DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission of the amendment to the claims filed on 05/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments received 05/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the claim eligibility, Applicant argues that (REMARKS, p.11):
PNG
media_image1.png
311
813
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that a streamlined analysis applies and therefore the claims are patent eligible. This argument is unpersuasive. For purposes of efficiency in examination, examiners are permitted to utilize a streamlined eligibility analysis when the eligibility of the claim is self-evident, e.g., because the claim clearly improves a technology or computer functionality. However, if there is doubt as to whether an applicant seeks patent coverage for a judicial exception, the full eligibility analysis is required. In the instant case, a full eligibility analysis is applied using the two-part framework which results in a conclusion of ineligibility as outlined in the rejection below. see MPEP 2106.06.
Applicant further argues that (REMARKS, p.11):
PNG
media_image2.png
668
812
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is advised that, according to MPEP 2106 and the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG), the Office determines claim eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 using the Alice framework. The analysis under Step 2A - Prong 1 evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Step 2A - Prong 2 asks if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and, if necessary, Step 2B further analyzes whether or not the claim provides an Inventive Concept. That is, the claim needs to be analyzed limitation by limitation, and/or element by element, following the MPEP/2019 PEG guidelines.
In the instant case, focusing on what the inventors have invented exactly and giving the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) to the claims, Examiner asserts that the pending claims 21-40 are directed to an abstract idea of math and mental algorithm for adjusting an estimated position and/or orientation of sensors and associated sensor data for positioning a vehicle, but without reciting any additional element that amounts to “significantly more” than the judicial exception (see detailed analyses set forth in section 5 below). In particular, Examiner asserts that the abstract idea (math/mental algorithm) as claimed encompasses merely data manipulations based on mathematical concepts (see, e.g., Specification, [0021]-[0028]) which can be performed in the human mind with the aid of pen/paper or a general-purpose computer being used to automate well-known manual processes. The “one or more processors” and “one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media” are all recited at a high level of generality. It is held that the generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, all the extra-solution activities recited in claims 21-40, such as “receive first sensor data associated with a first position and a first orientation” and “generate a map and transmit the map to one or more of the first vehicle or a second vehicle wherein the one or more of the first vehicle or the second vehicle is configured to be controlled based at least in part on the map” are considered well-understood, routine, conventional in the art (see discussion of the prior art set forth in sections 7 and 9 below). No additional limitation/element is found to impose any meaningful limits on the claimed abstract idea such that it amounts to “significantly more” than the judicial exception and/or is qualified for an improvement under MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(a). “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.” It is held that simply setting forth advantages (i.e. benefits) of use without providing any rational/evidence to how/why the claimed elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception could be treated as mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)), but not qualified for an improvement (i.e. enhancement) in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field. The key is to show that the claim goes beyond just performing a calculation and provides a practical application or significant improvement through the use of that calculation.
Applicant further argues (REMARKS, p.12):
PNG
media_image3.png
359
814
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A - Prong 1, Examiner evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. With the BRI to the claim, Examiner asserts that each or the combination of the claim limitations including “associate the first sensor data with a first voxel grid wherein the first voxel grid being a first three-dimensional representation of at least a first portion of an environment; determine a covariance associated with a voxel of the first voxel grid; determine, based on the covariance, a transformation associated with the first voxel grid and a second voxel grid wherein the second voxel grid being a second three-dimensional representation of at least a second portion of the environment” encompasses mathematical concepts (namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers). Examiner asserts that these mathematical concepts can be performed in the human mind using mental steps/critical thinking and/or with aid of pen and paper because they involve merely data observations, evaluations, manipulation and/or judgements to fulfill the recited math concepts. Such processes of data observations, evaluations, manipulation and/or judgements are capable of being performed mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, “associate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally or manually matching up or transforming the first sensor data with/into the corresponding data in a voxel grid/space based on math concepts/relationships. Note: mental steps or basic critical thinking can be done with the aid of pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III). The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Further, according to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes except for the mention of generic computer components performing computing activities via basic function of the computer, then the claim is likely considered to be directed to an ineligible abstract idea, as it essentially describes a mental process that could be performed by a human without the computer components adding any significant practical application beyond the abstract concept itself.
As to the limitations "receive first sensor data associated with a first position and a first orientation" and "based at least in part on the transformation, one or more of: control operation of a first vehicle, or generate a map and transmit the map to one or more of the first vehicle or a second vehicle, wherein the one or more of the first vehicle or the second vehicle is configured to be controlled based at least in part on the map," they are treated as insignificant extra-solution activities which are separate from the identified judicial exception. Specifically, the limitation “receive first sensor data associated with a first position and a first orientation” reads on merely a step of gathering the data/information necessary for performing the abstract idea (see the USPTO’s July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples e.g., Example 46, Claim 3), and the limitation “based at least in part on the transformation, one or more of: control operation of a vehicle, or generate a map for transmitting to a second vehicle, …” is an insignificant post solution activity and/or a field of use of the output from identified judicial exception (see detailed analyses set forth in section 5 below). Such a post solution activity encompasses merely instructions to apply a judicial exception for an intended use or to link the use of the judicial exception to the relevant technological environment but without improving the vehicles, the computers, networks, or communications. The additional limitations/elements in question do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the identified abstract idea (math + mental) itself, they neither integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A nor provide an inventive concept under Step 2B. See Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1347-48 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (claims to generating tasks based on rules to be completed upon the occurrence of an event recited an abstract idea and its implementation on a generic computer without any meaningful limitations to the concept did not transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application). See also MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Applicant’s arguments in this regard are therefore unpersuasive.
Applicant further argues (REMARKS, p.16):
PNG
media_image4.png
401
807
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. At Step 2B, evaluation is given to additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept which requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. In the instant case, focusing on what the inventors have invented exactly, Examiner considers that the “core” of the pending claims is directed to a math algorithm of adjusting an estimated position and/or orientation of sensors and associated sensor data for positioning a vehicle. As discussed above (see also detailed analyses set forth in section 5 below), all the additional limitations/elements recited in the pending claims are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using well-known/conventional techniques. The claims do not include any additional element that meets the criteria set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and/or MPEP 2106.05(a) to be qualified for “significantly more”. For example, collecting/receiving sensor data of interest can just as easily relate to the acquisition of data from, e.g., look-up tables, which can be performed manually or with a general purpose computer being used to automate well-known manual processes. The courts have decided that storing and retrieving information in memory as well-understood, routine, conventional activity as a computer function when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)). The courts have also decided that receiving or transmitting data over a network as well-understood, routine, conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) other types of activities example i. receiving or transmitting data over a network, OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network).
While arguing about the alleged similarity between the pending claims of the present application and DDR Holdings, LLC V. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258-59 and/or Diamond V. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-92, Applicant fails to clearly explain the reason or justification for that conclusion. The Examiner’s position is that: the decisions in both those cases are fact specific. They are not analogous to the instant claims of the present application. For example, the claim of Diamond v. Diehr, recites such additional elements as specifically claimed constant measurement of temperature at a mold cavity of a rubber-molding press and the repetitive computer recalculation of the appropriate cure time using the constantly updated measurements which provide ‘‘something more’’ than mere computer implementation of calculation of the Arrhenius equation. Further, the claimed steps act in concert to transform raw, uncured rubber to cured molded rubber. As affirmed by the Court, the combination of steps recited in addition to the mathematical formula show that the claim is not to the formula in isolation, but rather that the steps impose meaningful limits that apply the formula to improve an existing technological process. Thus, the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. However, Examiner asserts that none of the additional elements recited in the pending claims 21-40 of the present application is proven to be ‘‘significantly more’’ to make the claim go beyond just performing data manipulation based on math concepts thus provides qualified improvement. Applicant’s arguments based on DDR Holdings, LLC V. Hotels.com and Diamond v. Diehr are therefore unpersuasive.
The rest of the Applicant’s arguments about claim eligibility are reliant upon the issues discussed above or have been fully addressed by the analyses as set forth in section 5 below in this Office Action.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. See detailed response given in sections 6-7 below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 101 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
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.
5. Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the 2019 PEG (now been incorporated into MPEP 2106), the revised procedure for determining whether a claim is "directed to" a judicial exception requires a two-prong inquiry into whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human interactions such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see MPEP § 2106.0S(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Claims 21-40 are directed to an abstract idea of adjusting an estimated position and/or orientation of sensors and associated sensor data corresponding minimized voxel score for positioning a vehicle.
Specifically, representative claim 21 recites:
A system comprising:
one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media communicatively coupled to the one or more processors and storing instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to:
receive first sensor data associated with a first position and a first orientation;
associate the first sensor data with a first voxel grid, the first voxel grid being a first three-dimensional representation of at least a first portion of an environment;
determine a covariance associated with a voxel of the first voxel grid;
determine, based on the covariance, a transformation associated with the first voxel grid and a second voxel grid, the second voxel grid being a second three-dimensional representation of at least a second portion of the environment; and
(e) based at least in part on the transformation, one or more of:
control operation of a first vehicle, or
generate a map and transmit the map to one or more of the first vehicle or a second vehicle, wherein the one or more of the first vehicle or the second vehicle is configured to be controlled based at least in part on the map.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
The highlighted portion of the claim constitutes an abstract idea under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the additional elements are NOT sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions, as analyzed below:
Step
Analysis
1. Statutory Category ?
Yes.
System
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), each or the combination of the limitations (b), (c) and (d) in the bolded portion listed above encompasses mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers that can be performed in the human mind using mental steps/critical thinking and/or with aid of pen and paper. Although it does not spell out any particular equation or formula being used, the lack of specific equations for individual steps merely indicates that the claim would monopolize all possible calculations in performing the steps. Nothing in the bolded portion precludes these limitations from practically being performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper.
The newly added limitations of “the first voxel grid being a first three-dimensional representation of at least a first portion of an environment” and “the second voxel grid being a second three-dimensional representation of at least a second portion of the environment” encompass merely data characterization which can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the relevant technological environment or field of use.
Nothing in the bolded portion precludes these limitations from practically being performed in the mind and/or with the aid of pen/paper. Note, the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Accordingly, the bolded portion listed above recites a series of mental and mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea falling within a combination of the “Mathematical Concepts” and “Mental Process” Groupings of Abstract Ideas defined by the 2019 PEG.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
The claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The limitations of “one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media communicatively coupled to the one or more processors and storing instructions that are executable by the one or more processors” are recited at a high level of generality. The inclusion of these additional elements in the claim, under its BRI, covers merely performance of the abstract idea (math + mental) in the mind or with pen/paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. According to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes except for the mention of generic computer components performing computing activities via basic function of the computer, then the claim is likely considered to be directed to an ineligible abstract idea, as it essentially describes a mental process that could be performed by a human without the computer components adding any significant practical application beyond the abstract concept itself.
Under the BRI, the limitation (a) reads on merely a step of gathering the data/information necessary for performing the abstract idea. It does not require any particular devices or sensors to perform the “receive”, but could just as easily relate to the acquisition of values from, e.g., look-up tables as opposed to the generation of actual measurement data. Thus claim 21 would monopolize the abstract idea across a wide range of applications.
Under its BRI, the limitation (d) is treated as an insignificant post solution activity and/or a field of use of the output from identified judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
In general, the claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, in all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. Instead, based on the above considerations, the claim would tend to monopolize the algorithm across a wide range of applications.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
See analysis given in 2A - Prong 2 above.
Focusing on what the inventors have invented exactly, it is considered that the “core” of pending claim 21 is directed to an abstract algorithm of adjusting an estimated position and/or orientation of sensors and associated sensor data corresponding minimized voxel score for positioning a vehicle. The claim does not recite any additional element that amounts to “significantly more” or an “inventive concept” under the 2019 PEG (see also MPEP 2106.05).
In particular, the limitations relating to the processor are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using well-known/conventional techniques. The limitations of collecting/receiving sensor data of interest can just as easily relate to the acquisition of data from, e.g., look-up tables, which can be performed manually or with a general purpose computer being used to automate well-known manual processes. Furthermore, the courts have decided that storing and retrieving information in memory as well-understood, routine, conventional activity as a computer function when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)). The courts have also decided that receiving or transmitting data over a network as well-understood, routine, conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) other types of activities example i. receiving or transmitting data over a network, OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network).
Claim 21 is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
The dependent claims 22-27 inherit attributes of the independent claim 21, but do not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. These claims merely extend (or narrow) the abstract idea which do not amount for "significant more" because they merely add details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above.
Claim 24 recites: wherein controlling operation of the vehicle comprises one or more of: calibrating a sensor, determining a position of the vehicle in the map; or determining, based at least in part on the position, a set of controls configured to cause the vehicle to navigate through a portion of an environment associated with the map. Under its BRI, the limitation of “calibrating a sensor” reads on an insignificant post solution activity and/or a field of use of the output from identified abstract idea. The claim also does not provide any details about how the sensor is calibrated “based at least in part on the transformation”. Similarly, the step of “determining, based at least in part on the position, a set of controls configured to cause the vehicle to navigate through a portion of an environment associated with the map” encompasses an insignificant post solution activity and/or a field of use of the output from identified abstract idea. Furthermore, the claim does not provide any details about how to cause the vehicle to navigate through a portion of an environment associated with the map. It could just as easily relate to a human operation of navigating the vehicle through a portion of an environment associated with the map.
Claims 28-40 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reasons as for claims 21-27 illustrated above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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; or
(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.
7. Claims 21-25, 28-32, and 35-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Widmer et al. (US 20170361726 A1).
Regarding claims 21, 28 and 35, Widmer discloses a system and method, including computer programs encoded on a storage device, for positioning a vehicle, comprising: one or more processors (para. 0004: “hardware processor …”); and one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media communicatively coupled to the one or more processors and storing instructions that are executable by the one or more processors (para. 0288) to:
receive first sensor data associated with a first position and a first orientation (para. 0075: “The magnetic field sensor 366 may be configured to generate a plurality of voltage signals under influence of the alternating magnetic field generated by the magnetic field generator 368. The base positioning subsystem 362 may be configured to receive these voltage signals and output a signal indicative of a position estimate and an angle estimate between the magnetic field sensor 366 and the magnetic field sensor 368”; para. 0100-0101, 0271: “a processor (e.g., processor 2004) determines a first set of (voltage) data based on respective voltage signals … the first set of (voltage) data corresponds to a multi-dimensional vector (e.g., a 9-dimensional vector)”);
associate the first sensor data with a first voxel grid (para. 0154, 0271-0272, 0275), wherein the first voxel grid being a first three-dimensional representation (note, since the instant claim does not require the recited “three-dimensional representation” comprises specifically three components, each represents a projection along one coordinate axis of a three-dimensional space, with the BRI to the claim, Widmer’s 6D vector A′ defined by Eq. 14 encompasses “a three-dimensional representation of …” as claimed, considering that the vector A’ is merely a mathematical equivalent of the 3D voltage vectors V.sub.x′, V.sub.y′, V.sub.z′ in the form of a six-component vector) of at least a first portion (e.g., a first portion of the field generator 368 in Fig, 4) of an environment (para. 0081, 0089, 0101, 0108, see also related discussion of the blocks in Fig. 37);
determine a covariance associated with a voxel of the first voxel grid (para. 0278 discusses: to modify the vector map, a plurality of deviation vectors is determined by comparing the voltage vectors associated with the sequence of absolute position and orientation estimates with one or more corresponding reference vectors; para. 0247 discusses: employing a functions fitting process based on the determined deviation vector data, including a Gaussian process regression method in which a 2D Gaussian random process is statistically defined by a mean function μ.sub.d(x, y) and covariance function κ.sub.d(Δx, Δy); para. 0249 discusses: estimating the covariance functions based on the determined deviation vectors);
determine, based on the covariance, a transformation associated with the first voxel grid and a second voxel grid (para. 0277: “updating the sequence of absolute position and orientation estimates comprises determining a coordinate transformation for transforming the sequence of relative to a sequence of absolute pose estimates that most closely fits the sequence of absolute position and orientation estimates”; para. 0280: “the updated vector map may be used to determine more accurate position and orientation estimates from voltage vectors derived from sets of voltage signals generated by a plurality of receive coils at a field sensor”), wherein the second voxel grid being a second three-dimensional representation of at least a second portion of the environment (the estimates of more accurate position and orientation determined from voltage vectors derived from sets of voltage signals read on “at least a second portion of the environment”; see also the discussion of the BRI given to “the first voxel grid being a first three-dimensional representation” above); and
based at least in part on the transformation, one or more of: control operation of a first vehicle (e.g., 406 in Figs. 4 and 5), or generate a map (para. 0279-0280) and transmit the map to a second vehicle, wherein the second vehicle is configured to be controlled based at least in part on the map (para. 0195: “The 3D map may be produced in a manner and format so that it can be used for a majority of vehicles 406 equipped with the appropriate systems and sensors. This may include vehicles 406 parking for the first time with a positioning system not specifically trained, learned or conditioned for this particular parking space”).
Regarding claims 22, 29 and 36, Widmer discloses: wherein determining the transformation comprises perturbing one or more of the first position or the first orientation by a magnitude and along one or more of a directional dimension or an orientation dimension (para. 0227- 0229: it is commonly known that the so-called “weighted LMS based fitting” is a linear regression technique that assigns different "weights" to data points, giving more importance to observations with higher reliability or precision and less to those with greater variance. As such, Widmer’s teaching of weighted LMS reads on the claimed “perturbing …”).
Regarding claims 23, 30 and 37, Widmer discloses: wherein: the transformation comprises one or more of a rotation or a translation between the first voxel grid and the second voxel grid, the covariance is a first covariance, the second voxel grid is associated with a second covariance (the transformation implements a fitting between the first voxel grid and the second voxel grid, or a fitting between a first vector map and a second vector map, each of the first and the second vector maps is associated with its covariance, respectively; see discussion of the vector map processor 3206; see also para. 0226-0227, 0247), and determining the transformation comprises performing an optimization based at least in part on the first covariance and the second covariance (para. 0227, 0237, 0277: “ … the closest fit may be determined using a LMS criterion”).
Regarding claims 24, 31 and 38, Widmer discloses: wherein controlling the operation of the first vehicle comprises one or more of: calibrating a sensor, determining a position of the first vehicle in the map (para. 0279-0280).
Regarding claims 25, 32 and 39, Widmer discloses: wherein determining the transformation (i.e., the coordinate transformation for transforming the sequence of relative to a sequence of absolute pose estimates that most closely fits the sequence of absolute position and orientation estimates) comprises: determining, based on the covariance, a plane (e.g., a plane formed by the vectors defined by Eq. 55 and Eq. 56) associated with the voxel (para. 0228); determining a value (e.g., the weighted LMS) associated with the plane, and determining the transformation based on the value (para. 0228-0229, 0277).
Examiner’s Note
8. While there are related references that discuss determining a coordinate transformation for positioning a vehicle, the prior art of record does not specifically provide teachings for the claimed limitations including: wherein determining the transformation comprises: determining a plane associated with a voxel of a voxel grid; determining a value associated with the plane, and determining the transformation based on the value; wherein determining the plane comprises: determining, based on the covariance associated with the voxel, at least one of an eigenvalue or an eigenvector; and determining the plane based on at least one of the eigenvalue or the eigenvector (claim 26, 33 or 40); wherein the second voxel grid is associated with sensor data received by a third vehicle traversing a portion of an environment and the first voxel grid is associated with previously received sensor data (claim 27 or 34).
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Newman et al. (US 20140240690 A1) discloses a method and a computer program (para. 0048, 0050) for practicing the method, comprising: receiving a dataset comprising sensor data captured by a first sensor (one of sensors 102, 104 and 106 in Fig. 1) and a second sensor (another one of sensors 102, 104 and 106 in Fig. 1) of a vehicle (para. 0047, 0051); applying the dataset to a 3D space (para. 0052, 0056); determining a residual value (e.g. point cloud quality function, or voxel score) of the 3D space (para. 0061); perturbing (e.g., via the local offset between the vehicle origin and the sensor frame) the sensor data, a perturbation of one or more perturbations comprising at least one of a directional dimension or an orientation dimension corresponding to a translation or a rotation of the first sensor or the second sensor (para. 0053, 0056-0059, 0061); and identifying a transform to apply to at least one of the first sensor or the second sensor (para. 0053, 0056, 0061), the transform being associated with an optimized residual value for the 3D space (para. 0033, 0051: “ … so that all three sensors can be calibrated in the same way with respect to the vehicle frame”), and the transform comprising the at least one of the first translation or the first rotation of the first sensor from a first pose or the at least one of the second translation or the second rotation of the second sensor from a second pose (para. 0056-0059).
Rogan et al. (US 20150362587 A1) discloses a system/method for calibrating the orientation of a lidar sensor mounted to a vehicle (Abstract: ”… for lidar calibration by projecting a lidar pattern on a surface of the environment, and detecting changes in detected geometry from one or more locations”; see also para. 0019) comprising: receiving first sensor data (118 in Fig. 1) associated with a first position and a first orientation (para. 0005: “the orientation of a lidar sensor may be determined based on observations of the geometry observed by the lidar sensor as the lidar sensor moves through an environment”; para. 0006, 0020); associating the first sensor data with a first voxel grid (124 in Fig. 1), wherein the first voxel grid being a first three-dimensional representation of at least a first portion of an environment (para. 0020: “A registration 120 of the respective points with a coordinate space 122 enables the determination of volumetric pixels, or voxels 124, within an objective or stationary frame of reference with respect to the environment 102”; see also para. 0021-0022); determining a statistical measure associated with a voxel of the first voxel grid (para. 0055); determining a transformation associated with the first voxel grid and a second voxel grid (para. 0024: “detecting an orientation difference of a lidar sensor 112 with respect to a predicted orientation 200”; para. 0026: “A comparison 314 therefore reveals an orientation difference 316 …”; para. 0055: “Aggregation may also be utilized to determine the orientation difference 316 with respect to a predicted orientation 200”), wherein the second voxel grid (e.g., the voxel grid associated with the predicted orientation 200) being a second three-dimensional representation of at least a second portion of the environment (para. 0022: “The predicted orientation 200, … enables the determination of point clouds 118 within the map 116 of the vicinity of the lidar sensor 112”); and calibrating the lidar sensor based on the transformation (para. 0035: “… calibrates the lidar sensor 112 according to the orientation difference 316”).
Griesmeyer (US 9612316 B1) – Correlation And 3D-tracking Of Objects By Pointing Sensors.
Karlov et al. (US 10371784 B2) – System And Method For Multi-sensor Multi-target 3D Fusion Using An Unbiased Measurement Space.
KLANNER et al. (DE 102014215124 A1) – Mobile Unit And Method For Determining The Position Of An Environment Object Of A Mobile Unit.
Contact Information
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUQIN SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-2280. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. 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.
/X.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights