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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-23 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.
Claims 1, 7-9, 12 and 15 have been amended and claims 21-23 have been newly added.
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.
Claims 8 and 21-23 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.
Claims 8 and 21 recite the limitation "a three-dimensional model of the at least one structural feature”. It is not clear if this limitation refers back to the “3D model of the at least one structural”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggest keeping the language consistent.
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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Estep (US 2020/0264625) in view of Herat (US 2023/0348237).
Regarding claim 1, Estep discloses a robotic vehicle, comprising:
at least one processor in communication with at least one computer memory device (see at least paragraph 0112);
at least one vehicle-mounted sensor configured to acquire measurement data of at least one feature of the robotic vehicle (sensors; see at least paragraph 0043); and
an extrinsic calibration system comprising computer program code executable by the at least one processor to register the measurement data to a common coordinate frame to perform an extrinsic calibration of the at least one sensor (extrinsic camera calibration; see at least paragraphs 0044 and 0055).
Estep discloses the robotic vehicle and the extrinsic calibration systems, as above, but it not clear about at least one structural feature, wherein the at least one structural feature is part of the vehicle and used as a reference for calibration by the extrinsic calibration system independently of external environment features.
Herat discloses the above missing limitation; a crane structural component are used as a reference in a calibration system; see at least paragraphs 0130, 0132, 0147, 0151-0152, 0172 and 0184.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Estep by the teachings of Herat by having the above limitations for the purpose of mapping of a crane spreader and a crane spreader target; see at least the Abstract.
Regarding claim 2, Estep in view of Herat disclose the robotic vehicle of claim 1, wherein the measurement data includes point cloud data (Estep; see at least paragraphs 0053, 0065-0067 and 0070-0075).
Regarding claim 3, Estep in view of Herat disclose the robotic vehicle of claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform the extrinsic calibration of the at least one sensor based on the point cloud data (Estep; see at least paragraphs 0053-0054, 0057-0058, 0065-0067 and 0070-0074).
Regarding claim 4, Estep in view of Herat disclose the robotic vehicle of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one of a LIDAR scanner and a 3D camera (Estep; see at least paragraphs 0040, 0043, 0053 and 0114).
Regarding claim 5, Estep in view of Herat disclose the robotic vehicle of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor comprises a static sensor and the extrinsic calibration is provided based on a single measurement or multiple measurements from the static sensor (Estep; see at least paragraphs 0050 and 0119).
Regarding claim 6, Estep in view of Herat disclose the robotic vehicle of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor comprises an actuated sensor and the extrinsic calibration is provided based on multiple measurements from the actuated sensor (Estep; see at least paragraphs 0041 and 0068-0069).
Regarding claim 7, Estep in view of Herat disclose the robotic vehicle of claim 1, wherein the at least one structural feature is a pair of outriggers within a line-of-sight of the at least one sensor, the outriggers having a color providing a reflective surface for receiving a source of laser light that illuminates the outriggers, and wherein the at least one sensor measures a reflection of the laser light received from the outriggers (Estep; see at least paragraphs 0043, 0053, 0061-0062, 0074-0075 and 0077-0082 in view of Herat’s crane legs; see at least the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, Estep in view of Herat disclose the robotic vehicle of claim 7, wherein the extrinsic calibration system segments a 3D model of the outriggers from the at least one sensor to a point cloud and corrects a translation and rotation of a three- dimensional model of the outriggers with a point set of the point cloud (the Estep’s calibration system with the Herat’s 3D mapping/scanning; see at least paragraphs 0179 and 0200).
Regarding claim 9, Estep in view of Herat disclose the robotic vehicle of claim 1, wherein the at least one natural feature is a floor on which the robotic vehicle operates, wherein the extrinsic calibration system segments a 3D model from the at least one sensor to a point cloud and corrects a translation and rotation of a plane model of the floor with a point set of the point cloud (Estep; see at least paragraphs 0046, 0061-0062 and 0117 in view of Herat; see at least paragraphs 0179 and 0200).
Regarding claim 10, Estep in view of Herat disclose the robotic vehicle of claim 1, wherein the extrinsic calibration system recovers an actual position and orientation of the at least one sensor in a vehicle frame (Estep; see at least paragraphs 0054, 0071, 0089 and 0096).
Regarding claim 11, Estep in view of Herat disclose the robotic vehicle of claim 10, wherein the extrinsic calibration system corrects a nominal calibration of the at least one sensor by generating a first transform between a work frame and a calibration frame and a second transform between the initial sensor coordinate frame and a sensor frame (Estep; see at least paragraphs 0054, 0071, 0089 and 0096).
Claim 12 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 2.
Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 3.
Regarding claim 15, Estep in view of Herat disclose the method of claim 13, wherein the performing extrinsic calibration comprises:
acquiring the point cloud data from the at least one sensor (Estep; see at least paragraphs 0053-0054, 0057-0058, 0065-0067 and 0070-0074);
detecting structural features of the robotic vehicle (Estep; see at least paragraphs 0022, 0044, 0050 and 0094 in view of Herat’s structural components; see at least the rejection of claim 1);
automatically estimating the relative position and orientation of the structural features from the sensor measurements (Estep; see at least paragraphs and 0041, 0135, 0111, 0132 in view of Herat’s structural components s; see at least the rejection of claim 1);
mapping the relative position and orientation of the natural features to errors in sensor calibration (Estep; see at least paragraphs 0058-0059, 0073 and 0092-0093 in view of Herat’s structural components; see at least the rejection of claim 1); and
determining the extrinsic calibration that minimizes the errors (Estep; see at least paragraphs 0058-0059, 0073 and 0092-0093 in view of Herat’s structural components; see at least the rejection of claim 1).
Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 5.
Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 6.
Regarding claim 18, Estep in view of Herat disclose the method of claim 12, further comprising performing extrinsic calibration of the at least one sensor at regular intervals, or when certain program states are entered (Estep; see at least paragraphs 0041 and 0068-0069).
Claim 19 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 10.
Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 11.
Claim 21 is rejected on the same grounds as claims 1 and 8.
Regarding claim 22, Estep in view of Herat disclose the robotic vehicle of claim 1, wherein the at least one structural feature comprises an outrigger, wheel, floor contact surface, or other fixed component of the robotic vehicle (the crane’s structural components; Herat; as in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 23, Estep in view of Herat disclose the robotic vehicle of claim 1, wherein the extrinsic calibration system is configured to perform calibration in real-time during operation of the robotic vehicle (Estep; see at least paragraph 0041 in view of Herat’s crane during the crane’s operation; see at least paragraphs 0099 and 0114).
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 YASSIN ALATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5683. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7-4 ET.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at 571-272-4195. 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.
/YASSIN ALATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights