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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“initialization module” in claim 12;
“first-type extrinsic-parameter calibration module” in claim 12;
“ground alignment module” in claim 12;
“second-type extrinsic-parameter calibration module” in claim 12.
See 18639999 instant applicant’s specification page 13 lines 22-27 which describe a “computer system” corresponding structure that can perform the flowchart steps/instructions.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is not patent eligible subject matter since the claim is, under broadest reasonable interpretation BRI, directed to a signal per se which does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). The claim is directed to a signal per se because, under broadest reasonable interpretation BRI, the “computer-readable storage medium” includes a “carrier signal” in view of applicant’s disclosure at specification page 30 in the last/bottom line that recites “power line carrier signal”.
It is suggested that applicant amend the claim to include the word “non-transitory” to recite “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” in order to overcome this rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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) 1 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang US20180356824 in view of Chung US20210103040.
Regarding independent claim 1, Wang discloses, in Figures 1-7,
A method/system (Wang; Fig. 1-7) of calibration for lidar and integrated-navigation, comprising steps of:
an initialization module, configured to obtaining raw point cloud data from lidar (Wang; [0073] point cloud) and integrated navigation data from an integrated navigation apparatus (Wang; [0054] inertial navigation system; [0055] GNSS-IMU; [0073] GNSS-inertial pose), and calculating an initial extrinsic parameter characterizing a conversion relationship between each lidar and said integrated navigation data (Wang; [0056] “Transformation between the inertial navigation system and LiDAR coordinate”; [0057] transformation by extrinsic calibration that considers the sensor mounting location relative to the vehicle coordinate frame);
adjusting the initial extrinsic parameter and the integrated navigation data to obtain a first-type extrinsic parameter between each lidar and the integrated navigation apparatus, as well as optimized integrated navigation data, while taking into consideration a point model on a scanned surface of real space which obeys a normal distribution, and vehicle vibration (Wang; [0056] perform transformation adjustments to correct for motion distortion);
a ground alignment module (Wang; [0050] “ground truth dataset for motion planning”; [0069] “ground truth dataset”) configured to obtaining, according to the first-type extrinsic parameter, a compensation for compensating a component of an extrinsic parameter between each lidar and the integrated navigation apparatus (Wang; [0065] odometry algorithm that estimates velocity of lidar and corrects point cloud distortion); and
a second-type extrinsic-parameter calibration module, configured to obtaining a second-type extrinsic parameter between individual lidar according to the compensation matrix and the first-type extrinsic parameter of each lidar as well as the optimized integrated navigation data (Wang; [0064] data alignment; [0065] “mapping algorithm matches and registers the point cloud to create a map”; Fig. 1 with performing data alignment step 102);
Wang does not disclose multi-lidar; multiple lidars; differences between lidar clock sources; a compensation matrix for compensating a vertical component.
Chung teaches multiple lidars with corresponding clock sources and a compensation matrix for compensating a vertical component (Chung; Fig. 1A; lidar sensors 110 and 120; [0034-0035, 0037, 0054] determine rotation transformation matrix and translation vector for extrinsic parameter calibration; [0003] safety and accuracy by collecting as much information as possible from the surrounding environment without blind spots by using multiple sensors).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the lidar method/system as taught by Wang to include multiple lidars with corresponding clock sources and a compensation matrix as taught by Chung for the purpose of providing safety/or and accuracy by collecting as much information as possible from the surrounding environment without blind spots and for performing extrinsic parameter calibration (Chung; [0003] safety and accuracy by collecting as much information as possible from the surrounding environment without blind spots by using multiple sensors; [0034-0035, 0037, 0054] determine rotation transformation matrix and translation vector for extrinsic parameter calibration).
Regarding independent claim 12, Wang discloses, in Figures 1-7,
A method (Wang; Fig. 1-7) of calibration for lidar and integrated-navigation, comprising steps of:
obtaining raw point cloud data from lidar (Wang; [0073] point cloud) and integrated navigation data from an integrated navigation apparatus (Wang; [0054] inertial navigation system; [0055] GNSS-IMU; [0073] GNSS-inertial pose), and calculating an initial extrinsic parameter characterizing a conversion relationship between each lidar and said integrated navigation data (Wang; [0056] “Transformation between the inertial navigation system and LiDAR coordinate”; [0057] transformation by extrinsic calibration that considers the sensor mounting location relative to the vehicle coordinate frame);
adjusting the initial extrinsic parameter and the integrated navigation data to obtain a first-type extrinsic parameter between each lidar and the integrated navigation apparatus, as well as optimized integrated navigation data, while taking into consideration a point model on a scanned surface of real space which obeys a normal distribution, and vehicle vibration (Wang; [0056] perform transformation adjustments to correct for motion distortion);
obtaining, according to the first-type extrinsic parameter, a compensation for compensating a component of an extrinsic parameter between each lidar and the integrated navigation apparatus (Wang; [0065] odometry algorithm that estimates velocity of lidar and corrects point cloud distortion); and
obtaining a second-type extrinsic parameter between individual lidar according to the compensation matrix and the first-type extrinsic parameter of each lidar as well as the optimized integrated navigation data (Wang; [0064] data alignment; [0065] “mapping algorithm matches and registers the point cloud to create a map”; Fig. 1 with performing data alignment step 102).
Wang does not disclose multi-lidar; multiple lidars; differences between lidar clock sources; a compensation matrix for compensating a vertical component.
Chung teaches multiple lidars with corresponding clock sources and a compensation matrix for compensating a vertical component (Chung; Fig. 1A; lidar sensors 110 and 120; [0034-0035, 0037, 0054] determine rotation transformation matrix and translation vector for extrinsic parameter calibration; [0003] safety and accuracy by collecting as much information as possible from the surrounding environment without blind spots by using multiple sensors).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the lidar method/system as taught by Wang to include multiple lidars with corresponding clock sources and a compensation matrix as taught by Chung for the purpose of providing safety/or and accuracy by collecting as much information as possible from the surrounding environment without blind spots and for performing extrinsic parameter calibration (Chung; [0003] safety and accuracy by collecting as much information as possible from the surrounding environment without blind spots by using multiple sensors; [0034-0035, 0037, 0054] determine rotation transformation matrix and translation vector for extrinsic parameter calibration).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 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.
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang WO2023131123 teaches external parameter calibration for a combined laser/navigation system and calculating a pose transformation matrix.
Qian US20210407130 teaches a multi-sensor calibration system.
Bu CN116973891 teaches laser calibration and “solving the least square optimization equation to obtain the optimized external parameter value of the laser” for a navigation unit.
Chen CN110849362 teaches laser navigation calibration algorithm and optimization of a Kalman filtering algorithm to realize navigation positioning.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MALIKASIM whose telephone number is (313)446-6597. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8 am - 5 pm (CST).
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at 571-270-3603. 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.
/JONATHAN MALIKASIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645 9/11/26
Prosecution Insights