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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed on the IDS filed 7/15/2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 recites the following: “…determine a first position of the chassis based on the position of the geometric center of the first passive landmark relative to the first location, and the position of the geometric center of the second passive landmark relative to the second location.”
Examiner is interpreting this claim to mean that the position of the chassis is being determined based on the relative positions of both the first and second landmarks. However, the presence of the comma following “first location” could be read to mean that the processor is determining the position based on the first relative distance, and is separately determining the relative position of the second landmark.
Examiner suggests that the comma be removed from this limitation.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method of determining the distance traveled by a vehicle (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A mobility platform configured to execute one or more tasks in a worksite comprising a first passive landmark disposed at a first known landmark position, the mobility platform comprising:
a chassis;
a drive system supporting the chassis, wherein the drive system comprises at least two wheels, wherein the drive system is configured to move the mobility platform within the worksite;
a first laser rangefinder disposed on the chassis at a first location; and
at least one processor configured to:
sweep the first passive landmark with the first laser rangefinder to collect a first plurality of distance measurements for a first plurality of yaw angles;
fit a first shape to the first plurality of distance measurements based on a predetermined shape of the first passive landmark; and
determine a position of a geometric center of the first passive landmark relative to the first location of the first laser rangefinder based on the fit first shape.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers an activity of the human mind. For example, “fit…” in the context of the claim comprises a comparison of shapes. “determine…” in the context of the claim comprises a simple calculation.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A mobility platform configured to execute one or more tasks in a worksite comprising a first passive landmark disposed at a first known landmark position, the mobility platform comprising:
a chassis;
a drive system supporting the chassis, wherein the drive system comprises at least two wheels, wherein the drive system is configured to move the mobility platform within the worksite;
a first laser rangefinder disposed on the chassis at a first location; and
at least one processor configured to:
sweep the first passive landmark with the first laser rangefinder to collect a first plurality of distance measurements for a first plurality of yaw angles;
fit a first shape to the first plurality of distance measurements based on a predetermined shape of the first passive landmark; and
determine a position of a geometric center of the first passive landmark relative to the first location of the first laser rangefinder based on the fit first shape.
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations to not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of “a mobility platform,” the examiner submits that this is a generic vehicle recited at a high level of generality. Regarding the additional limitation of “a first passive landmark,” examiner asserts that this could be any recognizable physical object, again recited at a high level of generality. Regarding the additional limitation of “a chassis; a drive system…” the examiner submits that these are expected parts of a vehicle, again recited at a high level of generality. Regarding the additional limitations of “a first laser rangefinder… at least one processor…” the examiner submits that these are again generic and common vehicle and computer components recited at a high level of generality. Finally, regarding the additional limitation of “sweep the first passive landmark with the first laser rangefinder…” the examiner submits that this amounts to mere data gathering, which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use 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 not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. And as discussed above, the additional limitation of “a mobility platform,” is a generic vehicle recited at a high level of generality. Regarding the additional limitation of “a first passive landmark,” this could be any recognizable physical object, again recited at a high level of generality. Regarding the additional limitation of “a chassis; a drive system…” these are expected parts of a vehicle, again recited at a high level of generality. Regarding the additional limitations of “a first laser rangefinder… at least one processor…” these are again generic and common vehicle and computer components recited at a high level of generality. Finally, regarding the additional limitation of “sweep the first passive landmark with the first laser rangefinder…” amounts to mere data gathering, which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 14-15 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 2 and 6 describe a second detected landmark and third detected landmark. Claim 3 describes a second landmark and second rangefinder. the change in behavior when the vehicle is found not to obey a traffic rule. Claims 4-5 describe determining the orientation and position of the vehicle based on the detected landmarks. Claim 7 incorporates transmission of the detected information to a remote server. Claim 8 adds a marking device to the vehicle. Claim 9 incorporates an IR light and camera used to locate a landmark. Claim 10 provides additional detail on how the first set of yaw angles are determined. Claim 11 describes tracking the detected landmark. Claim 14 provides additional detail regarding the detected shape. Claim 15 provides additional detail regarding the kind of laser rangefinder used.
Regarding claims 16-19, the claims are directed to a method for operating the device of claims 1-4 and are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is directed to a computer program for operating the device of claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-11 and 14-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim 12 recites control over the movement of the vehicle. Therefore, claims 12-13 are not rejected under 35 USC §101.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-2, 12, 14, 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilhelm et al. (US 20220327737 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Wilhelm teaches: A mobility platform configured to execute one or more tasks in a worksite (See Wilhelm [0061]-[0062] for positioning for vehicles and applications including delivery or warehouse navigation) comprising a first passive landmark disposed at a first known landmark position, (See Wilhelm [0006]-[0009] for landmarks at known locations) the mobility platform comprising:
a chassis;
a drive system supporting the chassis, wherein the drive system comprises at least two wheels, wherein the drive system is configured to move the mobility platform within the worksite; (See Wilhelm [0062] for applications such as transportation or warehouse management, Fig. 8 for example vehicle. While chassis and drive wheels are not explicitly described, they are inherent components of such a vehicle.)
a first laser rangefinder disposed on the chassis at a first location; and (See Wilhelm [0056] for LIDAR laser rangefinder)
at least one processor configured to:
sweep the first passive landmark with the first laser rangefinder to collect a first plurality of distance measurements for a first plurality of yaw angles; (See Wilhelm [0055]-[0056] and throughout for ranging points of known landmarks and generation of point cloud from range data.)
fit a first shape to the first plurality of distance measurements based on a predetermined shape of the first passive landmark; and (See Wilhelm [0059] and throughout for matching known landmark shape onto detected shape to improve distance measurement)
determine a position of a geometric center of the first passive landmark relative to the first location of the first laser rangefinder based on the fit first shape. (See Wilhelm [0020] for determining center point of detected surface and determining t the distance to the landmark based on the detected center point)
Regarding claim 2, Wilhelm teaches: The mobility platform of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
sweep a second passive landmark disposed at a second known landmark position with the first laser rangefinder to collect a second plurality of distance measurements for a second plurality of yaw angles;
fit a second shape to the second plurality of distance measurements based on a predetermined shape of the second passive landmark; and
determine a position of a geometric center of the second passive landmark relative to the first location of the first laser rangefinder based on the fit second shape. (see Wilhelm [0011] and throughout for identification and range finding of one or more additional landmarks)
8. The mobility platform of claim 1, further comprising a marking device disposed on the chassis and configured to deposit marking material on a floor of the worksite.
Regarding claim 12, Wilhelm teaches: The mobility platform of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to command the drive system to move the mobility platform along a drive path to perform the one or more tasks at one or more task locations in the worksite. (See Wilhelm [0062] for improved autonomous navigation, [0108] for vehicles required to know their position in order to perform tasks)
Regarding claim 14, Wilhelm teaches: The mobility platform of claim 1, wherein the first shape is an ellipse. (See Wilhelm Fig. 11 and [0024], [0090] for detection of curves. Examiner notes that paragraph [0127] the present application describes the detection of a “partial arc of an ellipse shape” in regard to Fig. 10, corresponding to cylindrical landmarks. Examiner further notes that circles are a particular kind of ellipse. Examiner therefore believes that Wilhelm’s detection of circular and spherical surfaces teaches the detection of ellipses.)
Regarding claims 16-17, the claims are directed to a method for operating the device of claims 1-2 and are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is directed to a computer program for operating the device of claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale.
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.
Claims 3-7, 9-11 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilhelm et al. (US 20220327737 A1) in view of Verghese et al. (US 20210195112 A1)
Regarding claim 3, Wilhelm teaches: The mobility platform of claim 1, … wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
sweep a second passive landmark disposed at a second known landmark position with the [second] laser rangefinder to collect a second plurality of distance measurements for a second plurality of yaw angles;
fit a second shape to the second plurality of distance measurements based on a predetermined shape of the second passive landmark; and
determine a position of a geometric center of the second passive landmark relative to the [second] location of the second laser rangefinder based on the fit second shape. (see Wilhelm [0011] and throughout for identification and range finding of one or more additional landmarks)
Wilhelm does not explicitly teach:
…further comprising a second laser rangefinder disposed on the chassis at a second location different the first location,
However, Verghese teaches a vehicle (See Verghese [0031] for examples) including a LIDAR system to assist in navigation and identify features of the road or other objects (See Verghese [0018]-[0019]) which incorporates multiple LIDAR systems (See Verghese Fig. 2 and [0065]-[0067] for vehicle with first LIDAR 204 and second LIDAR 206, 212, 214, which may provide alternate functionality).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the application, to modify the vehicle of Wilhelm to incorporate multiple LIDAR systems as taught in Verghese, in order to improve the field of view in which landmarks can be identified, or to provide additional functionality.
Regarding claim 4, modified Wilhelm teaches: The mobility platform of claim 3, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine a first orientation of the mobility platform based on first yaw angle information from at least one of the first laser rangefinder and the second laser rangefinder. (See Wilhelm [0054] and throughout for estimation of vehicle position based on landmark range data. See Wilhelm [0062] for improved autonomous navigation. While Wilhelm does not explicitly recite an orientation, accurate navigation inherently requires both position and orientation information.)
Regarding claim 5, modified Wilhelm teaches: The mobility platform of claim 3, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine a first position of the chassis based on the position of the geometric center of the first passive landmark relative to the first location, and the position of the geometric center of the second passive landmark relative to the second location. (See Wilhelm [0054] and throughout for estimation of vehicle position based on landmark range data)
Regarding claim 6, modified Wilhelm teaches: The mobility platform of claim 3, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
sweep a third passive landmark disposed at a third known landmark position with the first laser rangefinder to collect a third plurality of distance measurements for a third plurality of yaw angles;
fit a third shape to the third plurality of distance measurements based on a predetermined shape of the third passive landmark; and
determine a position of a geometric center of the third passive landmark relative to the first location of the first laser rangefinder based on the fit third shape. (see Wilhelm [0011] and throughout for identification and range finding of one or more additional landmarks)
Regarding claim 7, modified Wilhelm teaches: The mobility platform of claim 6, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to transmit the position of the geometric center of the third passive landmark to a remote server. (See Wilhelm [0149] for computer system in communication with external resources that may include a server. See Verghese [0063] for cloud-based server that may host data storage 114. See Verghese [0082] for server computing system which may perform described operations, which would require that sensor data be sent to the server for analysis.)
Regarding claim 9, Wilhelm teaches: The mobility platform of claim 1, further comprising a camera (See Wilhelm Fig. 3 and throughout for camera)…, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
…
image the first passive landmark with the camera;
detect one or more characteristics of the first passive landmark …; and
determine a targeting yaw angle based on the reflective pattern. (See Wilhelm [0006]-[0011] and throughout for capturing two-dimensional image, identifying an object that corresponds to a landmark, collecting range data for the identified landmarks. See [0064] for characteristics of landmarks that may include infrared strength. See [0106] for camera which may operate in IR spectrum.)
Wilhelm does not explicitly teach:
…and an infrared light source disposed on the first laser rangefinder…
illuminate the first passive landmark with the infrared light source;
… based on a reflective pattern of infrared light…
However, Verghese teaches a vehicle using cameras and LIDAR to navigate (See Verghese Fig. 2 and [0065]-[0067]) including illuminating an object with a predetermined light pattern, which may be infrared light, and detecting the pattern with a camera (See Verghese [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the application, to modify the vehicle of Wilhelm to incorporate the projected light pattern of Verghese in order to improve the accuracy of the camera identifying and locating predetermined landmarks.
Regarding claim 10, modified Wilhelm teaches: The mobility platform of claim 9, the at least one processor is further configured to determine the first plurality of yaw angles based on the targeting yaw angle. (See Wilhelm [0006]-[0011] and throughout for capturing two-dimensional image, identifying an object that corresponds to a landmark, collecting range data for the identified landmarks.)
Regarding claim 11, modified Wilhelm teaches: The mobility platform of claim 9, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to, based on information from the camera, track the first passive landmark with the first laser rangefinder. (See Verghese [0050] for video tracking and tracking of perceived objects)
Regarding claims 18-19, the claims are directed to a method for operating the device of claims 3-4 and are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilhelm et al. (US 20220327737 A1) in view of Rhoades et al. (US 20240319747 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Wilhelm teaches: The mobility platform of claim 1,
Wilhelm does not explicitly teach: further comprising a marking device disposed on the chassis and configured to deposit marking material on a floor of the worksite.
However, Rhoades teaches an autonomous ground-marking system for applying markings such as ink or paint (See Rhoades [0001] and throughout) which places marking relative to recognized landmarks (See Rhoades [0140], [0165]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the application, to modify the vehicle of Wilhelm to perform ground-marking tasks, as taught in Rhoades, to provide an accurate means of autonomous marking.
Regarding claim 13, Wilhelm teaches: The mobility platform of claim 12,
Wilhelm does not explicitly teach: wherein the one or more tasks comprise marking a floor of the worksite with a marking material.
However, Rhoades teaches an autonomous ground-marking system for applying markings such as ink or paint (See Rhoades [0001] and throughout) which places marking relative to recognized landmarks (See Rhoades [0140], [0165]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the application, to modify the vehicle of Wilhelm to perform ground-marking tasks, as taught in Rhoades, to provide an accurate means of autonomous marking.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilhelm et al. (US 20220327737 A1) in view of O’Keeffe (US 20180059248 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Wilhelm teaches: The mobility platform of claim 1,
Wilhelm does not explicitly teach: wherein the first laser rangefinder is a phase shift rangefinder.
However, O’Keeffe teaches a dynamically steered laser rangefinder for use on an autonomous vehicle (See O’Keeffe [0004]) and determination of distance based on phase angle of reflected light (See O’Keeffe [0099]-[0100], [0153]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle of Wilhelm to incorporate the phase-angle detection of O’Keeffe in order to improve the accuracy of the range detection of the lidar systems of Wilhelm.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB KENT BESTEMAN-STREET whose telephone number is (571)272-2501. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00-5:00. 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, Peter Nolan can be reached on 571-270-7016. 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.
/JACOB KENT BESTEMAN-STREET/
Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights