DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
Claims 1-18 have been examined in this application. This is the First Action On the Merits (FAOM). The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Office Action Formatting
The following is an explanation of the formatting used in the instant Office Action:
• [0001] – Indicates a paragraph number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001, 0010] – Indicates multiple paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 and 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001-0010] – Indicates a range of paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 through 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1 – Indicates a column number and a line number (in example: column 1, line 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1, 2:1 – Indicates multiple column and line numbers (in example, column 1, line 1 and column 2, line 2) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-10 – Indicates a range of lines within one column (in example: all lines spanning, and including, lines 1 and 10 in column 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-2:1 – Indicates a range of lines spanning several columns (in example: column 1, line 1 to column 2, line 1 and including all intervening lines) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• p. 1, ln. 1 – Indicates a page and line number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• ¶1 – The paragraph symbol is used solely to refer to Applicant's own specification (further example: p. 1, ¶1 indicates first paragraph of page 1); and
• BRI – the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application CN202210806394.4 filed in the People’s Republic of China on 07/08/2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/7/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claims 1 and 8, “a candidate obstacles” should instead read “candidate obstacles”
In Claims 2, 9, and 13, “a reflection values” should instead read “a reflection value”
In Claims 2, 9, and 13, “each three-dimensional laser points” should instead read “each three-dimensional laser point”
In Claim 4 “a transformation relationship” should instead read “the transformation relationship”
In Claim 5, “a target obstacle” should instead read “the target obstacle”
In Claim 5, “obtaining obtain” should read “obtaining”
In Claims 5, 6, and 16, the comma and semi-colon “, ;” should be amended such that only one punctuation symbol is present.
In Claim 6, “an operational area and a non-operational area” should instead read “the operational area and the non-operational area”
In Claim 6, “that enclose” should instead read “that encloses”
In Claim 8, the four recitations of “is configured to” should instead read “configured to”
In Claim 12, “acquiring… determining… obtaining… delineating” should instead read “acquire… determine… obtain… delineate”
In Claim 18, “the method further comprises” should instead read “wherein the at least one set of instructions further causes the processor to”
In Claim 18, “highlighting” should instead read “highlight”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Such claim limitations are:
(a) “an acquisition unit” configured to acquire a laser point cloud data, in Claim 8,
(b) “a first determining unit” configured to determine a candidate obstacles, in Claim 8,
(c) “an obtaining unit” configured to obtain feature images, in Claim 8,
(d) “a second determining unit” configured to determine a target obstacle, in Claim 8,
(e) “a delineation module” configured to delineate an operational area and a non-operational area, in Claim 8.
The limitation(s) invoke 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) use the generic placeholder “unit” or “module” that is coupled with the above functional language, without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and without the generic placeholder being preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
The specification is unclear regarding the corresponding structure of limitations (a) through (e), see the rejections below under 112(b).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 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.
Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 12, the limitation of obtaining feature images renders the claims indefinite. It is not clear whether the obtaining of feature images is obtaining data from sensing or measuring the environment (such as obtaining camera data), or alternatively whether the obtaining of feature images is merely a data processing function (such as transforming the point cloud data into an image or rendering an image). The various possible interpretations result in varying scopes of the claim such that the claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as obtaining camera data.
Claims 2-7, 9-11, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected Claim 1, 8, or 12 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Regarding Claims 3, 10, and 14, the claims recite “a point cloud coordinate system corresponding to the laser point cloud data.” However, Claims 2, 9 and 13 (from which Claims 3, 10, and 14 respectively depend) already recite “a three-dimensional coordinate system” corresponding to each three-dimensional laser points. The two coordinate systems are given different names but appear to refer to the same thing. It is not clear whether the point cloud coordinate system and three-dimensional coordinate system should be interpreted to be the same, or different from one another. The scopes of the claims is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the point cloud and three-dimensional coordinate system are interpreted as the same thing.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected Claim 3 or 14 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Regarding Claim 8, claim limitations (a) “an acquisition unit,” (b) “a first determining unit,” (c) “an obtaining unit,” (d) “a second determining unit,” and (e) “a delineation module” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Particularly, the specification recites limitations (a) through (d) but only details their functions and not any structure, and the specification does not recite limitation (e). It is not clear whether the limitations correspond to a computer processor and algorithms for the functions, or different computers or other circuitry or hardware or sensors or other structure. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For the purposes of examination, the units and module are interpreted as a processor and algorithms for the functions.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected Claim 8 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Regarding Claim 12, the limitation “the at least one processor executes the at least one set of instructions to cause the mowing robot to…” perform the functions renders the claim indefinite. The processor is stated to execute the instructions however the mowing robot performs the acquiring, determining, obtaining, and delineating. It is therefore unclear whether the “at least one set of instructions” actually correspond and contain instructions for the acquiring, determining, obtaining, and delineating functions, or alternatively whether the “at least one set of instructions” may only contain some boot sequence or program to output a start command which then causes the mowing robot to perform the acquiring, determining, obtaining, and delineating. The scope of the “instructions” and claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as the instructions causing the processor to perform the functions.
Claims 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected Claim 12 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(101 Analysis - Step 1 - Statutory Category) Regarding Claims 1-18, the claims are directed to one of the statutory categories of subject matter as the claims recite a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
(101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong I - Judicial Exception) Regarding Independent Claim 1, the claim recites an operational map construction method, comprising:
acquiring a laser point cloud data in an environment corresponding to a target map;
determining a candidate obstacles in the target map based on the laser point cloud data;
obtaining feature images of the candidate obstacles, and determining a target obstacle from the candidate obstacles based on the feature images of the candidate obstacles; and
delineating an operational area and a non-operational area in the target map based on the target obstacle.
The limitations indicated in BOLD above, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are an abstract idea of a mental process, capable of being performed in a human mind or manually, using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Particularly, a person is capable of mentally or manually performing an operational map construction method (a person thinking of, or drawing a map intended for operation, e.g. an intended area to drive a lawnmower), comprising:
acquiring a laser point cloud data in an environment corresponding to a target map (for example the person receiving a table of 3d coordinates that represent the environment/target area);
determining a candidate obstacles in the target map based on the laser point cloud data (the person mentally evaluating the coordinates, e.g. determining that points with elevation values higher than a threshold correspond to obstacles);
obtaining feature images of the candidate obstacles (for example the person receiving an aerial photograph of the area and looking at the portion of the image that corresponds to the obstacle), and determining a target obstacle from the candidate obstacles based on the feature images of the candidate obstacles (the person confirming real/target obstacles based on the photograph); and
delineating an operational area and a non-operational area in the target map based on the target obstacle (the person deciding real/target obstacles should be non-operational and the remainder of the area is operational).
Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
(101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong II - Practical Application) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements, therefore the additional elements cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)).
(101 Analysis - Step 2B - Significantly More / Inventive Concept) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not recite any additional elements, therefore the additional elements cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(I)).
Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Independent Claims 8 and 12, the claims recite the same abstract idea. Claim 8 recites the additional elements of the “units” and “module” (interpreted as a processor and algorithms to perform the functions). Claim 12 recites the additional elements of a mowing robot, comprising at least one storage medium, at least one processor, the at least one storage medium storing at least one set of instructions, the at least one processor executes the at least one set of instructions to cause the mowing robot to perform the abstract idea.
(101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong II - Practical Application) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
For the units” and “module” in Claim 8 and at least one storage medium, and at least one processor, the at least one storage medium storing at least one set of instructions, the at least one processor executes the at least one set of instructions to cause the mowing robot to perform the abstract idea, in Claim 12, these elements are all recitations of generic computer components and their use, recited at a high level of generality. The claims do not provide an improvement in computer hardware or computing technology. Therefore, the claims act as mere instructions to “apply” the abstract idea using generic computer components as tools to perform the functions. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
For the mowing robot in Claim 12, this is recited broadly, without any details of the robot or mowing function. Therefore, the claim merely generally ties the abstract idea to the field of mowing robots, and does not limit the abstract idea in a meaningful way. Therefore, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Additionally, the ordered combination of additional elements and claim as a whole are not determined to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the ordered combination does not add anything already present when the elements are considered separately and merely recites an abstract idea applied by a processor in a mowing robot at a high level of generality.
(101 Analysis - Step 2B - Significantly More / Inventive Concept) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As above, the additional elements in the claim are the “units” and “module” in Claim 8 and the mowing robot, comprising at least one storage medium, at least one processor, the at least one storage medium storing at least one set of instructions, the at least one processor executes the at least one set of instructions to cause the mowing robot to perform the abstract idea, in Claim 12.
For the units” and “module” in Claim 8 and at least one storage medium, and at least one processor, the at least one storage medium storing at least one set of instructions, the at least one processor executes the at least one set of instructions to cause the mowing robot to perform the abstract idea, in Claim 12, for the same reasons as presented above, these elements are all recitations of generic computer components and their use, at a high level of generality, such that the claims act as mere instructions to “apply” the functions using a generic computer components as tools to perform the functions. This does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, such elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (see e.g. US2014/0249676A1 at [0001-0002]).
For the mowing robot in Claim 12, for the same reasons as above, this is recited broadly such that the claim merely generally ties the abstract idea to the field of robot mowers, and does not limit the abstract idea in a meaningful way. This does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Additionally, such elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (see e.g. US2014/0249676A1 at [0001-0002]).
Additionally, the ordered combination of additional elements and claim as a whole are not determined to amount to significantly more as the combination is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (see e.g. US2014/0249676A1 at [0001-0002]).
Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 2-7, 9-11, and 13-18 do not recite further limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claims 2, 9, and 13 recite further functions of an abstract idea as a person can perform functions for obtaining a map coordinate system of the target map (such as by deciding upon an origin and axes for a drawn/visualized map), extracting a reflection values and a three-dimensional coordinate system corresponding to each three-dimensional laser points from the laser point cloud data (looking at the table of point cloud data and selecting the particular values); and determining the candidate obstacles in the target map based on the map coordinate system (determining using the coordinates in the particular coordinate system), and the reflection values and the three-dimensional coordinate systems corresponding to the three- dimensional laser points (using a table of data corresponding to laser point measurements). The claims do not recite any new additional elements.
Claims 3, 10, and 14 recite determining a point cloud coordinate system corresponding to the laser point cloud data and determining the candidate obstacles in the target map based on a pixel value in a rendered target map which are further functions of an abstract idea as a person can perform functions to determine a coordinate system and evaluate pixel values to determine candidate obstacles. Furthermore, a person can determine reflection values corresponding to the three-dimensional laser points to the target map based on the three-dimensional coordinates corresponding to the three-dimensional laser points, and a transformation relationship between the map coordinate system and the point cloud coordinate system, by performing a evaluating a reflection value and performing a transform on the laser point data (alternatively this is the abstract idea of a mathematical concept). The function of “rendering” the reflection values is an additional element in the claim, but is the use of a computer for its ordinary function of outputting data (the rendering is not stated to be displaying of an image and therefore is merely the generation of pixel data by the processor), and therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more for the same reasons as presented above with respect to Claims 8 and 12.
Claims 4, 11, and 15 recite transforming the three-dimensional coordinate system corresponding to the three-dimensional laser point based on the transformation relationship between the map coordinate system and the point cloud coordinate system, to obtain map coordinate system of the three-dimensional laser point in the target map, which is a further function of the abstract idea of a mental process as a person can mentally or manually perform coordinate transforms such as shifting or rotation to different axes (alternatively this is the abstract idea of a mathematical concept). Furthermore, a person can determine the reflection value corresponding to the three-dimensional laser point to the target map based on the map coordinate system of the three-dimensional laser point in the target map (the person calculating or writing or outputting such a value). The function of “rendering“ is an additional element in the claim, but is the use of a computer for its ordinary function of outputting data (the rendering is not stated to be displaying of an image and therefore is merely the generation of pixel data by the processor), and therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more for the same reasons as presented above with respect to Claims 8 and 12.
Claims 5 and 16 recite further functions of obtaining classification labels of the candidate obstacles by inputting the feature images of the candidate obstacles into a preset image classification network, and determining the candidate obstacle whose classification label is a target label as the target obstacle. The determining the candidate obstacle whose classification label is a target label as the target obstacle is a further function of a mental process, as a person can use classification information to verify an obstacle. Furthermore, a person can classify obstacles in an image, however the obtaining classification labels “by inputting the feature images of the candidate obstacles into a preset image classification network” is an additional element in the claim. However, this is recited broadly such that the abstract idea is only generally tied to the field of classification networks. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more as such techniques are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (see US20150117760A1 at [0002-0003]).
Claims 6 and 17 recite further functions of the abstract idea of a mental process as a person can perform functions of obtaining at least contour information of the target obstacle below a preset height (the person receiving such data for example on a topographical map), outputting an isolation curve that enclose the target obstacle, based on the contour information and a location of the target obstacle in the target map (for example the person drawing a circle around an obstacle such that the circle includes all points at a certain height), and determining an area enclosed by the isolation curve as the non-operational area and an area outside the non-operational area as the operational area (the person using judgment and evaluation to label the area inside and outside the circle). The claims do not recite any new additional elements.
Claims 7 and 18 recite further functions of highlighting the operational area using a first color; and highlighting the non-operational area using a second color. These are further functions of the abstract idea of a mental process as a person can choose different colors for a key/legend on a map. The claims do not recite any new additional elements.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Publication US2022/0012466A1 (Taghavi et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Taghavi et al. discloses an operational map construction method (see Figure 5), comprising:
acquiring a laser point cloud data in an environment (see [0093] step 510, 3d point cloud, scan of environment, [0055] lidar) corresponding to a target map (see [0097] corresponds to 2d birds eye view (map));
determining a candidate obstacles in the target map based on the laser point cloud data (see [0097-0098] step 540 a 3D object cluster on 2D plane of the BEV (map), from 3D point cloud, and e.g. [0073] “one or more” objects);
obtaining feature images of the candidate obstacles (see [0093-0094] receive 2D image, one or more 2d object, which [0096] can be same as 3D object based on pairing), and determining a target obstacle from the candidate obstacles based on the feature images of the candidate obstacles (see Figure 5, steps 540-560, mapping/storing object when 3D object and 2D object correspond (i.e. target obstacle is confirmed/paired obstacle based on candidate 2D and 3D data)); and
delineating an operational area and a non-operational area in the target map based on the target obstacle (see Figure 5, BEV with bounding boxes of objects and [0059] bounding box used for path planning, i.e. delineating drivable (operational) areas and bounding boxes of objects, as non-drivable (non-operational)).
Regarding Claim 2, Taghavi et al. discloses the operational map construction method according to claim 1, wherein the determining the candidate obstacles in the target map based on the laser point cloud data comprises:
obtaining a map coordinate system of the target map (see [0097] vehicle coordinate system of BEV);
extracting a reflection values and a three-dimensional coordinate system corresponding to each three-dimensional laser points from the laser point cloud data (see [0062] intensity of 3D points, [0062, 0094] 3D coordinate system of LIDAR unit); and
determining the candidate obstacles in the target map based on the map coordinate system (see [0097-0098], cluster of 2D points in the BEV vehicle coordinate system), and the reflection values (see [0062, 0097] based on the 3D data points with intensity) and the three-dimensional coordinate systems corresponding to the three- dimensional laser points (see [0097] based on 3D coordinate system as transformed into vehicle coordinate system).
Regarding Claim 3, Taghavi et al. discloses the operational map construction method according to claim 2, wherein the determining the candidate obstacles in the target map based on the map coordinates, and the reflection values and the three-dimensional coordinates corresponding to the three-dimensional laser points comprises:
determining a point cloud coordinate system corresponding to the laser point cloud data (see [0062, 0094, 0097] 3D coordinate system);
rendering (see [0064] obtaining BEV image) the reflection values corresponding to the three-dimensional laser points to the target map (see [0097-0100] BEV obtained from 3D points [0062] with intensity) based on the three-dimensional coordinates corresponding to the three-dimensional laser points (see [0097] in 3D coordinate system), and a transformation relationship between the map coordinate system and the point cloud coordinate system (see [0097] transform object cluster of 3D points to vehicle coordinate system); and
determining the candidate obstacles in the target map based on a pixel value in a rendered target map (see [0097] corresponding cluster of 2D data points in BEV ).
Regarding Claim 4, Taghavi et al. discloses the operational map construction method according to claim 3, wherein the rendering the reflection values corresponding to the three-dimensional laser points to the target map based on the three-dimensional coordinates coordinate system corresponding to the three-dimensional laser point, and a transformation relationship between the map coordinate system and the point cloud coordinate system comprises:
transforming the three-dimensional coordinate system corresponding to the three-dimensional laser point based on the transformation relationship between the map coordinate system and the point cloud coordinate system (see [0097] transform object cluster of 3D data points to vehicle coordinate system), to obtain map coordinate system of the three-dimensional laser point in the target map (see [0097-0100] to convert to BEV); and
rendering the reflection value corresponding to the three-dimensional laser point to the target map (see [0097] 3D data points converted to corresponding cluster of 2D data points in BEV [0062] 3D points having intensity) based on the map coordinate system of the three-dimensional laser point in the target map (see [0097] based on 3D point as transformed to vehicle coordinate system).
Regarding Claim 8, Taghavi et al. discloses an operational map construction (see Figure 5) apparatus, comprising:
an acquisition unit (see [0092] executed by processor) is configured to acquire a laser point cloud data in an environment (see [0093] step 510, 3d point cloud, scan of environment, [0055] lidar) corresponding to a target map (see [0097] corresponds to 2d birds eye view (map));
a first determining unit (see [0092]) is configured to determine a candidate obstacles in the target map based on the laser point cloud data (see [0097-0098] step 540 a 3D object cluster on 2D plane of the BEV (map), from 3D point cloud, and e.g. [0073] “one or more” objects);
an obtaining unit (see [0092]) is configured to obtain feature images of the candidate obstacles (see [0093-0094] receive 2D image, one or more 2d object, which [0096] can be same as 3D object based on pairing);
a second determining unit (see [0092]) is configured to determine a target obstacle from the candidate obstacles based on the feature images of the candidate obstacles (see Figure 5, steps 540-560, mapping/storing object when 3D object and 2D object correspond (i.e. target obstacle is confirmed/paired obstacle based on candidate 2D and 3D data)); and
a delineation module (see [0092]) configured to delineate an operational area and a non-operational area in the target map based on the target obstacle (see Figure 5, BEV with bounding boxes of objects and [0059] bounding box used for path planning, i.e. delineating drivable (operational) areas and bounding boxes of objects, as non-drivable (non-operational)).
Regarding Claim 9, Taghavi et al. discloses the operational map construction apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the first determining unit is further configured to:
obtain a map coordinate system of the target map (see [0097] vehicle coordinate system of BEV);
extract a reflection values and a three-dimensional coordinate system corresponding to each three-dimensional laser points from the laser point cloud data (see [0062] intensity of 3D points, [0062, 0094] 3D coordinate system of LIDAR unit); and
determine the candidate obstacles in the target map based on the map coordinate system (see [0097-0098], cluster of 2D points in the BEV vehicle coordinate system), and the reflection values (see [0062, 0097] based on the 3D data points with intensity) and the three-dimensional coordinate system corresponding to the three- dimensional laser points (see [0097] based on 3D coordinate system as transformed into vehicle coordinate system).
Regarding Claim 10, Taghavi et al. discloses the operational map construction apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the first determining unit is further configured to:
determine a point cloud coordinate system corresponding to the laser point cloud data(see [0062, 0094, 0097] 3D coordinate system);
render(see [0064] obtaining BEV image) the reflection values corresponding to the three-dimensional laser points to the target map (see [0097-0100] BEV obtained from 3D points [0062] with intensity) based on the three-dimensional coordinate system corresponding to the three-dimensional laser points (see [0097] in 3D coordinate system), and a transformation relationship between the map coordinate system and the point cloud coordinate system (see [0097] transform object cluster of 3D points to vehicle coordinate system); and
determine the candidate obstacles in the target map based on a pixel values in a rendered target map (see [0097] corresponding cluster of 2D data points in BEV ).
Regarding Claim 11, Taghavi et al. discloses the operational map construction apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the first determining unit is further configured to:
transform the three-dimensional coordinate system corresponding to the three-dimensional laser point based on the transformation relationship between the map coordinate system and the point cloud coordinate system (see [0097] transform object cluster of 3D data points to vehicle coordinate system), to obtain map coordinate system of the three-dimensional laser point in the target map (see [0097-0100] to convert to BEV); and
render the reflection values corresponding to the three-dimensional laser points to the target map (see [0097] 3D data points converted to corresponding cluster of 2D data points in BEV [0062] 3D points having intensity) based on the map coordinate system of the three-dimensional laser point in the target map (see [0097] based on 3D point as transformed to vehicle coordinate system).
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.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2022/0012466A1 (Taghavi et al.) in view of Publication US2020/0174132A1 (Nezhadarya et al.).
Regarding Claim 5, Taghavi et al. discloses wherein the determining a target obstacle from the candidate obstacles based on the feature images of the candidate obstacles comprises:
obtaining obtain classification labels of the candidate obstacles (see [0020, 0064] 2D object with class label), and
determining the candidate obstacle whose classification label is a target label as the target obstacle (see [0066] e.g. target labels as building, pedestrian, vehicle).
Taghavi et al. does not explicitly recite the operational map construction method according to claim 1, including: obtaining obtain classification labels of the candidate obstacles:
by inputting the feature images of the candidate obstacles into a preset image classification network.
However, Nezhadarya et al. teaches a technique in autonomous vehicles (see e.g. [0035]) performing obtaining obtain classification labels of the candidate obstacles:
by inputting the feature images of the candidate obstacles into a preset image classification network (see [0044] a 2D convolution neural network (CNN) 124 to perform object detection, classification).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the classification of Taghavi et al. to use a network as taught by Nezhadarya et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the robustness and flexibility of the system to classify objects based on training data (see Nezhadarya et al., [0044]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2022/0012466A1 (Taghavi et al.) in view of Publication JP2017036945A (Terauchi) (English translation relied upon for citations).
Regarding Claim 6, Taghavi et al. does not explicitly recite the operational map construction method according to claim 1, wherein the delineating an operational area and a non-operational area in the target map based on the target obstacle comprises:
obtaining at least contour information of the target obstacle below a preset height;
outputting an isolation curve that enclose the target obstacle, based on the contour information and a location of the target obstacle in the target map,; and
determining an area enclosed by the isolation curve as the non-operational area and an area outside the non-operational area as the operational area.
However, Terauchi teaches a technique for a robot (see [0008]), wherein the delineating an operational area and a non-operational area in the target map based on the target obstacle comprises (see [0008] road and obstacles delineated):
obtaining at least contour information of the target obstacle below a preset height (see [0015] low-level obstacles extracted (i.e. below some threshold to be deemed “low”));
outputting an isolation curve that enclose the target obstacle, based on the contour information and a location of the target obstacle in the target map (see [0015] calculating feature quantity including perimeter of obstacle); and
determining an area enclosed by the isolation curve as the non-operational area and an area outside the non-operational area as the operational area (see [0015] designate low obstacle as “area” where driving impossible).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Taghavi et al. to detect low obstacles as taught by Terauchi, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving detection of humans (see Terauchi, [0015]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2022/0012466A1 (Taghavi et al.) in view of Publication US2019/0129435A1 (Madsen et al.).
Regarding Claim 7, Taghavi et al. does not explicitly recite the operational map construction method according to claim 1, wherein after the delineating the operational area and the non-operational area in the target map based on the target obstacle, the method further comprises:
highlighting the operational area using a first color; and
highlighting the non-operational area using a second color.
However, Madsen et al. teaches a technique for a vehicle (see e.g. [0014]), wherein showing delineated areas comprises:
highlighting the operational area using a first color (see [0037] green coloring indicating traversable); and
highlighting the non-operational area using a second color (see [0037] red coloring indicating impassible/non-traversable objects).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the rendering of Taghavi et al. to include color-coding as taught by Madsen et al. with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving communication to a user (see Madsen et al., [0037]).
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2022/0012466A1 (Taghavi et al.) in view of Publication US2015/0012164A1 (Yu et al.).
Regarding Claim 12, Taghavi et al. discloses a robot (see Figure 1, [0037] autonomous vehicle), comprising at least one storage medium, at least one processor, the at least one storage medium storing at least one set of instructions, the at least one processor executes the at least one set of instructions to cause the robot to at least (see [0038]):
acquiring a laser point cloud data in an environment (see [0093] step 510, 3d point cloud, scan of environment, [0055] lidar) corresponding to a target map (see [0097] corresponds to 2d birds eye view (map));
determining a candidate obstacles in the target map based on the laser point cloud data (see [0097-0098] step 540 a 3D object cluster on 2D plane of the BEV (map), from 3D point cloud, and e.g. [0073] “one or more” objects);
obtaining feature images of the candidate obstacles (see [0093-0094] receive 2D image, one or more 2d object, which [0096] can be same as 3D object based on pairing), and determining a target obstacle from the candidate obstacles based on the feature images of the candidate obstacles (see Figure 5, steps 540-560, mapping/storing object when 3D object and 2D object correspond (i.e. target obstacle is confirmed/paired obstacle based on candidate 2D and 3D data)); and
delineating an operational area and a non-operational area in the target map based on the target obstacle (see Figure 5, BEV with bounding boxes of objects and [0059] bounding box used for path planning, i.e. delineating drivable (operational) areas and bounding boxes of objects, as non-drivable (non-operational)).
Taghavi et al. does not explicitly recite a mowing robot.
However, Yu et al. teaches an autonomous vehicle that performs mapping (see [0047, 0069]), which is:
mowing robot (see [0047-0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vehicle and mapping of Taghavi et al. to apply to a mowing robot as taught by Yu et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the robustness and flexibility of the autonomous system to perform other work tasks while eliminating operator fatigue (see Yu et al., [0009-0012, 0048]).
Regarding Claims 13-15, all limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claims 2-4. Claims 13-15 pertain to an apparatus corresponding to the method of Claims 2-4, respectively. Claims 13-15 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond Claims 2-4, other than the mowing robot (which was addressed in the rejection of Claim 12), and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2022/0012466A1 (Taghavi et al.) in view of Publication US2015/0012164A1 (Yu et al.), further in view of Publication US2020/0174132A1 (Nezhadarya et al.).
Regarding Claim 16, Taghavi et al. discloses the mowing robot according to claim 12, wherein the determining a target obstacle from the candidate obstacles based on the feature images of the candidate obstacles comprises:
obtaining obtain classification labels of the candidate obstacles (see [0020, 0064] 2D object with class label), and
determining the candidate obstacle whose classification label is a target label as the target obstacle (see [0066] e.g. target labels as building, pedestrian, vehicle).
Taghavi et al. does not explicitly recite the operational map construction method according to claim 1, including: obtaining obtain classification labels of the candidate obstacles:
by inputting the feature images of the candidate obstacles into a preset image classification network.
However, Nezhadarya et al. teaches a technique in autonomous vehicles (see e.g. [0035]) performing obtaining obtain classification labels of the candidate obstacles:
by inputting the feature images of the candidate obstacles into a preset image classification network (see [0044] a 2D convolution neural network (CNN) 124 to perform object detection, classification).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the classification of Taghavi et al. to use a network as taught by Nezhadarya et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the robustness and flexibility of the system to classify objects based on training data (see Nezhadarya et al., [0044]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2022/0012466A1 (Taghavi et al.) in view of Publication US2015/0012164A1 (Yu et al.), further in view of Publication JP2017036945A (Terauchi) (English translation relied upon for citations).
Regarding Claim 17, Taghavi et al. does not explicitly recite the mowing robot according to claim 12, wherein the delineating an operational area and a non-operational area in the target map based on the target obstacle comprises:
obtaining at least contour information of the target obstacle below a preset height;
outputting an isolation curve that enclose the target obstacle, based on the contour information and a location of the target obstacle in the target map,; and
determining an area enclosed by the isolation curve as the non-operational area and an area outside the non-operational area as the operational area.
However, Terauchi teaches a technique for a robot (see [0008]), wherein the delineating an operational area and a non-operational area in the target map based on the target obstacle comprises (see [0008] road and obstacles delineated):
obtaining at least contour information of the target obstacle below a preset height (see [0015] low-level obstacles extracted (i.e. below some threshold to be deemed “low”));
outputting an isolation curve that enclose the target obstacle, based on the contour information and a location of the target obstacle in the target map (see [0015] calculating feature quantity including perimeter of obstacle); and
determining an area enclosed by the isolation curve as the non-operational area and an area outside the non-operational area as the operational area (see [0015] designate low obstacle as “area” where driving impossible).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Taghavi et al. to detect low obstacles as taught by Terauchi, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving detection of humans (see Terauchi, [0015]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2022/0012466A1 (Taghavi et al.) in view of Publication US2015/0012164A1 (Yu et al.), further in view of Publication US2019/0129435A1 (Madsen et al.).
Regarding Claim 18, Taghavi et al. does not explicitly recite the mowing robot according to claim 12 wherein after the delineating the operational area and the non-operational area in the target map based on the target obstacle, the method further comprises:
highlighting the operational area using a first color; and
highlighting the non-operational area using a second color.
However, Madsen et al. teaches a technique for a vehicle (see e.g. [0014]), wherein showing delineated areas comprises:
highlighting the operational area using a first color (see [0037] green coloring indicating traversable); and
highlighting the non-operational area using a second color (see [0037] red coloring indicating impassible/non-traversable objects).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the rendering of Taghavi et al. to include color-coding as taught by Madsen et al. with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving communication to a user (see Madsen et al., [0037]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul Allen whose telephone number is (571) 272-4383. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9am to 5pm, Eastern.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/P.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights