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 .
Response to Amendment/Arguments
The 02/02/2026 Amendments to the claims are entered. Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 13, and 15 are amended. Claims 2, 8, and 14 are canceled. No claims are newly added. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-13, and 15-18 remain pending.
The Prior Art Rejections
Applicant’s 02/02/2026 arguments with respect to claims 1, 7, and 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2020176838 A1 to Dhayalkar, Sahil et al. (“Dhayalkar”).
Regarding claim 1, Dhayalkar teaches a robot (Dhayalkar [0026]), comprising:
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising a plurality of computer readable instructions stored thereon (Dhayalkar [0040]); and
a controller (Dhayalkar FIG. 1: Controller 118.) configured to execute the computer readable instructions to:
produce one or more computer readable maps during navigation of the robot along a route based on sensor data collected by the robot (Dhayalkar [0064]: “A robot 102 navigating any route 204 may, upon completion of the route 204, generate a route key. The route key may comprise, for example, a memory pointer, encryption key, or other method of storing route data (i.e., state point data of pose graphs) and computer-readable map data (i.e., objects detected using sensor units 114) in a memory 120 of the robot 102. The route key, however, may only comprise route and map data of which the robot 102 has navigated and sensed.”);
impose a mesh over the one or more computer readable maps (Dhayalkar [0063]: “Each of these routes 204 may comprise a plurality of state points 208 denoting positions and state parameters (e.g., X-Y position, angle, velocity, etc.) of a robot 102 at discrete points along the routes . . . .” The state points representing position in x-y coordinates taken as a representation of position on an x-y mesh.);
align the one or more computer readable maps to a second computer readable map based on a first transformation (Dhayalkar FIGS. 9A-C, [00108]: “FIG. 9C illustrates map 902-B aligned with a global map 904 based on a scan match transformation”.), the second computer readable map being produced by either the robot or another separate robot using their respective sensors during autonomous navigation (Dhayalkar [0069]: “ . . . . a global route 302 may be generated by a robot 102 in an exploration mode. For example, the robot 102 may begin at point 202-A and autonomously explore (e.g., using an area fill algorithm, random walk, etc.) the environment whilst collecting sensor data of, for example, localized objects 206 within the environment.”) and having a second coordinate system origin distinct from the first coordinate system origin (Dhayalkar FIG. 9B, [00106]: “The operator may provide a starting location 402 and starting direction 404 with some error. A distance between origin 202-A and the input 402 may provide (x, y) parameters of measurement 406 and the angular difference between a 0° angle of origin 202-A and the angle of direction 404 may provide the (f) parameter.”), wherein the first transformation is determined by aligning at least one shared object present in both the one or more computer readable maps and the second computer readable map (Dhayalkar [00107]: “Following method 700, a scan match transformation between objects 906 (grey) of the global map 904 and objects 908 (hashed) of the map 902-B may be determined. The objects 906 and 908 may be represented by point clouds, wherein the scan matching may utilize a nearest neighboring algorithm to match points of the point cloud which represent the same objects. The scan matching algorithm may determine a (x, y, Q) change to the map 902-B which minimizes the discrepancy between the map 902-B and the global map 904.”); and
adjust the mesh based on the first transformation (Dhayalkar [00107]: “The scan matching algorithm may determine a (x, y, Q) change to the map 902-B which minimizes the discrepancy between the map 902-B and the global map 904.” A transform to all coordinates of the map 902-B, represented by an x-y grid as disclosed above, taken as adjusting the mesh of the map 902-B to the global map.).
Regarding claim 3, Dhayalkar teaches the robot of claim 1, wherein,
the mesh is defined by a grid of points (Dhayalkar [0063]: “Each of these routes 204 may comprise a plurality of state points 208 denoting positions and state parameters (e.g., X-Y position, angle, velocity, etc.) of a robot 102 at discrete points along the routes . . . .” X-Y positions taken as represented on an X-Y grid.); and
the first transform comprises adjustment of the grid of the mesh (Dhayalkar [00107], FIGS. 9A-C: Applying a transform to match the X-Y grid of a local map to the X-Y grid of the global map broadly interpreted as adjusting the grid.).
Claim 7 is rejected over similar reasons to claim 1, applied to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising a plurality of computer readable instructions stored thereon.
Claim 9 is rejected over similar reasons to claim 3, applied to the non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising a plurality of computer readable instructions stored thereon of claim 7.
Claim 13 is rejected over similar reasons to claim 1, applied to the method of claim 13.
Claim 15 is rejected over similar reasons to claim 3, applied to the method of claim 13.
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 4, 6, 10, 12, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhayalkar as applied to claims 1, 7, and 13 above, and further in view of JP 20190179217 A to Miyagawa, Tadahisa (“Miyagawa”).
The Examiner notes he will continue to use the machine-translated copy of Miyagawa with added paragraph numbers furnished in the previous 11/10/2025 Office Action for the sake of expedience.
Regarding claim 4, Dhayalkar teaches the robot of Claim 3.
Dhayalkar does not appear to expressly teach wherein, the mesh comprises a plurality of triangles; and
the first transform comprises manipulating an area encompassed within the triangles.
However, Miyagawa teaches wherein, the mesh comprises a plurality of triangles (Miyagawa (30): “Alternatively, the grid points may be set in a triangular lattice shape to set a triangular mesh.” Miyagawa teaches that the grid points that represent a map can comprise a triangular lattice shape.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the system that represents locations a map using an x-y grid mesh and performs a transformation to align that map with another map taught by Dhayalkar with the system that represents a mesh as grid points arranged in a triangular lattice shape and performs transforms on the resulting mesh taught by Miyagawa. Doing so would have allowed the system to represent the locations on a triangular lattice, improving the accuracy of these representations.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the above combination of Dhayalkar and Miyagawa teaches the first transform comprises manipulating an area encompassed within the triangles (One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the linear transformations performed by Dhayalkar on the grid points would have been performed on the triangular lattice grid points of Miyagawa in the above combination.).
Claim 10 is rejected over similar reasons to claim 4, applied to the instructions of claim 7.
Claim 16 is rejected over similar reasons to claim 4, applied to the method of claim 13.
Regarding claim 6, Dhayalkar teaches the robot of Claim 1.
While teaching a grid of X-Y coordinates to represent location that is broadly interpreted as a mesh overlaid on the map, Dhayalkar does not appear to expressly teach the mesh defines a plurality of areas; and
the adjusting of the mesh comprises of one or more affine transformations of a respective one of the plurality of areas.
However, Miyagawa teaches the mesh defines a plurality of areas (Miyagawa FIGS. 2-6, 9, 12-13: Miyagawa depicts a plurality of areas defined by the grid points.); and
the adjusting of the mesh comprises of one or more affine transformations of a respective one of the plurality of areas (Miyagawa (32), FIG. 5: “Then, the points in each mesh M are affine transformed to deform the high-accuracy map in mesh units, and the deformed high-accuracy maps are combined as shown in FIG.” One of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that combined with Dhayalkar, the grid point representations of route locations of that reference would have been affine transformed as taught by Miyagawa.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the system that represents route locations as locations on an X-Y grid and transforms those locations to match them to another map taught by Dhayalkar with the system that represents a grid of points as a mesh defining a plurality of areas, affine transforming those areas to match maps taught by Miyagawa. Doing so would have improved the ability of the system to transform the maps for matching by providing another transformation to use toward that end.
Claim 12 is rejected over similar reasons to claim 6, applied to the instructions of claim 7.
Claim 18 is rejected over similar reasons to claim 6, applied to the method of claim 13.
Claims 5, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhayalkar in view of Miyagawa as applied to the relevant claims above, in view of US 20050116949 A1 to Hoppe, Hugues (“Hoppe”), and further in view of US 20140278055 A1 to Wang, Yin et al. (“Wang”).
Regarding claim 5, the above combination of Dhayalkar and Miyagawa teaches the robot of Claim 4.
This combination does not appear to expressly teach wherein the controller is further configured to execute the computer readable instructions to:
detect if one or more of the triangles have collapsed; and
determine the first transform yields a discontinuous map.
However, Hoppe teaches wherein the controller is further configured to execute the computer readable instructions to:
detect if one or more of the triangles have collapsed (Hoppe [0051]: “FIG. 3 illustrates an edge collapse 100 operation. An edge collapse (ecol) is the fundamental operation for simplifying a mesh. During an edge collapse, an edge within the mesh is removed, and the associated vertices collapsed into a single vertex.” Understood from the description and FIG. 3 that when an edge is collapsed, a triangle is collapsed with it. Hoppe [0055]: “Comparisons can be made between any mesh LOD, not just an immediately preceding/following mesh level. For example, the heuristic h can compare any potential mesh (defined by proposed edge collapse operations) against the original fully detailed mesh M.sup.n. (Comparing to M.sup.n is the preferred method for approximation-error calculation.)” Such a comparison inherently requires detection of the collapse of an edge, and by extension, a triangle.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the system that adjusts a mesh on a map to correct discontinuities taught by the above combination of Dhayalkar and Miyagawa with the system that adjusts a mesh on a map by performing edge collapses. Doing so would have improved the smoothness of the mesh and maps, allowing “the rendered scenes be presented smoothly to a viewer/user, but without mesh popping” as taught in [0100] of Hoppe.
The above combination of Miyagawa and Hoppe does not appear to expressly teach an instruction to determine the first transform yields a discontinuous map.
However, Wang teaches an instruction to determine the first transform yields a discontinuous map (Wang [0023]: “The map matching module . . . processes those GPS traces by matching them to a road defined in the digital map.”, Wang [0024]: “Where the GPS traces (135) do not match a road defined in the digital map, the unmatched trace (150) to which the GPS traces (135) are correlated with is sent to the unmatched segment module . . ..”, Wang FIGS. 1, 5: Wang depicts that unmatched segment data is sent to a map updating module so that the map may be updated. Unmatched segment data taken as discontinuities yielding a discontinuous map. The Examiner notes that here, APOSITA would have understood that the map matching of Wang would have been repeatedly performed as a separate step from the map deformation taught by the combination of Dhayalkar and Miyagawa, see for example Wang [0060]. The Examiner further notes that as written, determining the first transform yields a discontinuous map does not necessarily require that the determination be based off the detected triangle collapse.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the map updating system that deforms maps to match ground-truth data taught by the above combination of Dhayalkar, Miyagawa, and Hoppe with the map updating system that detects discontinuities in map data while matching it with ground-truth data, then updating the map with those discontinuities taught by Wang. Doing so would have improved the accuracy of the map updating system by allowing it to update the stored maps with changes over time as suggested in for example the Abstract of Wang.
Claim 11 is rejected over similar reasons to claim 5, applied to the instructions of claim 7.
Claim 17 is rejected over similar reasons to claim 5, applied to the method of claim 13.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY RICHARD HINTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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.
/HENRY R HINTON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights