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 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.
Claim(s) 11-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corghi (US 11390289) in view of Rogers et al. (US 11993282).
Regarding to claims 11, 18-19, 21:
Corghi discloses a calibration device for calibrating a driver assistance system, the calibration device comprising:
a calibration board (FIG. 4, element 10);
two optically active elements (FIG. 5: The first and second cameras 32A-B); and
a holding device, the holding device having a longitudinal axis which extends in a horizontal direction (FIG. 5: The horizontal bar connects the two cameras 32A-B);
wherein the two optically active elements are attached at two mutually opposing end areas of the holding device (FIG. 5: The cameras 32A-B are located at two ends of the horizontal bar), and a respective sensor is attached at each of the two mutually opposing end areas of the holding device (FIG. 5: Two sensors 33, each is located at one end of the horizontal bar).
Corghi however does not teach wherein the respective sensor is an acceleration sensor configured to detect gravitational acceleration and wherein at least one of a torsion or an inclination of the holding device is configured to be determined.
Rogers et al. discloses a system for calibrating and aligning automotive sensors comprising a holding device extending in a horizontal direction and two gravity sensors or inclinometers attached at the two opposing ends of the holding device for detecting the inclination for calibrating purpose (FIG. 1B, elements 102L, 102R. Column 5, lines 53 to column 6, line 47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Corghi’s system to replace the image sensors (33) by the inclinometers/gravity sensors as disclosed by Rogers et al. in order to detect the inclination to determine the optimal rotation between the coordinate systems to minimize the error (column 7, line 55 to column 8, lines 11).
Corghi and Rogers also discloses the following claims:
Regarding to claims 12-13: Corghi teaches wherein the two optically active elements are cameras (FIG. 4: The first and second cameras 32A-B) which are configured to record images of a motor vehicle placed in front of the calibration device (FIG. 4, element 9), wherein the two optically active elements are 2D cameras or 3D cameras (FIG. 4: The first and second cameras 32A-B).
Regarding to claims 14-15, 17, 18-21: further comprising: an evaluation device configured to evaluate measured values supplied by the respective acceleration sensors to determine at least the torsion or the inclination of the holding device about its longitudinal axis (Rogers, FIG. 6: The sensors 34, 34’ provide the torsion, inclination, or angular orientation information of the horizontal bar respect to the head 35, 35’), wherein the respective acceleration sensors and the evaluation device are configured to transfer the measured values supplied by the respective acceleration sensors in a wired manner or wirelessly from the respective acceleration sensors to the evaluation device (Corghi, FIGs. 5-6: It is conventional that the sensors 33, 34 34’ are in the communication with the processing unit by either being wired or wireless).
Regarding to claim 16: wherein the evaluation device is configured to correct geometric data which were determined from images recorded by the two optically active elements, based on the measured values supplied by the respective acceleration sensors (Corghi, FIGs. 5-6: Based on the data from the sensors 33 matching with the fix feature 55, or the data from the sensors 34, 34’ matching with the heads 35, 35’, the processing unit corrects the geometric of the calibrating assistance structure).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAM S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2151.
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, DOUGLAS RODRIGUEZ, can be reached on 571-431-0716. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAM S NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights