Patent Application 17964873 - LOCALIZATION FRAMEWORK FOR DYNAMIC ENVIRONMENTS - Rejection
Appearance
Patent Application 17964873 - LOCALIZATION FRAMEWORK FOR DYNAMIC ENVIRONMENTS
Title: LOCALIZATION FRAMEWORK FOR DYNAMIC ENVIRONMENTS FOR AUTONOMOUS INDOOR SEMI-AUTONOMOUS DEVICES
Application Information
- Invention Title: LOCALIZATION FRAMEWORK FOR DYNAMIC ENVIRONMENTS FOR AUTONOMOUS INDOOR SEMI-AUTONOMOUS DEVICES
- Application Number: 17964873
- Submission Date: 2025-05-14T00:00:00.000Z
- Effective Filing Date: 2022-10-12T00:00:00.000Z
- Filing Date: 2022-10-12T00:00:00.000Z
- National Class: 701
- National Sub-Class: 025000
- Examiner Employee Number: 94909
- Art Unit: 3667
- Tech Center: 3600
Rejection Summary
- 102 Rejections: 0
- 103 Rejections: 2
Cited Patents
No patents were cited in this rejection.
Office Action Text
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 . Status of the Claims This FINAL action is in response to Applicantâs amendment of 10 March 2025 and 11 March 2025. Claims 1-19 are pending. Claims 1-8 and 13-16 are withdrawn. Claims 9-12 and 17-19 are pending and have been considered as follows with claims 17-19 being new. Response to Arguments Applicantâs amendment with respect to the Drawings objection, objection to the Specification and the Claim Objections as set forth in the office action of 10 December 2024 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the Drawings objection, objection to the Specification and the Claim Objections as set forth in the office action of 10 December 2024 have been withdrawn. Applicantâs amendment with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the office action of 10 December 2024 have been considered and some are persuasive while some are NOT persuasive. Due to the large amount of indefiniteness/rejections, see 35 USC 112(b) below for whatâs left of the previous rejections in addition to new rejections applicable to the new limitations. Applicantâs amendment and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101 as set forth in the office action of 10 December 2024 have been considered and are NOT persuasive. Examiner has carefully considered Applicantâs arguments and respectfully disagrees. There are various deleted limitations replaced with new limitations; therefore, see 35 USC 101 below for further clarification of why the 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained. Applicantâs amendment and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 103 as set forth in the office action of 10 December 2024 have been considered and regarding the limitations argued that are still disclosed by Li, Examiner has considered Applicantâs arguments and respectfully disagrees, see 35 USC 103 rejection below for further clarification on how the new and/or argued limitations are disclosed by Li; and regarding the limitations argued that are not disclosed by Li, Applicantâs arguments are moot because the new ground(s) of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specification The amendment filed 11 March 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: âthe visible distance field submapâ (emphases added), âdistributionâ is not the same as âdistanceâ, there was nothing in the original specification about a âdistance fieldâ. âval pose (validated pose) odomâ (emphases added), âvalâ is not necessarily short for âvalidatedâ and there was no support in the original specification for such direct connection either, and âval pose odomâ is actually âvalue pose odometry dataâ as seen from the connection between paragraph [0041] of as-filed specification and claim 12 of 06 November 2024. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action. Claim Objections The claim listing as presented, including the underscoring and strikethroughs, do not match the original claim listing filed on 06 November 2024. However, in an effort to expedite prosecution, the Examiner is proceeding with the claims as presented under their currently amended form. The Applicant is advised to review the entire claim listing for such occurrences. Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: â... blend the best pose with a predicted pose; generating a pose consistency repose; wherein ...â should be â... blending the best pose with a predicted pose; and generating a pose consistency repose, [[;]] wherein ...â to be consistent and use correct punctuations. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: âwherein the particles further comprises ...â should be âwherein the particles further comprise . Appropriate correction is required. Claims 10-12 and 17-19 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 10-12 and 17-19 are suggested to be amended to recite âThe method of claim ..., further comprising ...â to add appropriate punctuation (add a comma before further comprising and wherein in the first line of the dependent claims). Appropriate correction is suggested. Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: âwhen confirmed that the scanned matched pose is corrected; ...â should be âwhen confirmed that the scanned matched pose is corrected: [[;]] ...â to use correct punctuations by using a colon since this limitation applies to all the following limitations. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.âThe specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 9-12 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicantâs specification does not provide support for: Claim 9- âthe semi-autonomous cleaning device further comprises ... a localization frameworkâ (emphases added). The robot (cleaning device) does not comprise a localization framework. Localization framework is just whatâs used for continuous localization. âsaving the odometry data as synchronized odometry dataâ (emphases added). âdetermining whether correction of the synchronized odometry data is requiredâ (emphases added). Specification just recites whether correction is required or not but there is no connection for the correction to be of the synchronized odometry data. âcalculating its distance fieldâ (emphases added). âresampling the particle filterâ (emphases added). âcalculating the best pose from the particlesâ (emphases added). âcorrecting the best pose with scan matchingâ (emphases added). Specification recites correcting pose with scan matching but not for that pose to be âthe best poseâ. âblend the best pose with a predicted poseâ (emphases added). Specification recites blending the corrected pose with the predicted pose (which is the limitation in claim 12 already) but not for the corrected pose to be âthe best poseâ. Claim 10- âcopying the particle filter pose to scan match the predicted poseâ (emphases added). Specification (e.g. [0038] of as-filed specification), only provides support for copying particle filter pose to the scan match input pose. âthe corrected predicted poseâ (emphases added). âcorrecting the particle filter pose with scan matching to create a scanned match poseâ (emphases added). âwherein the scanned match pose is configured to be the best poseâ (emphases added). Claim 11- âsetting the scanned matched pose as the corrected pose that has been corrected by the scan matchâ. Claim 12- âvalidated pose odometry dataâ. Claim 17- âreplacing the synchronized odometry data with the previously synchronized odometry dataâ (emphases added). Claim 19- âwherein resampling the particle filter further comprising the step of: merging the laser scans from the one or more laser scanners into a single downsampled merged scanâ. Specification only provides support for downsampling merge scans. Claim 18 is rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim. Appropriate correction is required. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.âThe 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 9-12 and 17-19 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. Note: The claims, when read in light of the specification, are unclear in their entireties. The examiner herein below attempts to provide as significant a number of examples of indefinites as reasonably possible. The applicant should understand that the following list is not a complete list, and the applicant was, at the time of application preparation, in the best position to avoid this situation. All terms and limitations of claims 9-12 are merely repeated in the specification without any further clarification. For example: Regarding claim 9- It is unclear, to the Examiner, what the cleaning device previously comprises for the limitation in the preamble to recite âthe semi-autonomous cleaning device further comprises ...â. The limitation âsynchronized odometry dataâ => What does Applicant mean by âsynchronizedâ odometry data particularly? âwhen correction is requiredâ, is âcorrectionâ connected to the previously recited correction in the line above or not. If not, then correction of what? âcreating a sub map and calculating its distance fieldâ, what does exactly Applicant mean by âsub mapâ and âdistance fieldâ? âresamplingâ, what does Applicant particularly mean by resampling? First instances of âthe particle filterâ and âthe best poseâ lack sufficient antecedent basis. The limitation âa predicted poseâ is indefinite, because it is unclear, to the Examiner, whether Applicant is referring to the previously recited limitation of âpredicting a poseâ or not. The limitation âpose consistency reportâ is indefinite because it is unclear, to the Examiner, what Applicant particularly means by âpose consistency reportâ, e.g. what does the report contain? It is unclear, to the Examiner, what the particles previously comprise for the last limitation to recite âthe particles further comprises ...