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
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim should be amended to recite “…parameters of the second sensor to obtain the second set of parameters that causes a matrix multiplication…” in line 7.
Claim 20 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim should be amended to recite “…location of the lane marker on the road is determined…” in line 2.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the first pixel location of a corner of the lane block" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the Claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of Matter?
Claims 1 recites a method of calibrating sensors, Claim 11 recites a system for calibrating sensors, and Claim 16 recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. Thus, the claims are to a method, a machine, and a manufacture, which are among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A: Prong One: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea?
Independent claim 1 recites:
A method of calibrating sensors, comprising:
obtaining, from a first sensor located on a vehicle, a first sensor data comprising at least a first portion of a road comprising a lane marker;
obtaining, from a second sensor located on the vehicle, a second sensor data comprising at least a second portion of the road; and
calibrating the first sensor and the second sensor based on an association between the first sensor data and the second sensor data, a stored map information of the road, and one or more values based on one or more measurements provided by one or more sensors on the vehicle [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites mathematical concepts, and a mental process because they can be performed by a human using pen and paper].
Step 2A: Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Abstract Idea Into a Practical Application?
The elements that are not underlined above are the additional elements (i.e., “obtaining, from a first sensor located on a vehicle, a first sensor data comprising at least a first portion of a road comprising a lane marker”; and “obtaining, from a second sensor located on the vehicle, a second sensor data comprising at least a second portion of the road”).
The examiner submits that each of the additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the calibrating step is performed. The obtaining steps are mere gathering of data for use in the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Amount to Significantly More Than the Abstract Idea?
The examiner submits that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Independent Claims 11 and 16 recite the same steps as Claim 1, and are not patent eligible for the same reasons as Claim 1. Claim 11 additionally recites a processor, and Claim 16 additionally recites a computer readable medium, which are each no more than generic computer hardware for implementing the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 merely recite further details of the mathematical concepts and/or mental process, additional data gathering, or generic hardware for use in conjunction with the abstract idea, and are also not patent eligible.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 11, and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3, claims 8 and 11, and claims 13 and 15 (respectively) of U.S. Patent No. 11908163. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding Claim 1 of the instant case, Claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11908163 a method of calibrating sensors (claim 1, calculating step), comprising: obtaining, from a first sensor located on a vehicle, a first sensor data comprising at least a first portion of a road comprising lane marker (claim 1, obtaining step); obtaining, from a second sensor located on the vehicle, a second sensor data comprising at least a second portion of the road (claim 1, obtaining step); and calibrating the first sensor and the second sensor based on an association between the first sensor data and the second sensor data and a stored map information of the road, and one or more values based on one or more measurements provided by one or more sensors on the vehicle (claim 1, calculating step and claim 3, previously stored 3D world coordinates equated to map and IMU-GNSS equated to one or more sensors).
Claims 11 and 16 of the instant case recite the same steps as Claim 1, and are similarly taught by Claims 8 and 11, and Claims 13 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11908163.
Claims 1, 11-12, and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, claim 8, claim 10, and claim 13 (respectively) of U.S. Patent No. 12189036. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding Claim 1 of the instant case, Claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12189036 a method of calibrating sensors (claim 1, estimating step), comprising: obtaining, from a first sensor located on a vehicle, a first sensor data comprising at least a first portion of a road comprising lane marker (claim 1, obtaining step); obtaining, from a second sensor located on the vehicle, a second sensor data comprising at least a second portion of the road (claim 1, obtaining step); and calibrating the first sensor and the second sensor based on an association between the first sensor data and the second sensor data and a stored map information of the road, and one or more values based on one or more measurements provided by one or more sensors on the vehicle (claim 1, determining, deriving, and estimating steps and claim 4, IMU-GNSS equated to one or more sensors).
Claims 11 and 16 of the instant case recite the same steps as Claim 1, and are similarly taught by Claims 15 and 18, and Claims 8 and 11, respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12189036. Claim 12 of the instant case is taught by Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12189036.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims in the instant case have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tong et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0027241, hereinafter “Tong”).
Regarding Claim 1, Tong teaches a method of calibrating sensors (Fig. 3), comprising: obtaining, from a first sensor located on a vehicle, a first sensor data comprising at least a first portion of a road comprising lane marker (block 302, paragraph [0061], paragraph [0063], lane, see also Fig. 4); obtaining, from a second sensor located on the vehicle, a second sensor data comprising at least a second portion of the road (block 302, paragraph [0061]; Fig. 1, one or more cameras 102); and calibrating the first sensor and the second sensor based on an association between the first sensor data and the second sensor data and a stored map information of the road, and one or more values based on one or more measurements provided by one or more sensors on the vehicle (blocks 308, 312, and 328, paragraphs [0064]-[0065] and [0067], map data and GPS, which is equated to measurement provided by sensor; paragraph [0077], calibration is performed).
Regarding Claim 11, Tong system for calibrating sensors, the system comprising a processor configured to (Fig. 3, processor 122), comprising: obtain, from a first sensor located on a vehicle, a first sensor data comprising at least a first portion of a road comprising lane marker (block 302, paragraph [0061], paragraph [0063], lane, see also Fig. 4); obtain, from a second sensor located on the vehicle, a second sensor data comprising at least a second portion of the road (block 302, paragraph [0061]; Fig. 1, one or more cameras 102); and calibrate the first sensor and the second sensor based on an association between the first sensor data and the second sensor data and a stored map information of the road, and one or more values based on one or more measurements provided by one or more sensors on the vehicle (blocks 308, 312, and 328, paragraphs [0064]-[0065] and [0067], map data and GPS, which is equated to measurement provided by sensor; paragraph [0077], calibration is performed).
Regarding Claim 12, Tong teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 11. Tong further teaches wherein the obtain the first sensor data, the obtain the second sensor data, and the calibrate the first sensor and the second sensor are performed while the vehicle is driven on the road (paragraph [0060], method 300 is performed continuously during operation of the vehicle).
Regarding Claim 14, Tong teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 11. Tong further teaches wherein the first sensor and the second sensor include a first camera and a second camera, respectively (Fig. 1, cameras 102).
Regarding Claim 15, Tong teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 14. Tong further teaches wherein the first camera and the second camera have overlapping field of views (Fig. 1, cameras 102; see also paragraph [0039], camera on top of vehicle would overlap with other cameras).
Regarding Claim 16, Tong teaches non-transitory computer readable storage medium having code stored thereon, the code, when executed by a processor, causing the processor to implement a method (paragraph [0052]) comprising: obtaining, from a first sensor located on a vehicle, a first sensor data comprising at least a first portion of a road comprising lane marker (Fig. 3, block 302, paragraph [0061], paragraph [0063], lane, see also Fig. 4); obtaining, from a second sensor located on the vehicle, a second sensor data comprising at least a second portion of the road (block 302, paragraph [0061]; Fig. 1, one or more cameras 102); and calibrating the first sensor and the second sensor based on an association between the first sensor data and the second sensor data and a stored map information of the road, and one or more values based on one or more measurements provided by one or more sensors on the vehicle (blocks 308, 312, and 328, paragraphs [0064]-[0065] and [0067], map data and GPS, which is equated to measurement provided by sensor; paragraph [0077], calibration is performed).
Regarding Claim 17, Tong teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 16. Tong further teaches wherein the lane marker includes a solid line on the road (Fig. 4, showing a solid line).
Regarding Claim 19, Tong teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 16. Tong further teaches wherein the lane marker includes a lane block from a plurality of lane blocks on the road (Fig. 4, showing lane blocks).
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) 2, 3, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong in view of Ren (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0206500).
Regarding Claim 2, Tong teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Tong does not specifically teach wherein the calibrating the first sensor includes obtaining a first set of parameters of the first sensor, wherein the first set of parameters include extrinsic parameters of the first sensor, and wherein the first set of parameters are obtained by minimizing a difference between a first pixel location of a location of the lane marker on the road determined from the first sensor data and a first expected pixel location of the location of the lane marker on the road determined from the stored map information of the road. However, Ren teaches wherein the calibrating the first sensor includes obtaining a first set of parameters of the first sensor, wherein the first set of parameters include extrinsic parameters of the first sensor (Fig. 1, S120), and wherein the first set of parameters are obtained by minimizing a difference between a first pixel location of a location of the lane marker on the road determined from the first sensor data and a first expected pixel location of the location of the lane marker on the road determined from the stored map information of the road (Fig. 3, S125-S128; average pixel deviation, paragraphs [0151]-[0152]; highest degree of matching in S127 is equated to claimed minimization; road features in photographed image is equated first pixel location and road feature projection images based on high-precision map are equated to expected pixel location; see Figs. 4-5; paragraph [0012], calibration reference object may be a lane line). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to calculate extrinsic parameters of a camera, as taught in Ren, in the system of Tong, in order to improve the calibration precision of the extrinsic parameters of the camera (see Ren, paragraph [0018]).
Regarding Claim 3, Tong in view of Ren teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 2. Tong does not specifically teach wherein the difference between the first pixel location and the first expected pixel location is minimized by adjusting a previously known third set of parameters of the first sensor. However, Ren teaches adjusting previously known camera parameters in S125 and S128. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to calculate extrinsic parameters of a camera, as taught in Ren, in the system of Tong, in order to improve the calibration precision of the extrinsic parameters of the camera (see Ren, paragraph [0018]).
Regarding Claim 18, Tong teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 17. Tong does not specifically teach the stored map information includes world coordinates of the solid line at an interval. However, Tong does teach, in paragraph [0067], that detected objects in map include lanes). Further, Ren teaches in paragraph [0080] that the high precision map includes location information for road feature objects including lane lines. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the location information of lane lines, as taught in Ren, in the system of Tong, in order to improve the calibration precision of the extrinsic parameters of the camera (see Ren, paragraph [0018]).
Regarding Claim 20, Tong teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 19. Tong does not specifically teach wherein a first pixel location of a location of the lane marker on the road determined from the first sensor data, and wherein the first pixel location of the location of the lane marker includes the first pixel location of a corner of the lane block. However, Ren teaches wherein a first pixel location of a location of the lane marker on the road determined from the first sensor data (Fig. 3, road features in photographed image is equated first pixel location, see Figs. 4-5, showing lane markers), and wherein the first pixel location of the location of the lane marker includes the first pixel location of a corner of the lane block. Further, Tong teaches lane blocks having corners (Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the location information of lane lines, as taught in Ren, corresponding to the lane blocks of the system of Tong, in order to improve the calibration precision of the extrinsic parameters of the camera (see Ren, paragraph [0018]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong in view of Ren and Yang et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0385360, hereinafter “Yang”).
Regarding Claim 4, Tong in view of Ren teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 2. Tong further teaches wherein the first expected pixel location is determined from the stored map information of the road, a matrix that describes optical characteristics of the first sensor, and a previously known third set of parameters of the first sensor (Fig. 3, S125-S127, high-precision map equated to stored map information, intrinsic parameters equated to matrix that described optical paramters, see paragraph [0061], and extrinsic parameters are equated to previously known third set of parameters).
Tong in view of Ren does not specifically teach determining a pixel location based on a pose value of an inertial measurement (IM) device based on measurements provided by the IM device and a global positioning system (GPS) device. However, Yang teaches, in paragraphs [0019] and [0043], acquiring pose information by a GPS and one or more IMU sensors associated with imaging frames captured by a sensor. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the pose information of Yang in the system of Tong and Ren, in order to estimate a disparity between binocular cameras (see Yang, paragraph [0045]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong in view of Hess et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0193643, hereinafter “Hess”).
Regarding Claim 13, Tong teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 12. Tong does not specifically teach wherein the vehicle is driven between a pre-defined starting location and a pre-defined ending location on the road. However, Hess teaches, in paragraph [0032] and Fig. 3, performing calibration of cameras when a vehicle drives a route (equated to the pre-defined starting location and pre-defined ending location) through a particular area covered by high definition maps. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the pre-defined locations of Hess that correspond to high definition maps in the system of Tong, so that the system can use the information in the high definition map to use in the calibration (see Hess, paragraph [0032]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Although there are no prior art rejections for Claims 5-10, the Examiner cannot comment on their allowability until the claim objections and the rejections under 35 U.S.C 101 are satisfactorily addressed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CYNTHIA L DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am to 4pm.
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, Catherine T Rastovski can be reached at 571-270-0349. 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.
/CYNTHIA L DAVIS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2863
/Catherine T. Rastovski/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863