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 .
This is the first office action on the merits and is responsive to the papers filed on 1/16/2025. Claims 1-10 and 16-25 are currently pending.
Priority
1. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted on 1/16/2025, 11/4/2025, and 4/30/2026 have been considered by the Examiner.
Specification
3. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
4. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
5. Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“Comprsing” is misspelled and should read as −comprising− (Claim 16, Line 3).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
7. 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.
8. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
9. Claims 1-3, 5, 16-19, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (CN 111708033 A) in view of Takahama (US 20220155453 A1).
10. Regarding Claim 1, Song teaches a method for calibrating coordinates of a bucket, comprising (Song: [Page 3, Lines 29-30]):
Acquiring lidar point cloud data and angle sensor data of the bucket of an excavator (Song: [Page 2, Lines-10], [Page 2, Lines 35-37], and [Page 3, Lines 13-14]);
Determining coordinates of a middle bucket tooth of the bucket in a lidar coordinate system according to the lidar point cloud data of the bucket (Song: [Page 2, Lines 35-37] and [Page 5, Lines 17-22] Note that the selecting points on the bucket (or any point on the excavator) is equivalent to a middle bucket tooth of the bucket.);
And determining a coordinate calibration matrix according to the coordinates of the middle bucket tooth of the bucket in the lidar coordinate system and in the excavator coordinate system (Song: [Page 4, Lines 34-39] and [Page 7, Lines 29-34]),
Wherein the coordinate calibration matrix is a calibration matrix for calibrating the coordinates of the middle bucket tooth of the bucket in the lidar coordinate system to the excavator coordinate system (Song: [Page 6, Lines 1-5]).
Song fails to explicitly teach determining the coordinates of the middle bucket tooth of the bucket in an excavator coordinate system according to the angle sensor data of the bucket.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Takahama teaches determining the coordinates of the middle bucket tooth of the bucket in an excavator coordinate system according to the angle sensor data of the bucket (Takahama: [0078] and [0086]).
Song and Takahama are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of work machine coordinate calibration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Song to incorporate the teachings of Takahama to determine the coordinates of the tooth of the bucket in an excavator coordinate system according to angle sensor data because it provides the benefit of determining a correction when converting coordinate systems due to the work machine moving as explicitly explained in [0003], [0006], and [0070] of Takahama.
11. Regarding Claim 2, Song and Takahama remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Song teaches the acquiring the lidar point cloud data and the angle sensor data of the bucket of the excavator comprises: acquiring the lidar point cloud data and the angle sensor data of the bucket in a plurality of different positions (Song: [Page 2, Lines 35-37] and [Page 3, Lines 13-14]);
And the determining the coordinates of the middle bucket tooth of the bucket in the lidar coordinate system according to the lidar point cloud data of the bucket comprises: determining the coordinates of the middle bucket tooth of the bucket in the lidar coordinate system according to the lidar point cloud data of the bucket acquired at each of the different positions (Song: [Page 2, Lines 35-37] and [Page 5, Lines 17-22] Note that the selecting points on the bucket (or any point on the excavator) is equivalent to a middle bucket tooth of the bucket.).
Song fails to explicitly teach the determining the coordinates of the middle bucket tooth of the bucket in the excavator coordinate system according to the angle sensor data of the bucket comprises: determining the coordinates of the middle bucket tooth of the bucket in the excavator coordinate system according to the angle sensor data of the bucket acquired at the each of the different positions.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Takahama teaches the determining the coordinates of the middle bucket tooth of the bucket in the excavator coordinate system according to the angle sensor data of the bucket comprises: determining the coordinates of the middle bucket tooth of the bucket in the excavator coordinate system according to the angle sensor data of the bucket acquired at the each of the different positions (Takahama: [0078], [0086], and [0087]).
Song and Takahama are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of work machine coordinate calibration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Song to incorporate the teachings of Takahama to determine the coordinates of the tooth of the bucket in an excavator coordinate system according to angle sensor at different positions data because it provides the benefit of determining a correction when converting coordinate systems due to the work machine moving at different positions of the excavator as explicitly explained in [0003], [0006], and [0070] of Takahama.
12. Regarding Claim 3, Song and Takahama remain as applied above in Claim 2, and further, Song teaches the determining the coordinates of the middle bucket tooth of the bucket in the lidar coordinate system according to the lidar point cloud data of the bucket acquired at the each of the different positions comprises: determining the coordinates of the middle bucket tooth of the bucket in the lidar coordinate system by using an implicit shape model algorithm according to the lidar point cloud data of the bucket acquired at the each of the different positions (Song: [Page 5, Lines 17-22] and [Page 7, Lines 27-28] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the acquiring module is equivalent to the implicit shape model algorithm because the attitude parameters from the sensors on the bucket, forearm, and boom. The attitudes of the bucket, forearm, and boom create a shape that is determines by the attitude sensors in Song.).
Song fails to explicitly teach the determining the coordinates of the middle bucket tooth of the bucket in the excavator coordinate system according to the angle sensor data of the bucket acquired at the each of the different positions comprises: calculating a forward kinematics solution of the excavator, to determine the coordinates of the middle bucket tooth of the bucket in the excavator coordinate system according to the angle sensor data of the bucket acquired at the each of the different positions.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Takahama teaches the determining the coordinates of the middle bucket tooth of the bucket in the excavator coordinate system according to the angle sensor data of the bucket acquired at the each of the different positions comprises: calculating a forward kinematics solution of the excavator, to determine the coordinates of the middle bucket tooth of the bucket in the excavator coordinate system according to the angle sensor data of the bucket acquired at the each of the different positions (Takahama: [0063], [0078], and [0086] Note that the forward kinematics solutions is equivalent to the use of the inclination angles of the boom, arm, and bucket to determine the posture of the work equipment.).
Song and Takahama are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of work machine coordinate calibration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Song to incorporate the teachings of Takahama to calculate a forward kinematics solutions of the excavator to determine the coordinates of the tooth of the bucket in an excavator coordinate system according to angle sensor data at different positions because it provides the benefit of determining a position of the boom, arm, and bucket in relation to the excavator and to make a correction when converting coordinate systems due to the work machine moving at different positions of the excavator as explicitly explained in [0003], [0006], and [0070] of Takahama.
13. Regarding Claim 5, Song and Takahama remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Song teaches the coordinate calibration matrix is a coordinate rotation and translation transformation matrix (Song: [Page 4, Lines 38-39]).
14. Regarding Claim 16, Song teaches a computer device comprising: a memory for storing instructions; a processor configured to execute a method for performing the instructions comprising (Song: [Page 3, Lines 23-25]):
Acquiring lidar point cloud data and angle sensor data of the bucket of an excavator (Song: [Page 2, Lines-10], [Page 2, Lines 35-37], and [Page 3, Lines 13-14]);
Determining coordinates of a middle bucket tooth of the bucket in a lidar coordinate system according to the lidar point cloud data of the bucket (Song: [Page 2, Lines 35-37] and [Page 5, Lines 17-22] Note that the selecting points on the bucket (or any point on the excavator) is equivalent to a middle bucket tooth of the bucket.);
And determining a coordinate calibration matrix according to the coordinates of the middle bucket tooth of the bucket in the lidar coordinate system and in the excavator coordinate system (Song: [Page 4, Lines 34-39] and [Page 7, Lines 29-34]),
Wherein the coordinate calibration matrix is a calibration matrix for calibrating the coordinates of the middle bucket tooth of the bucket in the lidar coordinate system to the excavator coordinate system (Song: [Page 6, Lines 1-5]).
Song fails to explicitly teach determining the coordinates of the middle bucket tooth of the bucket in an excavator coordinate system according to the angle sensor data of the bucket.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Takahama teaches determining the coordinates of the middle bucket tooth of the bucket in an excavator coordinate system according to the angle sensor data of the bucket (Takahama: [0078] and [0086]).
Song and Takahama are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of work machine coordinate calibration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Song to incorporate the teachings of Takahama to determine the coordinates of the tooth of the bucket in an excavator coordinate system according to angle sensor data because it provides the benefit of determining a correction when converting coordinate systems due to the work machine moving as explicitly explained in [0003], [0006], and [0070] of Takahama.
15. Regarding Claim 17, Song and Takahama remain as applied above in Claim 16, and further, Song teaches a calibration system, comprising a lidar, an angle sensor, and computer device according to claim 16 (Song: [Page 2, Lines-10], [Page 2, Lines 35-37], and [Page 3, Lines 13-14]).
16. Regarding Claim 18, Song and Takahama remain as applied above in Claim 16, and further, Song teaches an excavator, comprising a lidar, and the computer device according to claim 16 (Song: [Page 2, Lines-10] and [Page 2, Lines 35-37]).
17. Regarding Claim 19, Song teaches a computer-readable storage medium, wherein the computer- readable storage medium has computer instructions stored thereon that when executed by a processor, perform a method comprising (Song: [Page 3, Lines 23-25] and [Page 3, Lines 26-28]):
Acquiring lidar point cloud data and angle sensor data of the bucket of an excavator (Song: [Page 2, Lines-10], [Page 2, Lines 35-37], and [Page 3, Lines 13-14]);
Determining coordinates of a middle bucket tooth of the bucket in a lidar coordinate system according to the lidar point cloud data of the bucket (Song: [Page 2, Lines 35-37] and [Page 5, Lines 17-22] Note that the selecting points on the bucket (or any point on the excavator) is equivalent to a middle bucket tooth of the bucket.);
And determining a coordinate calibration matrix according to the coordinates of the middle bucket tooth of the bucket in the lidar coordinate system and in the excavator coordinate system (Song: [Page 4, Lines 34-39] and [Page 7, Lines 29-34]),
Wherein the coordinate calibration matrix is a calibration matrix for calibrating the coordinates of the middle bucket tooth of the bucket in the lidar coordinate system to the excavator coordinate system (Song: [Page 6, Lines 1-5]).
Song fails to explicitly teach determining the coordinates of the middle bucket tooth of the bucket in an excavator coordinate system according to the angle sensor data of the bucket.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Takahama teaches determining the coordinates of the middle bucket tooth of the bucket in an excavator coordinate system according to the angle sensor data of the bucket (Takahama: [0078] and [0086]).
Song and Takahama are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of work machine coordinate calibration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Song to incorporate the teachings of Takahama to determine the coordinates of the tooth of the bucket in an excavator coordinate system according to angle sensor data because it provides the benefit of determining a correction when converting coordinate systems due to the work machine moving as explicitly explained in [0003], [0006], and [0070] of Takahama.
18. Regarding Claim 22, Song and Takahama remain as applied above in Claim 16, and further, Song teaches the acquiring the lidar point cloud data and the angle sensor data of the bucket of the excavator comprises: acquiring the lidar point cloud data and the angle sensor data of the bucket in a plurality of different positions (Song: [Page 2, Lines 35-37] and [Page 3, Lines 13-14]);
And the determining the coordinates of the middle bucket tooth of the bucket in the lidar coordinate system according to the lidar point cloud data of the bucket comprises: determining the coordinates of the middle bucket tooth of the bucket in the lidar coordinate system according to the lidar point cloud data of the bucket acquired at each of the different positions (Song: [Page 2, Lines 35-37] and [Page 5, Lines 17-22] Note that the selecting points on the bucket (or any point on the excavator) is equivalent to a middle bucket tooth of the bucket.).
Song fails to explicitly teach the determining the coordinates of the middle bucket tooth of the bucket in the excavator coordinate system according to the angle sensor data of the bucket comprises: determining the coordinates of the middle bucket tooth of the bucket in the excavator coordinate system according to the angle sensor data of the bucket acquired at the each of the different positions.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Takahama teaches the determining the coordinates of the middle bucket tooth of the bucket in the excavator coordinate system according to the angle sensor data of the bucket comprises: determining the coordinates of the middle bucket tooth of the bucket in the excavator coordinate system according to the angle sensor data of the bucket acquired at the each of the different positions (Takahama: [0078], [0086], and [0087]).
Song and Takahama are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of work machine coordinate calibration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Song to incorporate the teachings of Takahama to determine the coordinates of the tooth of the bucket in an excavator coordinate system according to angle sensor at different positions data because it provides the benefit of determining a correction when converting coordinate systems due to the work machine moving at different positions of the excavator as explicitly explained in [0003], [0006], and [0070] of Takahama.
19. Regarding Claim 23, Song and Takahama remain as applied above in Claim 16, and further, Song teaches the determining the coordinates of the middle bucket tooth of the bucket in the lidar coordinate system according to the lidar point cloud data of the bucket acquired at the each of the different positions comprises: determining the coordinates of the middle bucket tooth of the bucket in the lidar coordinate system by using an implicit shape model algorithm according to the lidar point cloud data of the bucket acquired at the each of the different positions (Song: [Page 5, Lines 17-22] and [Page 7, Lines 27-28] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the acquiring module is equivalent to the implicit shape model algorithm because the attitude parameters from the sensors on the bucket, forearm, and boom. The attitudes of the bucket, forearm, and boom create a shape that is determines by the attitude sensors in Song.).
Song fails to explicitly teach the determining the coordinates of the middle bucket tooth of the bucket in the excavator coordinate system according to the angle sensor data of the bucket acquired at the each of the different positions comprises: calculating a forward kinematics solution of the excavator, to determine the coordinates of the middle bucket tooth of the bucket in the excavator coordinate system according to the angle sensor data of the bucket acquired at the each of the different positions.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Takahama teaches the determining the coordinates of the middle bucket tooth of the bucket in the excavator coordinate system according to the angle sensor data of the bucket acquired at the each of the different positions comprises: calculating a forward kinematics solution of the excavator, to determine the coordinates of the middle bucket tooth of the bucket in the excavator coordinate system according to the angle sensor data of the bucket acquired at the each of the different positions (Takahama: [0063], [0078], and [0086] Note that the forward kinematics solutions is equivalent to the use of the inclination angles of the boom, arm, and bucket to determine the posture of the work equipment.).
Song and Takahama are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of work machine coordinate calibration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Song to incorporate the teachings of Takahama to calculate a forward kinematics solutions of the excavator to determine the coordinates of the tooth of the bucket in an excavator coordinate system according to angle sensor data at different positions because it provides the benefit of determining a position of the boom, arm, and bucket in relation to the excavator and to make a correction when converting coordinate systems due to the work machine moving at different positions of the excavator as explicitly explained in [0003], [0006], and [0070] of Takahama.
Allowable Subject Matter
20. Claims 4, 6-10, 20-21, and 24-25 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. Any claim not specifically mentioned, including Claims 6-7, 9-10, and 25, have been included based on its dependency to a claim with allowable subject matter.
21. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Dependent Claim 4 contains allowable subject matter as the closest prior art references do not teach or render an obvious combination for the following limitations: “constructing a plurality of data pairs of the coordinates of the lidar coordinate system and the coordinates of the excavator coordinate system according to the coordinates of the middle bucket tooth of the bucket in the lidar coordinate system and in the excavator coordinate system, and dividing the plurality of data pairs into training set data and testing set data; determining the coordinate calibration matrix according to the training set data; and verifying the coordinate calibration matrix by using the test set data.” Claim 24 has the same limitations as Claim 4 except for its dependency and contains allowable subject matter for the same reasoning.
Dependent Claim 8 contains allowable subject matter as the closest prior art references do not teach or render an obvious combination for the following limitations: “determining whether an online error of a coordinate calibration matrix is greater than a predetermined allowable error; determining whether a number of data pairs of acquired position points reaches a predetermined position point number in a case where the online error of the coordinate calibration matrix is greater than the predetermined allowable error; determining a new coordinate calibration matrix by using the method according to claim 1 in a case where the number of the data pairs of the acquired position points is equal to the predetermined position point number; and updating the coordinate calibration matrix.” Claims 20-21 have the same limitations as Claim 8 except for their dependencies and contain allowable subject matter for the same reasoning.
Conclusion
22. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Konda (US 20230250617 A1)
23. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights