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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/18/2026, were filed before the
mailing of a First Office Action on the Merits. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37
CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 06/22/2026 have been entered. Claims 16-34 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previously noted claim objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, and as such, those sections have been removed. Regarding Applicant’s arguments (see pages 10-11, filed 06/22/2026) with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 16-34 under 35 U.S.C. 103, the examiner has fully considered them and has found them persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Romanov et al., US 20160144511 A1, herein referred to as Romanov, and Pajovic et al., US 20200164508 A1, herein referred to as Pajovic.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 16-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Romanov et al., US 20160144511 A1, herein referred to as Romanov, and in view of Pajovic et al., US 20200164508 A1, herein referred to as Pajovic.
Regarding claim 16, Romanov discloses capturing a plurality of images at different time instances using a sensing device (Paragraph 0047; multiple images may be taken over time by multiple imaging devices), determining an image disparity between the captured images by spatially transforming a subsequent image to align with an initial image (Paragraphs 0047-0048; images at subsequent time are compared to each other; these comparisons may include determining distances (transforms) between trackable features), determining a change in pose of the sensing device due to the robot moving, wherein the change in pose is determined based on the image disparity (Paragraphs 0047-0048, 0061; visual odometry may be used to determine changes between tracked features in subsequent images; this odometry may produce odometry data which can include VSLAM data which can include pose/position), determining a first motion of the robot based on the determined change in pose of the sensing device (Paragraphs 0047-0048, 0061, 0068; motion may be determined based on visual odometry), determining a second motion of the robot based on data from at least one proprioceptive sensor (Paragraph 0053, 0062; other movement data (motion) may be determined from data from other sensors including IMUs, gyroscopes, accelerometers, etc.), determining the pose of the sensing device based on a motion disparity between the first motion determined from the change in pose of the sensing device and the second motion of the robot (Paragraph 0104; a location of the robot may be determined based on a comparison between the visual odometry data and the IMU data), and localizing an object on a computer readable map (Paragraph 0058; mapping of objects in the environment may be performed based on the current location of the robot), but fails to disclose determining a second motion of the robot based on data from at least one proprioceptive sensor, wherein the second motion is determined using a probabilistic distribution of the pose of the robot, and localizing an object on a computer readable map based at least in part on a most probable pose of the sensing device.
However, Pajovic, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches determining a second motion of the robot based on data from at least one interoceptive sensor, wherein the second motion is determined using a probabilistic distribution of the pose of the robot (Paragraphs 0056-0063; a robot’s future pose may be determined based on a probability distribution of possible poses), and localizing an object on a computer readable map based at least in part on a most probable pose of the sensing device (Paragraphs 0056-0063; obstacles may be determined based on the robot’s pose during traversal; pose probability may also affect the obstacle placement in a map (obstacles located based on likely robot pose)). Therefore, from the teaching of Paovic, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified, with a reasonable expectation for success, the robotic invention of Romanov to include determining a second motion of the robot based on data from at least one interoceptive sensor, wherein the second motion is determined using a probabilistic distribution of the pose of the robot, and localizing an object on a computer readable map based at least in part on a most probable pose of the sensing device, as taught/suggested by Pajovic. The motivation to do so would be to determine motion of a robot based on probability, as well as determine likely obstacle around locations where the robot is likely to be. This can allow for better navigation as the robot can determine obstacles ahead of time and can initiate better avoidance maneuvers.
Regarding claim 17, Romanov in view of Pajovi renders obvious all the limitations of claim 16. Romanov further discloses updating the pose of the robot based on the determined pose of the sensing device (Paragraphs 0047-0048; the optical odometry process may be continuously performed to determine the relative motion (and position) of the robot; by continuously performing this process, the pose/position of the robot may be updated), but fails to disclose updating the probabilistic distribution of the pose of the robot based on the determined pose of the sensing device. However, the obviousness of utilizing a probabilistic distribution is shown in the rationale for claim 16 and would be applicable here as well.
Regarding claim 18, Romanov in view of Pajovic renders obvious all the limitations of claim 16. Romanov further discloses determining the second motion of the robot comprises: representing the pose of the robot with a plurality of particles, each particle having a position and an orientation (Paragraphs 0052, 0062; a position and orientation of the robot may be determined from movement information from various sensors (IMU, gyroscope, etc.); these positions and orientations may be considered as ‘particles’ as they are singular data points that may be updated over time and are stored on the map), and updating the positions and orientations of the particles based on the data from the at least one proprioceptive sensor (Paragraphs 0052, 0062; positions and orientations may be updated continuously based on the sensor data).
Regarding claim 19, Romanov in view of Pajovic renders obvious all the limitations of claim 18. Romanov further discloses updating the positions and orientations of the particles is performed sequentially (Paragraphs 0052, 0062; position and orientation of the robot may be updated as time progresses; this can be considered a sequential update).
Regarding claim 20, Romanov in view of Pajovic renders obvious all the limitations of claim 16. Romanov further discloses capturing the plurality of images comprises capturing a first image at an initial time instance and capturing a second image at a subsequent time instance using the sensing device, wherein the first image and the second image comprise pixels of at least one target object (Paragraphs 0047-0048; images are captured at subsequent times utilizing the visual odometry sensors (cameras); both first and second (subsequent) images may include pixels that correspond to a tracked feature).
Regarding claim 21, Romanov in view of Pajovic renders obvious all the limitations of claim 20. Romanov further discloses determining the change in pose of the sensing device based on spatial transformations applied to the subsequent image (Paragraphs 0047-0048; changes in position of the robot based on visual odometry may be based on changes in distance between given tracked features; these distances between given tracked features can be considered as a spatial transform (translation, etc.)).
Regarding claim 22, Romanov in view of Pajovic renders obvious all the limitations of claim 20. Romanov further discloses the sensing device comprises at least one of a stereo camera or a depth sensor (Paragraphs 0047-0048; the sensors used for visual odometry may be one or more cameras; these cameras may track a depth of a ground surface; this can be considered as the cameras being depth sensors).
Regarding claim 23, Romanov in view of Pajovic renders obvious all the limitations of claim 16. Romanov further discloses wherein the at least one proprioceptive sensor comprises at least one of an inertial measurement unit (IMU), an encoder, a gyroscope, or an accelerometer (Paragraph 0053, 0062; other movement data (motion) may be determined from data from other sensors including IMUs, gyroscopes, accelerometers, etc.).
Regarding claim 24, Romanov in view of Pajovic renders obvious all the limitations of claim 20. Romanov further discloses determining an expected measurement of at least one target object at an expected position of the robot based on odometry data (at least Paragraph 0068; visual odometry sensors may estimate motion and position of the robot based on the given odometry data; the visual odometry sensors may be directed towards a tracking surface which can correspond to an expected robot position), and determining an actual position of the robot based on a difference between the expected measurement and an actual measurement of the at least one target object obtained from the captured images (at least Paragraph 0068; motion and positioning of the robot may be determined from differences between tracked surfaces and associated tracked features (expected and actual)).
Regarding claim 25, Romanov in view of Pajovic renders obvious all the limitations of claim 24. Romanov further discloses wherein the determining the actual position of the robot compensates for wheel slippage experienced by the robot during navigation based on the difference between the expected measurement and the actual measurement (at least Paragraphs 0105-0106; the robot may determine actual positioning of the robot in the instance of wheel slippage; this can be determined based on the sensors not providing accurate data; this can be determined based on motion not being detected which corresponds to expected vs. actual data (no motion) for a given sensor).
Regarding claim 26, a portion of the claim limitations are similar to those in claim 16 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 16. Additionally, Romanov discloses a processor (at least Fig. 10, Paragraph 0005; system may include a processor).
Regarding claims 27-31 and 33, the claims limitations are similar to those in claims 17-21 and 24, respectively, and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claims 17-21 and 24.
Regarding claim 32, the claim limitations are similar to those in claims 22 and 23, and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claims 22 and 23.
Regarding claim 34, the claim limitations are similar to those in claim 25 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 25.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16-34 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER ALLEN BUKSA whose telephone number is (571)272-5346. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30 PM.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A BUKSA/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights