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 two information disclosure statements filed 27 May 2026 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. The Examiner notes that copies of several of the foreign patent literature and most of the non-patent literature can be found in the file and have been considered in a cursory manner.
Due to the large volume of material presented in the two information disclosure statements filed 27 May 2026 (including numerous non-patent literature documents and applications without making reference to how they are relevant or related), Applicant’s IDSs have received only a cursory consideration wherein U.S. patent literation was crossed with a text search and all other references received only a quick glance.
Significantly, an applicant's duty of disclosure of material information is not satisfied by presenting a patent examiner with “a mountain of largely irrelevant [material] from which he is presumed to have been able, with his expertise and with adequate time, to have found the critical [material]. It ignores the real world conditions under which examiners work.” Rohm & Haas Co. v. Crystal Chemical Co., 722 F.2d 1556, 1573 [220 USPQ 289] (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
The purpose of this comment is to document on the record that the disclosed prior art has only received a cursory consideration. Should this level of consideration be acceptable to the Applicant, no further action is needed. However, should Applicant desire a more thorough consideration of the disclosed prior art, Applicants are requested to identify the relevant references including relevant sections highlighted in each of the relevant references, since they are believed to be the most knowledgeable about the content of the information included in the IDS. If Applicants indicate that all the submitted documents are highly pertinent, then they are requested to provide an explanation of the pertinence of every single cited reference in the Information Disclosure Statement. This information is necessary to more thoroughly evaluate the large volume of prior art submitted with the IDS.
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.
Claims 16-18, 20-29, and 31-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 16 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 16 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a process which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 16 recites:
A method for determining a pose of a sensor on a robot, the method comprising:
determining, via a controller of the robot, a sensor transformation matrix based on a scan matching between measurements of a common reference object measured by a first range sensor and a second range sensor mounted on the robot, the robot being either an autonomous or a semi- autonomous vehicle, wherein,
the scan matching being performed within a base link frame of reference of the robot,
the sensor transformation matrix comprising a spatial transformation between sensor data of a common reference object detected by the first range sensor and the second range sensor,
and the scan matching aligns measurements by the first range sensor to match measurements of the second range sensor;
and determining, via the controller, a pose graph based on the sensor transformation matrix of the first range sensor, sensor transformation matrices of the second range sensor, and a transformation between local origins of the first range sensor and the second range sensor.
The highlighted portion of claim 16 above is both a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and a series of mathematical calculations and is, therefore, an abstract idea.1 It merely consists of mathematically determining a sensor transformation based on scan matching, where the scan matching a) is performed within a base link frame of reference, b) comprises a spatial transformation between the sensor data of two sensors, and c) aligns measurements of the two sensors to match; and determining a pose graph based on the sensor transformation matrix. This is equivalent to a person calculating transformations between sensors based on mis-matches between gathered sensor data.
The grouping of “mathematical concepts” in the 2109 PEG is not limited to formulas or equations, and in fact specifically includes “mathematical calculations” as an exemplar of a mathematical concept. 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus the claim recites a concept that falls in to the “mathematical concept” group of abstract ideas, as well as a mental process.
The Examiner further notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). As such, a person can mathematically determine transformations between sensors data and poses of the sensors themselves. The mere nominal recitation that the steps are being executed by a computer (or autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle) does not take the limitation out of the mental process grouping. Notably, the claim does not positively recite any limitations regarding actual application of the transformations for calibrating the sensors. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 16 recites:
A method for determining a pose of a sensor on a robot, the method comprising:
determining, via a controller of the robot, a sensor transformation matrix based on a scan matching between measurements of a common reference object measured by a first range sensor and a second range sensor mounted on the robot, the robot being either an autonomous or a semi- autonomous vehicle, wherein,
the scan matching being performed within a base link frame of reference of the robot,
the sensor transformation matrix comprising a spatial transformation between sensor data of a common reference object detected by the first range sensor and the second range sensor,
and the scan matching aligns measurements by the first range sensor to match measurements of the second range sensor;
and determining, via the controller, a pose graph based on the sensor transformation matrix of the first range sensor, sensor transformation matrices of the second range sensor, and a transformation between local origins of the first range sensor and the second range sensor.
The highlighted portion of claim 16 above does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The vehicle control system in the body of the claim does not constitute a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, and merely (implicitly) receives lidar scan data and does not perform any further functions. While the data is used for the mental processes and mathematical calculations, it is not used implement a specific control of the vehicle.
Also, as noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In the instant case, the steps are performed by a “autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle” and a “controller”, i.e. a computer. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application.
The sensor data gathering steps recited in the claim are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering an electronic representation of an area or navigational data or planned path data), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The one or more data networks, one or more processors, one or more memories storing computer readable instructions, and the computer readable storage medium comprising computer-readable instructions merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general-purpose computing environment. The one or more data networks, one or more processors, one or more memories storing computer readable instructions, and the computer readable storage medium comprising computer-readable instructions are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the generating steps.
The additional limitation of a sensor is claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 16 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Calculations as described are fundamental, i.e. WURC, activities performed by computer, such as the autonomous vehicle in claim 16. Further, applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the steps are performed using anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere performance of an action is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 16 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 27 has similar limitations to claim 1 above, and is therefore ineligible based on a similar rationale.
Dependent claims 17-18, 20-25, 27-29, and 31-35 are likewise ineligible. They generally add to the mental processes and mathematical calculations, and do not integrate into practical application or otherwise recite anything other than well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
Dependent claims 19 and 30 are not rejected as ineligible because they integrate into practical application by applying the sensor transformations in order to calibrate the sensors of the vehicle.
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 16-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20210215809 by Goldberg et al., further in view of US20210024081 by Johnson-Roberson et al. (hereinafter “Johnson-Roberson”).
Regarding claim 16, Goldberg teaches A method for determining a pose of a sensor on a robot, the method comprising: determining, via a controller of the robot, a sensor transformation matrix based on a scan matching between measurements of a common reference object measured by a first range sensor and a second range sensor mounted on the robot, see for example paragraphs [0056]-[0057] where the system determines a sensor transformation between pairs of lidar sensors mounted on a vehicle based on a common reference object. See also paragraph [0039] and Fig. 2B, where the common reference object can be a tree.
the robot being either an autonomous or a semi- autonomous vehicle, see for example paragraph [0025] where the vehicle can be an autonomous vehicle.
the sensor transformation matrix comprising a spatial transformation between sensor data of a common reference object detected by the first range sensor and the second range sensor, in addition to paragraphs [0056]-[0057] above, see also paragraphs [0039]-[0041], where the system determines an extrinsic sensor calibration between sensors to create an accurate position of the sensor based on matching lidar scans. See also paragraph [0032] describing transformations for extrinsic calibration generally.
and the scan matching aligns measurements by the first range sensor to match measurements of the second range sensor; in addition to the paragraphs above, see also paragraph [0049] where the system aligns point clouds of two lidar sensors.
and determining, via the controller, a pose graph based on the sensor transformation matrix of the first range sensor, sensor transformation matrices of the second range sensor, and a transformation between local origins of the first range sensor and the second range sensor. See again paragraphs [0056]-[0057], where the system creates transformations between positions of the sensors, reading on a pose graph. See also e.g. paragraphs [0040]-[0041], where the transformation creates a calibrated position of a sensor. See also paragraph [0029], where the sensor data is originally captured in each lidar’s coordinate system before the transformation, reading on a transformation between local origins of the first range sensor and the second range sensor.
Goldberg does not explicitly teach the scan matching being performed within a base link frame of reference of the robot. Although Goldberg discusses world frame, vehicle frame, and sensor frame of reference, including for determining or relating the vehicle position (see Fig. 2B and paragraph [0037]), Goldberg performs the calculations directly between the two lidar sensors, i.e. in the coordinate system of either a first or second lidar (see paragraphs [0048]-[0049]).
However, Johnson-Roberson teaches the scan matching being performed within a base link frame of reference of the robot. Johnson-Roberson teaches sensor transformation for sensor pose refinement for different pairs of sensors, including Lidar-to-Lidar transformations (see [0061]). Then see for example paragraph [0051], where the relative sensor pose transformations can be calculated based on any suitable reference frame, including the vehicle frame (reading on base link frame of reference).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the extrinsic sensor calibration system of Goldberg with the vehicle reference frame extrinsic calibration of Johnson-Roberson with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows for simple comparison of sensor data between different pairs of sensors in a common frame of reference.
Claim 27 has similar limitations to claim 16 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 17, Goldberg teaches wherein the first range sensor and the second range sensor have at least partially overlapping fields of view capturing the common reference object. See paragraphs [0039], [0056]-[0057], and Fig. 2B, where the calculations are based on a shared object. See also paragraphs [0021]-[0022], where the FOVs of the two sensors are overlapping.
Claim 28 has similar limitations to claim 17 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 18, Goldberg teaches further comprising: optimizing, via the controller, the pose graph to determine an optimized pose of the first range sensor and an optimized pose of the second range sensor. See again paragraphs [0056]-[0057] and [0040]-[0041], where the system creates calibrated sensors transformations between positions of the sensors by optimization.
Claim 29 has similar limitations to claim 18 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 19, Goldberg teaches further comprising: applying, via the controller, a first digital transformation to data arriving from the first range sensor based on the sensor transformation matrix of the first range sensor and the optimized pose of the first range sensor, the first digital transformation configuring measurements of the first range sensor of the common reference object to match measurements of the second range sensor; and applying, via the controller, a second digital transformation to data arriving from the second range sensor based on the optimized pose of the second range sensor, the second digital transformation configuring measurements of the second range sensor of the common reference object to match measurements of the first range sensor, thereby enabling calibration of the first range sensor and the second range sensor. See again paragraph [0056], where the systems maps transformations from first lidar to the second lidar and vice versa, and further does that for each pair of lidar sensors on the vehicle.
Claim 30 has similar limitations to claim 19 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 20, Goldberg teaches wherein the first range sensor and the second range sensor are light detection and ranging (LiDAR) sensors. See again paragraph [0021] disclosing multiple lidar sensors.
Claim 31 has similar limitations to claim 20 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 21, Goldberg does not explicitly teach, but Johnson-Roberson teaches wherein the common reference object is a planar surface in an environment of the robot. See for example paragraph [0083], where the features used for sensor pose refinement include 2D features such as corners, edges, pyramids, etc., or 3D features “(e.g., 3D camera poses, such as measured in meters; 3D point clouds; 3D line clouds; 2D feature correspondences; planar homographies; higher-order primitives, such as spheres, cuboids, etc.; inertial data; etc.).”
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the extrinsic sensor calibration system of Goldberg with the vehicle reference frame extrinsic calibration of Johnson-Roberson with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows for simple comparison of sensor data between different pairs of sensors in a common frame of reference.
Claim 32 has similar limitations to claim 21 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 22, Goldberg teaches wherein the pose graph is updated upon a threshold amount of additional measurement data being collected by the first range sensor and the second range sensor, the threshold amount corresponding to a predefined number of measurement points captured by each of the first range sensor and the second range sensor. See for example paragraph [0045], where the transformation is updated based on a threshold amount of overlap between the different fields of view, reading on a threshold amount corresponding to a predefined number of measurement points captured by each of the first range sensor and the second range sensor.
Claim 32 has similar limitations to claim 21 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 23, Goldberg does not explicitly teach, but Johnson-Roberson teaches further comprising: constraining optimization of the pose graph by imposing threshold constraints to translational and rotational pose parameters of the first range sensor and the second range sensor, the threshold constraints corresponding to a maximum allowable threshold deviation from a default factory-calibrated pose of the first range sensor and the second range sensor. See for example paragraph [0160], where the system detects a maintenance event and marks the vehicle as unsafe to drive when the sensor calibration deviation is higher than a threshold or does not converge.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the extrinsic sensor calibration system of Goldberg with the vehicle reference frame extrinsic calibration of Johnson-Roberson with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows for simple comparison of sensor data between different pairs of sensors in a common frame of reference.
Claim 33 has similar limitations to claim 22 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 24, Goldberg teaches wherein the scan matching is performed using an iterative closest point (ICP) algorithm. See for example paragraph [0049], where the scan matching can be performed using an iterative closest point algorithm.
Claim 34 has similar limitations to claim 23 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 25, Goldberg teaches wherein optimization of the pose graph is performed using a graph-based simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) technique. See for example paragraphs [0037] and [0054], where the transformations are determined in conjunction with SLAM.
Claim 35 has similar limitations to claim 24 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 26, Goldberg teaches wherein the pose graph is updated after the robot has navigated using a computer readable map. See again paragraph [0037], and also paragraph [0041], where the process is performed while driving and conducting simultaneously locating and mapping, as well as while localizing against a map. See also Fig. 2B for example, where the process is performed while the vehicle is driving.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US20210103040 by Chung et al. teaching extrinsic calibration of multiple lidar sensors using a point cloud corrections.
US20200408887 by Zeng et al. teaching extrinsic calibration between a base lidar and each other lidar on the vehicle.
US20210208263 by Sutavani et al. teaching extrinsic calibration of overlapping sensors by transformation optimization.
US20210173055 by Jian et al. teaching online translation and rotation correction of calibration between lidar sensors.
US20210215505 by Castorena Martinez et al. teaching calibration of vehicle sensors with respect to a common coordinate system.
US20210197859 by Canady et al. teaching detecting sensor pose miscalibration and need for servicing.
US10916035 by Kroeger teaching calibrating lidar sensors using depth maps.
The publication “Calibration method for multiple 2D LIDARs system” by He et al. teaching extrinsic calibration of multiple lidars based on sensed wall and ceiling geometry.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN THOMAS SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/JORDAN T SMITH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
1 MPEP 2106.04 “In other claims, multiple abstract ideas, which may fall in the same or different groupings, or multiple laws of nature may be recited. In these cases, examiners should not parse the claim. For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record” (emphasis added).
Prosecution Insights