â. First instances of âthe likelihoodâ and âthe true poseâ lack sufficient antecedent basis. Regarding claim 10- First instance of âthe particle filter poseâ lack sufficient antecedent basis. What does Applicant particularly mean by âparticle filter poseâ. Is it related to any of the poses previously recited. â... is used in correctionâ, is âcorrectionâ connected to the previously recited correction or not. If not, then correction of what? The limitation âcopying the particle filter pose to scan match the predicted poseâ is indefinite, because it is unclear, to the Examiner, what does exactly âcopyingâ mean or does in this limitation? Further, it is unclear, to the Examiner, what Applicant means by âscan match the predicted poseâ? The limitation âcopying the particle filter pose as the corrected predicted poseâ, what does exactly âcopyingâ mean or does in this limitation? what is copying âasâ, why changed from âtoâ as is in the specification too? Further, âthe corrected predicted poseâ lacks sufficient antecedent basis. When did the predicted pose recited previously get corrected? âwherein the scanned match pose is configured to be the best poseâ is unclear, to the Examiner, because per claim 9, the best pose is corrected with scan matching so how is the scanned match pose now the best pose and/or are these limitations connected or not? Regarding claim 11- The limitation âa mapâ is indefinite, because it is unclear, to the Examiner, if Applicant is referring to the previously recited âsub mapâ limitation or not. âcopying the scanned match pose as the corrected poseâ => what is copying âasâ, why changed from âtoâ as is in the specification too? âthe corrected poseâ either lacks sufficient antecedent basis or it is unclear, to the Examiner, which corrected pose itâs referring back to due to different wording. âthe scan matchâ in the last limitation of claim 11, which scan match is it referring back to? Regarding claim 12- âcopying the synchronized odometry data as validated pose odometry dataâ => what is copying âasâ, why changed from âtoâ as is in the specification too? What does Applicant particularly mean by âvalidated pose odometry dataâ? âgenerating a pose consistency reportâ, such limitation is repeated as it is already recited in claim 9 and it is unclear, to the Examiner, whether âa pose consistency reportâ is the same as the pose consistency report previously recited or not. Regarding claim 17- âthe previously synchronized odometry dataâ, there is insufficient antecedent basis for such limitation in the claim. And what does Applicant mean by âsynchronizedâ odometry data particularly? And what is considered âpreviouslyâ synchronized odometry data particularly? Regarding claim 18- It is unclear, to the Examiner, what the one or more laser scanners previously comprise for the last limitation to recite âthe one or more laser scanners further comprises ...â. Regarding claim 19- It is unclear, to the Examiner, what resampling the particle filter previously comprise for the last limitation to recite âresampling the particle filter further comprises ...â. âthe laser scansâ lack sufficient antecedent basis. What does Applicant particularly mean by âa single downsampled merged scanâ, e.g. downsampled. Appropriate correction is required. 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 9-12 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. 101 Analysis â Step 1 Claim 9 is directed to a method. Therefore, claim 9 is within at least one of the four statutory categories. 101 Analysis â Step 2A, Prong I Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. Independent claim 9 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 9 recites: A computer-implemented method for hybrid mapping and continuous localization in a dynamic indoor environment, the method configured for a semi-autonomous cleaning device, the semi-autonomous cleaning device further comprises a processor, a particle filter, one or more laser scanners, a probabilistic occupancy grid and a localization framework, the method comprising the steps of: predicting a pose with odometry data; sampling particles using the odometry data; saving the odometry data as synchronized odometry data; determining whether correction of the synchronized odometry data is required; when correction is required: creating a sub map and calculating its distance field; resampling the particle filter; calculating the best pose from the particles; correcting the best pose with scan matching; blend the best pose with a predicted pose; generating a pose consistency report; wherein the particles further comprises one or more poses associated with probabilities of the likelihood to be the true pose of the semi-autonomous cleaning device The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a âmental processâ because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, the bolded limitations in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, collected, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, matching, drawing/generating/marking, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner 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 âbasic tools of scientific and technological workâ that are open to all.â" 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 ("â[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological workâ" (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). 101 Analysis â Step 2A, Prong II Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a âpractical application.â In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the âadditional limitationsâ while the bolded portions continue to represent the âabstract ideaâ): A computer-implemented method for hybrid mapping and continuous localization in a dynamic indoor environment, the method configured for a semi-autonomous cleaning device, the semi-autonomous cleaning device further comprises a processor, a particle filter, one or more laser scanners, a probabilistic occupancy grid and a localization framework, the method comprising the steps of: predicting a pose with odometry data; sampling particles using the odometry data; saving the odometry data as synchronized odometry data; determining whether correction of the synchronized odometry data is required; when correction is required: creating a sub map and calculating its distance field; resampling the particle filter; calculating the best pose from the particles; correcting the best pose with scan matching; blend the best pose with a predicted pose; generating a pose consistency report; wherein the particles further comprises one or more poses associated with probabilities of the likelihood to be the true pose of the semi-autonomous cleaning device For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitations underlined above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the saving, resampling and correcting steps are recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering and/or mere post solution action, which are form(s) of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, claim 9 further recites the âA computer-implemented method for hybrid mapping and continuous localization in a dynamic indoor environment, the method configured for a semi-autonomous cleaning device, the semi-autonomous cleaning device further comprises a processor, a particle filter, one or more laser scanners, a probabilistic occupancy grid and a localization framework, the method comprising the steps of ...â which merely describes how to generally âapplyâ the otherwise mental judgements and/or additional limitations in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (â[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.â). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use 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 not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. 101 Analysis â Step 2B Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 9 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities. The additional limitations above are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is 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 collection or receipt of data over a network is a wellâunderstood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner and the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Intâl v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicate that the mere performances are well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible. Dependent claims 10-12 and 17-19 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 10-12 and 17-19 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 9. Therefore, claims 9-12 and 17-19 are ineligible under 35 USC §101. 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. Note: Examiner was strongly considering using the paragraph âwhere there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. Therefore a lack of §102/103 rejections to claims rejected under §112(b) should not be construed to imply that said claims are allowable over the prior artâ; however, to expedite prosecution, Examiner is pointing out to Li, Hu and Zhang as follows: Claims 9-12, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN112985417A â translation provided) in view of Hu (CN109579849A â translation provided) in further view of Karisson (US20050182518A1). Regarding claim 9, Li discloses a computer-implemented method for hybrid mapping and continuous localization in a dynamic environment (see at least [n0004], [n0005] and [n0015]), the method configured for a semi-autonomous robot device (see at least [n0001]), the semi-autonomous robot device further comprises a processor, a particle filter, one or more laser scanners, a probabilistic occupancy grid and a localization framework (see at least [n0002]-[n0005], [n0015], [0018], [0036] and [0075]) the method comprising the steps of: predicting a pose with odometry data (see at least [n0003], [0010], [0013]-[0015], [0018], [0034] and [0051]); sampling particles using the odometry data (see at least [n0003], [0010], [0013]-[0015], [0018], [0034] and [0051]); saving the odometry data as synchronized odometry data (see at least [0020], [n0029] and [n0030]); determining whether correction of the synchronized odometry data is required (see at least [0011]); when correction is required: creating a sub map and calculating its distance field (see at least [0018] and [n0065]); resampling the particle filter (see at least [n0003], [0015], [0018], [n0015], [0051] and [n0035])); calculating the best pose from the particles (see at least Li [0015], [0018], [0030], [n0027], [n0028], [n0030], [n0031], [n0041] and [0069]); correcting the best pose with scan matching (see at least Li [0015], [0018], [0030], [n0027], [n0028], [n0030], [n0031], [n0041] and [0069]); blend the best pose with a predicted pose (see at least Li [0020], [n0029] and [n0030]); generating a pose consistency report (see at least Li [n0043]). Li does not explicitly disclose the environment being an indoor environment, the robot being a cleaning device and wherein the particles further comprises one or more poses associated with probabilities of the likelihood to be the true pose of the semi-autonomous cleaning device. Hu teaches the environment being an indoor environment (see at least [0004]), and wherein the particles further comprises one or more poses associated with probabilities of the likelihood to be the true pose of the semi-autonomous robot device (see at least [0009], [0010], [0012], [0041] and [0094]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Li to incorporate the teachings of Hu which teaches the environment being an indoor environment, and wherein the particles further comprises one or more poses associated with probabilities of the likelihood to be the true pose of the semi-autonomous robot device since they are both directed to robot localization and incorporation of the teachings of Hu would increase utility and accuracy of the overall system. Karisson teaches the robot being a cleaning device (see at least [0058]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Li as modified by Hu to incorporate the teachings of Karisson which teaches the robot being a cleaning device since they are all directed to robots and incorporation of the teachings of Karisson would increase utility of the overall system. Regarding claim 10, Li as modified by Hu and Karisson discloses when the particle filter pose is used in correction: copying the particle filter pose to scan match the predicted pose (see at least Li [0015], [0018], [0030], [n0027], [n0028], [n0030], [n0031], [n0041] and [0069]); copying the particle filter pose as the corrected predicted pose (see at least Li [n0003], [0015], [0018], [n0015], [0051] and [n0035])); correcting the particle filter pose with scan matching to create a scanned match pose; wherein the scanned match pose is configured to be the best pose (see at least Li [0030], [n0027], [n0028], [n0030], [n0031], [n0035], [n0041] and [0069]). Regarding claim 11, Li as modified by Hu and Karisson discloses determining whether the scanned matched pose is aligned with a map (see at least Li [0030], [n0027], [n0028], [n0030], [n0031], [n0035], [n0041] and [0069]); copying the scanned match pose as the corrected pose (see at least Li [0030], [n0027], [n0028], [n0030], [n0031], [n0035], [n0041] and [0069]); and setting the scanned matched pose as the corrected pose that has been corrected by the scan match (see at least Li [0030], [n0027], [n0028], [n0030], [n0031], [n0035], [n0041] and [0069]). Regarding claim 12, Li as modified by Hu and Karisson discloses when confirmed that the scanned matched pose is corrected (see at least Li [0011] and [0012]); blending the predicted pose and the corrected pose (see at least Li [0020], [n0029] and [n0030]); copying the synchronized odometry data as validated pose odometry data (see at least Li [0020], [n0029] and [n0030]); generating a pose consistency report (see at least Li [n0043]); and predicting an updated pose (see at least Li [0010]-[0015]). Regarding claim 17, Li as modified by Hu and Karisson discloses replacing the synchronized odometry data with the previously synchronized odometry data (see at least Li [0020], [n0029] and [n0030]). Regarding claim 18, Li as modified by Hu and Karisson discloses wherein the one or more laser scanners further comprises a 2D laser scan matcher (see at least Li [0036], [n0031] and [0075]). Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN112985417A â translation provided) in view of Hu (CN109579849A â translation provided) in further view of Karisson (US20050182518A1) in yet further view of Zhang (US20200217666A1). Regarding claim 19, Li as modified by Hu and Karisson fails to disclose wherein resampling the particle filter further comprising the step of: merging the laser scans from the one or more laser scanners into a single downsampled merged scan. However, Zhang teaches wherein resampling the particle filter further comprising the step of: merging the laser scans from the one or more laser scanners into a single downsampled merged scan (see at least [0111], [0122], [0179] and [0205]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Li as modified by Hu and Karisson to incorporate the teachings of Zhang which teaches wherein resampling the particle filter further comprising the step of: merging the laser scans from the one or more laser scanners into a single downsampled merged scan since they are all directed to robots and incorporation of the teachings of Zhang would increase efficiency of the overall system. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAHAR MOTAZEDI whose telephone number is (571)272-0661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30a.m. - 6:30p.m.. 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 examinerâs supervisor, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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. /SAHAR MOTAZEDI/Examiner, Art Unit 3667