at least one feature with map data (see para. 0003); and (d) generating a location hypothesis based on the comparing in (c) (see paras. 0041, 0042).
With reference to claim 22, Modica further teaches wherein a mobile robot comprises the at least one ToF sensor and wherein the method comprises determining a location of the mobile robot based on the location hypothesis (see para. 0089).
Regarding claim 23, Modica further teaches wherein in (a) the method comprises capturing at least one 3D (3-dimensional) ToF sensor image, wherein each pixel of each 3D ToF sensor image is indicative of a distance (see paras. 0033-0044).
With reference to claim 24, Modica further teaches wherein in (a) the method comprises capturing at least one 2D (2-dimensional) ToF sensor image, wherein each pixel of each 2D ToF sensor image is indicative of a brightness (see paras. 0028, 0047).
With regards to claim 25, Modica further discloses wherein each ToF sensor image comprises a plurality of pixels, wherein each pixel is indicative of a distance and brightness (see paras. 0033-0044, 0028, 0047).
Referring to claim 26, Modica further teaches wherein in (b) the method comprises extracting a shape from the ToF sensor image (see paras. 0033, 0043).
Regarding claim 27, Modica further teaches wherein in (b) the method comprises extracting a line from the ToF sensor image (see paras. 0033, 0043, 0091).
Referring to claim 28, Modica further discloses wherein in (b) the method comprises extracting a straight line from the ToF sensor image (see paras. 0033, 0043, 0091).
With regards to claim 29, Modica further discloses wherein in (b) the method comprises extracting lights from the ToF sensor image (see Fig. 6, para. 0033).
Referring to claim 30, Modica further discloses wherein in (b) the method comprises executing, with the processing unit, a blob detection algorithm to extract lights from the ToF sensor image.
For claim 31, Modica further teaches wherein the lights are emitted from stationary light sources (see Fig. 6, para. 0033).
Regarding claim 33, Modica further teaches wherein in (c), the method comprises finding an intersection set of features of the at least one extracted feature and the map data (see para. 0003), wherein the location hypothesis in (d) is generated based on: a known position on the map of the features comprised in the intersection set of features and the relative position between at least one ToF sensor and the location of the features comprised in the intersection set of features (see para. 0003).
With reference to claim 34, Modica further teaches wherein the method comprises adding to the map data and, based on the location hypothesis generated in step (d), features that are extracted from the at least one ToF sensor image but are not mapped in the map data. However, Modica does not explicitly disclose not mapping features. One of ordinary skill in the art has the elementary ability to determine the data to include in the database and the data to exclude. Not mapping some features is easily modifiable into Modica with a reasonable expectation of success based on the motivation to maintain a level of accuracy in the recorded data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Modica to exclude some features from being mapped based on the motivation to improve determining the geographic location of an end-user device using a multilateration calculation.
With reference to claim 35, Modica further teaches providing at least one visual camera configured to capture at least one visual image (see para. 0091), wherein the method comprises extracting, with the processing unit, features from the at least one visual image (see para. 0034), and wherein a first set of features is extracted from at least one ToF sensor image (see para. 0034) and, a second set of features is extracted from at least one visual image (see para. 0034), and wherein location hypothesis in (d) is generated based on the first set of features and the second set of features (see paras. 0003, 0089).
For claim 36, Modica further discloses wherein the ToF sensor comprises a plurality of photo-sensitive elements (see paras. 0033-0034).
With regards to claim 38, the subject matter defined largely mirrors the substantive subject matter of claim 21. Therefore, the citations and reasoning provided above for claim 21 is applied for the rejection claim 38.
Referring to claim 39, Modica further discloses wherein the system further comprises a mobile robot and wherein the mobile robot comprises the at least one ToF sensor (see para. 0089).
With reference to claim 40, Modica further teaches wherein the mobile robot further comprises the processing unit (see paras. 0003, 0089).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 32 and 37 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.
Conclusion
Examiner would like to point out that any reference to specific figures, columns and lines should not be considered limiting in any way, the entire cited reference, as well as any secondary teaching reference(s), are considered to provide relevant disclosure relating to the claimed invention. Applicant is herein considered to have implicit knowledge of all teachings of the prior art of record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D TISSOT whose telephone number is (571)270-3439. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on (571) 272-1206. 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.
/ADAM D TISSOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663