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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: Both claims use the term “external calibration objects,” but in ways that appear contradictory. In Claim 1 this term is used to refer to calibration objects which are external to the optical and position sensors but part of the overall portable reference sensor system. This interpretation is supported by paragraphs [0009]-[0011] of the specification. In Claim 9 this term appears to be used to refer to any calibration object that is external to the overall portable reference sensor system. This interpretation is supported by at least [0047]-[0048]. Appropriate correction is required.
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 7-9 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.
Claim 7 is held to be indefinite since it does not recite a use with active, positive steps delimiting how the use of the calibrated reference sensor system is accomplished. Ex parte Erlich, 3 USPQ2d 1011 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986). See also, MPEP 2173.05(q).
Claim 8 is held to be indefinite since it does not recite a use with active, positive steps delimiting how the use of the calibrated reference sensor system is accomplished. Ex parte Erlich, 3 USPQ2d 1011 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986). See also, MPEP 2173.05(q).
Claim 9 is held to be indefinite since it does not recite a use with active, positive steps delimiting how the usage of the reference position sensor is independent of external calibration objects and position markers. Ex parte Erlich, 3 USPQ2d 1011 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986). See also, MPEP 2173.05(q).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nowicki (Nowicki, Michał R. "Spatiotemporal calibration of camera and 3D laser scanner." IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 5, no. 4 (2020): 6451-6458) in view of Schommer (US 2013/0325252 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Nowicki discloses a method of calibrating a portable reference sensor system having optical sensors and at least one position sensor (Page 6451, Column 1, Para 3: In our work, we target the problem of joint spatiotemporal calibration of a sensory system consisting of a camera and a 3D laser scanner (LiDAR)”), comprising the steps of
a) calibrating the optical sensors of the reference sensor system to a predetermined reference coordinate system by determining a rotation matrix and/or translation matrix (Page 6454, Column 1, Para 2: Notes using the SO(3) group to represent rotations, which are typically represented as matrices in practical applications) of each sensor so that a coordinate system of each sensor is calibrated to the reference coordinate system, wherein the respective rotation matrices and/or translation matrices (e.g., Page 6457, Column 2, Para 3: “From our experiments we also computed the standard deviation of the calibration, that was equal to σt = 0.03 cm and σr = 0.005◦ for translational and rotational parts, respectively.” Thus both rotational and translation transforms are performed and calculated to calibrate the sensors.) are determined by detecting external calibration objects (Page 6452, Column 2, Para 3: “The calibration procedure consists of motion of a calibration pattern that should be jointly and continuously observed by the camera and by the 3D LiDAR.”; Page 6454, Column 1, Para 1: “With the knowledge of the camera parameters and real chessboard size, the transformation between the camera coordinate system and coordinate system of the chessboard pattern is determined.”);
b) calibrating the position sensor to the reference coordinate system by detecting position markers (Page 6452, Column 2, Para 3: “The calibration procedure consists of motion of a calibration pattern that should be jointly and continuously observed by the camera and by the 3D LiDAR.”), whereby a calibration of a coordinate system of the position sensor to a coordinate system is performed by determining a rotation matrix and/or translation matrix (Page 6454, Column 1, Para 2: Notes using the SO(3) group to represent rotations, which are typically represented as matrices in practical applications).
Nowicki suggests (Figure 1 discloses a camera-LiDAR system mounted to a vehicle which provides a coordinate system) but does not teach and Schommer does teach that the reference coordinate system is a vehicle coordinate system ([0020]: “Geometric vehicle coordinate system XM is finally defined by vehicle longitudinal axis 64, which is predefined by the toe of rear wheels 12, 14 now being measured).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Schommer to use a vehicle coordinate system into the method of Nowicki. Schommer notes in [0012] that it is necessary to properly define a vehicle coordinate system in order to calibrate and adjust sensors for driver assistance systems. A skilled worker in the art would therefore find it beneficial to incorporate this teaching as it would improve the quality and safety of the driver assistance systems.
Regarding Claim 2, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Nowicki further discloses wherein in the step of calibrating the optical sensors, the reference sensor system is moved relative to the calibration objects by translational movements and/or rotational movements so that the calibration objects can be detected by the optical sensors (Page 6452, Column 2, Para 3: “The calibration procedure consists of motion of a calibration pattern that should be jointly and continuously observed by the camera and by the 3D LiDAR.”).
Regarding Claim 3, which depends from rejected Claim 2, Nowicki further discloses wherein for each detected calibration object a respective normal vector of the calibration object is generated, thereby generating the respective rotation matrix and/or translation matrix (Page 6454, Column 1, Para 1: “the chessboard calibration plane equation is computed and represented by the 4-dimensional vector (n, d), where n is the normalized three-dimensional plane normal, and d is the distance to the origin of the coordinate system.”).
Regarding Claim 4, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Nowicki does not teach and Schommer does teach wherein after the calibration of the optical sensors ([0019]: “The geometry of cameras 36, 38, 40, 42, 50, 52 54, 56 of the two stereo camera systems of a measuring head 32, 46 is calibrated both intrinsically and extrinsically with regard to its relative orientation.” Intrinsic calibrations of the camera systems occur before the final mounting of the position sensor to the vehicle.) and before the calibration of the position sensor ([0022]: “For the calibration operation, calibrating/adjusting device 62 is monitored by the camera of surroundings sensor 15 of the driver assistance system.”; [0023]), the reference sensor system is mounted on a vehicle ([0018]: “To measure the chassis, wheel clamps 28, 30 are mounted on wheels 12, 14 of a vehicle 7, to which, in turn, wheel measuring panels (targets) 20, 22 having photogrammetric measuring marks are attached.”).
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 method of Nowicki with the teaching of Schommer to calibrate the optical system before mounting the reference sensor system and calibrating the position sensors. A skilled worker in the art would be familiar with such an approach and would find implementing it to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 5, Nowicki discloses wherein in the step of calibrating the position sensor, position markers are detected on the calibration objects (Page 6457, Column 1, Para 4: “We propose a novel camera-LiDAR calibration software that is the first marker-based solution that provides spatiotemporal calibration owing to the novel B-spline interpolation of plane equations employing a minimal plane representation in Lie algebra. The solution requires only a commonly available calibration marker and a short, one-minute calibration session to provide
repeatable and accurate results.”) thereby determining the rotation matrix and/or translation matrix of the reference sensor system to the vehicle coordinate system (e.g., Page 6457, Column 2, Para 3: “From our experiments we also computed the standard deviation of the calibration, that was equal to σt = 0.03 cm and σr = 0.005◦ for translational and rotational parts, respectively.” Thus both rotational and translation transforms are performed to calibrate the sensors).
Nowicki does not teach and Schommer does teach wherein positions markers are detector on a rear axle of the vehicle ([0090]: “Since measuring unit 32, as shown in FIG. 1, also detects a wheel target 20, which is fastened to the rear axle of vehicle 7”), and wherein the position of the calibration objects to the reference sensor system is determined, thereby determining the position of the calibration objects to the rear axle ([0091]: “The position of calibrating panel 62 in coordinate system XM of vehicle 7 determined in this way is transmitted wirelessly or via a wired connection, which is not illustrated in FIG. 2, to control unit 17 in vehicle 7, which is able to determine the position of calibrating panel 62 in coordinate system XM of vehicle 7 with the aid of this information and the known position of calibrating panel 62 in relation to surroundings sensor 15, for the purpose of adjusting or calibrating surroundings sensor 15 in relation to coordinate system XM of vehicle 7.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Schommer to mount a marker on the rear axle into the method of Nowicki. A worker skilled in the art would be able to incorporate the teaching to use the rear axle as an indicator of vehicle position and expect to obtain a predictable result since the axle is essentially rigid with the rest of the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 6, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Nowicki in view of Schommer further discloses a calibrated reference system which is calibrated by means of a method according to Claim 1 (See the rejection of Claim 1 for a detailed analysis of the calibration method. Both Nowicki and Schommer disclose calibrated reference systems in, e.g., Figure 1A and 1C in Nowicki and Schommer [0058]: “Vehicle 7 has a vehicle surroundings sensor 15 approximately in the middle of the front side of the vehicle, which is adjusted or calibrated with the aid of an adjusting/calibrating system according to the present invention for a vehicle surroundings sensor.”).
Regarding Claim 7, which depends from Claim 6, Nowicki further discloses usage of a calibrated reference sensor system according to claim 6 with an arbitrary vehicle (Figure 1A shows the reference sensor system atop an arbitrary vehicle. Figure 2 shows a camera image of the portable chessboard as seen by the reference sensor system.).
Regarding Claim 8, which depends from rejected Claim 7, Nowicki does not teach and Schommer does teach wherein the calibrated reference sensor system is mounted on the arbitrary vehicle and wherein after mounting the reference sensor system by means of the position sensor ([0022]: “For the calibration operation, calibrating/adjusting device 62 is monitored by the camera of surroundings sensor 15 of the driver assistance system.”; [0023]) a rotation matrix of the position sensor to a rear axle of the arbitrary vehicle is determined and the translation matrix of the position sensor to the rear axle ([0090]: “Since measuring unit 32, as shown in FIG. 1, also detects a wheel target 20, which is fastened to the rear axle of vehicle 7”) of the arbitrary vehicle is measured (e.g., Page 6457, Column 2, Para 3: “From our experiments we also computed the standard deviation of the calibration, that was equal to σt = 0.03 cm and σr = 0.005◦ for translational and rotational parts, respectively.” Thus both rotational and translation transforms are performed to calibrate the sensors).
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 method of Nowicki with the teaching of Schommer to calibrate the optical system before mounting the reference sensor system and calibrating the position sensors. A skilled worker in the art would be familiar with such an approach and would find implementing it to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 9, which depends from rejected Claim 8, Nowicki further discloses wherein the usage of the reference position sensor system is independent of external calibration objects and position markers (Page 6452, Column 2, Para 2: “Depending on the preference of the user, either the sensory setup or the calibration pattern can be moved.” Thus the reference position sensor is portable and therefore does not depend on external calibration objects and position markers. Based on the context given in the specification, the examiner interprets this limitation to mean that the reference position sensor of the instant application should not rely on such components that are fixed and cannot be moved to another location easily.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN WADE CLOUSER whose telephone number is (571)272-0378. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5:00.
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, ISAM ALSOMIRI can be reached at (571) 272-6970. 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.
/B.W.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645