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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In Claim 1, several elements are listed that appear to lack necessary structural details – including “hybrid, solid-state lidar”, “camera”, “coupling”, “buck modules”. Neither claim 1 nor the specification provide any details on a “hybrid, solid-state lidar”. It appears as if this is a 1 or 2 dimensional (not specified) lidar device with an internal mirror and having transmit/receive capability. Correction is required.
Neither Claim 1 nor the specification provide details on the “camera” besides “configured for video”. It appears as if this camera requires specific features that should be disclosed in order to perform a SLAM algorithm. Correction is required.
Neither Claim 1 nor the specification provide details for “coupling”. Is this an electrical connector, and between what two elements? Or is it a mechanical coupling, and which elements does it couple together? Furthermore – applicant should amend the limitation in Claim 1 to make it clear that a rotating mechanism comprises which elements, and how they are connected. Correction is required.
Neither Claim 1 nor the specification provide details on “buck modules”. It appears as if these devices are used for DC-DC step down converters to reduce input voltage – but no specifics are provided as to how many there are, where they are placed or connected, or what voltages they convert via input to output. Correction is required.
Claim 1 is unclear as to what the stepper motor is used to move, and what the motor drive is used to control. Correction is required.
Regarding Claim 2 (and subsequently claims 3-12), this is an improper dependent claim as Claims 2-12 are method claims, but claim dependency on a device/apparatus in Claim 1. Furthermore, many of the specific structural elements in Claim 1 appear to have no relevance or connection to dependent Claims 2-12. Applicant is advised to amend Claim 2 to be an independent method claim, and specify in a series of active method steps, which essential elements perform the individual method functions.
Regarding Claim 2, applicant has at least two conditional statements (steps 4 and 5) that only have an output or desired outcome when the IF condition is TRUE, but are silent when the IF condition is FALSE.
In Claim 5, the phrase “employing minimal preprocessing with two filters, namely, a box filter and a downsampling voxel filter” is unclear. “Employing” is not specific, and if the box and downsampling filter are what are necessary to perform the functions, then they need to be positively, not passively, recited. Correction is required.
Applicant is advised to ensure that proper antecedent basis is present for all limitations in Claims 2-12.
Dependent Claims 3-12 are summarily rejected as being dependent on rejected claims 1-2.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhang (US 2020/0217666).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhang discloses an external rotation 3D lidar device [Fig 1], comprising: a processor [#134 of Fig 1], a hybrid solid-state lidar [0287], a camera [#104 of Fig 1], a slip ring [0181], a coupling [0096-97; 0150], a stepper motor [#108, #109 of Fig 1], a pulse generator [0218-19; 0225], buck modules, a power distribution board, a power supply [0181-83], and a motor drive [#109, #109 of Fig 1], wherein the processor is mounted above the hybrid solid-state lidar and is configured to receive real- time data of the hybrid solid-state lidar [0069-73]; the camera is fixedly mounted on one side of the hybrid solid-state lidar and is configured to record videos [0063; 0069; 0070; 0093]; the stepper motor and the slip ring are both connected to the hybrid solid-state lidar via the coupling [#108, #109 of Fig 1; 0069-72], that is, the stepper motor, the slip ring, the coupling, and the hybrid solid-state lidar form a rotating mechanism [0069-72]; the pulse generator is configured to control the motor drive and accordingly control the stepper motor [0218-19; 0225]; power provided by the power supply is split by the power distribution board into four paths, two of the four paths being configured for powering the pulse generator and the motor drive, and other two of the four paths being configured for powering the processor and the hybrid solid-state lidar through the buck modules and the slip ring [0069-72; 0181-83].
Regarding Claim 2, Zhang discloses a simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) method adapted to the external rotation 3D lidar device [0061; 0064; 0157-62]… acquiring data of an inertial measurement unit (IMU) and predicting an IMU state according to the data of the IMU to obtain an initial value of the IMU state [0068-76]; (2) performing a nearest neighbor motion compensation on an original point cloud of the hybrid solid-state lidar [0068-76] to restore a real scene structure based on the initial value of the IMU state obtained [0115] in the step (1); (3) filtering a point cloud obtained by the nearest neighbor motion compensation in the step (2) to obtain a filtered point cloud; (4) performing k-nearest neighbor (KNN) search on the filtered point cloud; finding, in a local map, five nearest points to each point in the filtered point cloud for plane fitting [0076-78; 0113; 0158-62] ; and if plane conditions are satisfied, computing a normal vector to a plane and computing a distance from the each point to the plane as a lidar residual [0076-78; 0102; 0113; 0158-62; 0282]; ; (5) inputting the lidar residual obtained in the step (4) and the initial value of the IMU state [0068-76] obtained in the step (1) into an error-state iterated Kalman filter [0077], to form a maximum a posteriori probability problem and solve the problem iteratively [0077], wherein when an update amount is less than a set threshold, iteration convergence occurs [0129; 0165] and an optimal pose estimate of a current frame is output [0078; 0080; 0091]; and (6) performing loop-closure frame detection [0164-66; 0186-91] based on the optimal pose estimate obtained in the step (5) and the filtered point cloud obtained [0061; 0064; 0071; 0073] in the step (3); performing loop-closure verification after a loop-closure frame is detected, wherein if a loop-closure is verified, a pose graph optimization is performed and an optimization result is updated into an odometry and a map, and if the loop-closure is invalid, no processing is performed; and outputting a global map when a robot task is completed [0164-66; 0186-91]
Claim Objections
Claims 3-12 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, and indefiniteness rejections are overcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES R HULKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7553. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 9am-6pm, F: 10am-2pm.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at 5712705227. 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.
JAMES R. HULKA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3645
/JAMES R HULKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights