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 .
1. This action is responsive to application filed April 21, 2025.
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.
2. 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, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “point cloud sensor”, “matching pose calculation part” and “uncertainty estimation part” in claim 1.
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.
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 § 102
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.
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.
3. Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ebrahimi, U.S. Patent Application Publicaiton No. 2024/0324838.
As to claim 1, Ebrahimi teaches a mobile robot utilizing the uncertainty of map matching poses for localization, the mobile robot comprising:
a point cloud sensor which acquires point cloud data through scanning (see para. 736);
a matching pose calculation part which applies a pre-registered point cloud map and the point cloud data to a pre-registered scan-map matching algorithm to calculate a map-matching pose of the mobile robot (see para. 737-738 and 742); and
an uncertainty estimation part which estimates uncertainty of the map-matching pose on the basis of a probability distribution of a preset pose space around the map-matching pose (see para. 737-738 and 742).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
4. Claims 2-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebrahimi in view of Myeong et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0303908 (referred to hereafter as Myeong).
As to claim 2, Ebrahimi teaches the mobile robot of claim 1, wherein the matching pose calculation part calculates the map-matching pose by applying a SLAM as the scan-map matching algorithm.
Ebrahimi does not explicitly teach applying normal distribution transform (NDT) algorithm to the matching algorithm. However, Myeong teaches a system and method for determining a pose of a robot by applying normal distribution transform (NDT) algorithm (see para. 5 and 71-72). It would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the at the effective filling data of the application to use normal distribution transform (NDT) algorithm in Ebrahimi as taught by Myeong. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Myeong that doing so would improve a 3D data matching success rate of a laser scanner in consideration of movement characteristics of a ground robot.
As to claim 3, Ebrahimi in view of Myeong teaches the mobile robot of claim 2. Ebrahimi further teaches the uncertainty estimation part calculates the probability distribution of the pose space by applying a histogram filter algorithm to the pose space (see para. 788).
As to claim 4, Ebrahimi in view of Myeong teaches the mobile robot of claim 3. Ebrahimi further teaches the histogram filter algorithm divides the pose space into a plurality of grid cells, and calculates a posterior probability of each of the grid cells to calculate the probability distribution of the pose space (see para. 748 and 775).
As to claim 5, Ebrahimi in view of Myeong teaches the mobile robot of claim 4. Ebrahimi further teaches the uncertainty estimation part calculates the posterior probability of each of the grid cells by using a likelihood calculated in the process of calculating the map-matching pose of the scan-map matching algorithm (see para. 748 and 775).
As to claim 6, Ebrahimi in view of Myeong teaches the mobile robot of claim 5. Ebrahimi further teaches the uncertainty estimation part calculates the posterior probability of each of the grid cells by applying Bayes' rule.
As to claim 7, Ebrahimi in view of Myeong teaches the mobile robot of claim 5. Ebrahimi further teaches the uncertainty estimation part estimates the uncertainty by calculating a covariance of the probability distribution for the posterior probability of the plurality of grid cells (see para. 781).
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 8-15 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.
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUSSEIN A EL CHANTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3999. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at 571-272-7691. 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.
/HUSSEIN ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights