DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 21-25 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Claim 21-25 is/are directed to related products and processes. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j).
In the instant case, the inventions as newly presented inventions have modes of operation requiring specific thermal output, comparing range values, gaffers tape and dark colored tape separated by the second set. The originally presented inventions do not require these modes of operation. This satisfies requirement (1).
Additionally, original modes of operation require perceiving in different ways including visible light intensity and construction using a foam with wood pulp veneers, inter alia. The newly claimed inventions do not require these modes of operation. Therefore, since the newly presented and originally presented invention do not require the same features they can be said to be mutually exclusive or not overlapping in scope. This satisfies requirement (2).
Furthermore, there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants. This satisfies requirement (3).
Claims 1, 14 and 20 link(s) inventions original and newly submitted inventions. The restriction requirement among the linked inventions is subject to the nonallowance of the linking claim(s), claim 1, 14 and 20. Upon the indication of allowability of the linking claim(s), the restriction requirement as to the linked inventions shall be withdrawn and any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable linking claim(s) will be rejoined and fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104 Claims that require all the limitations of an allowable linking claim will be entered as a matter of right if the amendment is presented prior to final rejection or allowance, whichever is earlier. Amendments submitted after final rejection are governed by 37 CFR 1.116; amendments submitted after allowance are governed by 37 CFR 1.312.
Applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, the allowable linking claim, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Where a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
As indicated above, the application is directed to an invention originally elected which required specific search strategies not involving the modes of operation of the newly submitted inventions. The newly submitted invention will require a new, different search strategy that is different from the original search strategy because the original search strategy did not result in pertinent prior art related to the newly claimed inventions. According to MPEP 808.02 a burden may be established “Where it is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other invention(s) (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries), a different field of search is shown, even though the two are classified together.”
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 21-25 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramegowda et al. US 2012/0069193 hereinafter referred to as Ramegowda in view of in view of Mitra US 2020/ 0261302 hereinafter referred to as Mitra in view of Shotan et al. US 12,085,678 hereinafter referred to as Shotan.
In regards to claim 1, Ramegowda teaches:
“A calibration tool comprising: …, formed by three or more sections of a dark [color] applied discretely to a surface of the sheet”
Ramegowda paragraph [0013] and Figure 5, inter alia, teach a checkerboard pattern 12 captured by an electro-optical camera. Ramegowda paragraph [0024] teaches one way for constructing calibration patterns may incorporate applying every other square with materials having different emissivity values. That is, one square has a first emissive value, the next square has a second emissive value, in that any square having a first emissivity value may be adjacent to squares, if any, having a second emissivity value, and vice versa.
“wherein the dark [color] is heat- absorbent”
Ramegowda paragraph [0018] teaches the emissivity of a material is the relative ability of its surface to emit energy by radiation. It is the ratio of energy radiated by a particular material to energy radiated by a black body at the same temperature. It is a measure of a material's ability to radiate absorbed energy. Ramegowda paragraph [0019] teaches Emissivity is a dimensionless quantity, so it does not have units. In general, the duller and blacker a material is, the closer its emissivity is to 1.
“and a second set of unpowered geometric objects comprising exposed portions of the surface of the sheet disposed adjacent to the first set of unpowered geometric objects; wherein: the calibration tool is unpowered”
Ramegowda paragraph [0024] teaches one way for constructing calibration patterns may incorporate applying every other square with materials having different emissivity values. That is, one square has a first emissive value, the next square has a second emissive value, in that any square having a first emissivity value may be adjacent to squares, if any, having a second emissivity value, and vice versa.
“wherein: the first set of unpowered geometric objects is configured to be perceived in a first way for a digital camera and the second set of unpowered geometric objects is configured to be perceived in a second way for the digital camera”
Ramegowda paragraph [0013] and Figure 1 teach a checkerboard pattern 11 captured by an electro-optical camera. Ramegowda Figure 5 and paragraph [0016] teaches in a situation where camera 21 is an electro-optical camera, an infrared image of target 12 from camera 15 and a visible wavelength image of target 12 from camera 21 may go to processor 20 for comparison from a geometrical or other perspective, as long as target 12 has attributes visible to the electro-optical camera. Ramegowda claim 6 teaches the camera may be a digital camera. The Examiner interprets that the black and white squares may be equivalent to being perceived in a first way and a second way for a first type of sensor (electro-optical camera).
“the first set of unpowered geometric objects is configured to be perceived in a third way for an infrared camera and the second set of unpowered geometric objects is configured to be perceived in a fourth way for the infrared camera”
Ramegowda paragraph [0013] teaches image captured by a thermal camera with the presently constructed checkerboard pattern 12. Ramegowda paragraph [0014] teaches light geometrical symbols 17 may have a first emissivity value and darker geometrical symbols 18 may have a second emissivity value. The first and second emissivity values should be at least 20 percent different from each other for effortless viewing and use of calibration target 12 in infrared image 16. One may note that satisfactory emissivity value differences may instead be 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90 or virtually 100 percent. The emissivity values could be less than 20 percent different and yet be useful. The Examiner interprets the different emissivities of the geometric objects as being perceived in a third way and a fourth way for the second type of sensor (thermal camera). Ramegowda paragraph [0010] teaches infrared image may be captured by the thermal camera. The Examiner interprets that if the camera captured infrared images then it is an infrared camera.
Ramegowda does not explicitly teach:
“[dark] - colored tape”
This is known way of creating a calibration pattern. For example, Mitra teaches Figure 1 and paragraph [0016] Calibrate the IR sensor by facing down the IR sensor on a blank white piece of paper with black electrical tape in the middle. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Ramegowda in view of Mitra to have included the features of ““[dark] - colored tape” to find a way that can eliminate the use of expensive tactile paving and find an alternative cost-effective solutions for blind people to navigate roads (Mitra [0068]).
Ramegowda/Mitra do not explicitly teach:
“and the sheet is configured to be positioned at a known distance value away from a 3D scanning radar device”
Shotan column 4 lines 27-30 teach one technique for calibrating a lidar device may include positioning a lidar calibration target (e.g., having a predetermined reflectivity) at a predetermined distance relative to the lidar device. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Ramegowda/Mitra in view of Shotan to have included the features of “wherein the calibration tool has a known distance value from at least the third type of sensor” because calibration can correct for defects in the fabrication and/or assembly of a lidar device. For example, if a lens of a lidar device has one or more defects such that an intensity of a transmitted signal and/or reflected signal is reduced upon being transmitted through the lens, a calibration can allow this to be accounted for in run-time (e.g., using a processor that provides a correction to measurements such that they more accurately reflect a physical scene) (Shotan column 1 lines 30-38).
In regards to claim 2, Ramegowda/Mitra/Shotan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach:
“wherein: each one of the first way, the second way, the third way, and the fourth way, is different from any other one of the first way, the second way, the third way, and the fourth way”
The Examiner interprets that being perceived optically is different than being perceived thermally. In addition, being perceived as white is different than being perceived black and being perceived at 22 deg C is different than being perceived as 30 deg C. Therefore, all the four ways are perceived differently.
In regards to claim 3, Ramegowda/Mitra/Shotan teach all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach:
“wherein the first way comprises a first intensity of visible light and the second way comprises a second intensity of visible light that is different than the first intensity of visible light”
Ramegowda Figure 1 teaches the calibration pattern 12 can perceive both black and white light intensities.
In regards to claim 5, Ramegowda/Mitra/Shotan teach all the limitations of claim 3 and further teach:
“wherein the third way comprises a first thermal value and the fourth way comprises a second thermal value different than the first thermal value”
Ramegowda Figure 3 illustrates different thermal values detected.
In regards to claim 6, Ramegowda/Mitra/Shotan teach all the limitations of claim 5 and further teach:
“wherein the third way comprises a thermal value greater than a threshold thermal value and the fourth way comprise a thermal value less than the threshold thermal value”
Ramegowda paragraph [0014] teaches the first and second emissivity values should be at least 20 percent different from each other for effortless viewing and use of calibration target 12 in infrared image 16.
In regards to claim 14, Diederichs teach all the limitations of claim 2 and claim 14 contains similar limitations as in claim 2 (including independent claim 1). Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 2.
Additionally, Ramegowda teaches:
“A system comprising: a visual spectrum sensor; a thermal sensor; … and an unpowered calibration tool comprising”
Ramegowda Figure 5 and paragraph [0016] teaches in a situation where camera 21 is an electro-optical camera, an infrared image of target 12 from camera 15 and a visible wavelength image of target 12 from camera 21 may go to processor 20 for comparison from a geometrical or other perspective, as long as target 12 has attributes visible to the electro-optical camera. From Figures 1 and 3-4 inter alia, the darker geometrical symbols 18 and light geometrical symbols 17 are able to be perceived by both sensors.
Ramegowda does not explicitly teach:
“a 3d scanning radar device”
Shotan column 4 lines 27-30 teach one technique for calibrating a lidar device may include positioning a lidar calibration target (e.g., having a predetermined reflectivity) at a predetermined distance relative to the lidar device. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Ramegowda/Mitra in view of Shotan to have included the features of “a 3d scanning radar device” because calibration can correct for defects in the fabrication and/or assembly of a lidar device. For example, if a lens of a lidar device has one or more defects such that an intensity of a transmitted signal and/or reflected signal is reduced upon being transmitted through the lens, a calibration can allow this to be accounted for in run-time (e.g., using a processor that provides a correction to measurements such that they more accurately reflect a physical scene) (Shotan column 1 lines 30-38).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramegowda in view of Mitra in view of Shotan in view of Wu 2022/0284630 hereinafter referred to as Wu.
In regards to claim 4, Ramegowda/Mitra/Shotan teach all the limitations of claim 3 but do not explicitly teach:
“wherein the first way comprises an amount of light greater than a threshold amount of light and the second way comprises an amount of light less than the threshold amount of light”
The ability to tell the difference between black and white implies the sensor can detect black and lighter than black colors at least. The Examiner interprets that the light squares are greater than whatever minimum detection amount results in lighter than black detection. This claimed feature does not appear to provide any unpredictable results. It has been held that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results.” KSR., 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (2007) (Citing Graham, 383 U.S. at 12).
For example, Wu teaches in paragraph [0043] it should be understood that specific colors of the checkerboard are not particularly limited in this embodiment, provided that a color contrast between a checkerboard cell and an adjacent cell is greater than a particular preset threshold. The preset threshold may be customized according to the intensity of the contrast provided that the preset threshold meets a camera calibration requirement. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Ramegowda/Xiang to have included the features of “wherein the two different ways that the unpowered geometric objects are perceived by the first type of sensor are different by greater than a threshold amount of light” because an image of a calibration board with a fixed-pitch pattern array is captured by a camera, and through calculation using a calibration algorithm, a geometric model of the camera can be obtained, thereby obtaining a high-precision measurement and reconstruction result (Wu [0003]).
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramegowda in view of Mitra in view of Shotan in view of Diederichs et al. US 2021/0192788 hereinafter referred to as Diederichs.
In regards to claim 15, Ramegowda/Xiang teach all the limitations of claim 14 and further teach:
“further comprising a processor configured to perform calibration of the visual spectrum sensor, the thermal sensor …”
Ramegowda teaches in paragraph [0015] FIG. 5 is a diagram of thermal camera 15 and another camera 21 capturing images of calibration target 12. Camera 21 may be another thermal camera or an electro-optical camera. In a situation where camera 21 is a thermal camera, infrared images of target 12 from cameras 15 and 21 may go to processor 20 for comparison or analysis. Camera 15 may be calibrated to camera 21 or vice versa.
Ramegowda/Mitra/Shotan do not explicitly teach:
“[calibration of the visual spectrum sensor] and the 3D scanning radar device”
Diederichs teaches in paragraph [0138] the calibration targets can be simultaneously detected by the camera and LiDAR. In the examples that follow, the calibration targets 1305a . . . 1305d are checkerboards, as shown in FIG. 13B. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Ramegowda/Mitra/Shotan in view of Diederichs to have included the features of “[calibration of the visual spectrum sensor] and the 3D scanning radar device” because this enables autonomous vehicles to generate a deeper understanding of the surrounding environment (Diederichs [0003]).
In regards to claim 16, Ramegowda/Mitra/Shotan/Diederichs teach all the limitations of claim 15 and further teach:
“wherein the calibration of the visual spectrum sensor and the thermal sensor is a simultaneous and consistent calibration”
Ramegowda Figure 5 and paragraph [0016] teaches in a situation where camera 21 is an electro-optical camera, an infrared image of target 12 from camera 15 and a visible wavelength image of target 12 from camera 21 may go to processor 20 for comparison from a geometrical or other perspective, as long as target 12 has attributes visible to the electro-optical camera. From Figures 1 and 3-4 inter alia, the darker geometrical symbols 18 and light geometrical symbols 17 are able to be perceived by both sensors. The Examiner interprets from Figure 5 the target is being imaged at the same time and the comparison would require both images. Therefore, this would be equivalent to simultaneous. Furthermore, the Examiner interprets the calibration is consistent in that as disclosed it is repeatable over time in the same manner.
Claim(s) 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramegowda in view of Mitra in view of Shotan in view of Ning et al. US 2023/0419541 hereinafter referred to as Ning.
In regards to claim 10, Ramegowda/Mitra/Shotan teach all the limitations of claim 9 and further teach:
“wherein the sheet comprises a foam layer …”
Ning paragraph [0036] teaches the calibration target 400A comprises a substrate 402A with a checkerboard pattern 404A printed, stamped, engraved, imprinted, or otherwise marked thereon. The substrate 402A may be paper, cardboard, plastic, metal, foam, or some combination thereof. The Examiner interprets foam as a rigid material. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Ramegowda/Mitra/Shotan in view of Ning to have included the features of “wherein the geometric objects are located on a surface of a rigid material” because prior art solutions for intrinsic camera calibration for AVs are not entirely satisfactory (Ning paragraph [0005]).
Ramegowda/Mitra/Shotan/Ning do not explicitly teach:
“… between wood pulp veneer layers”
However, based on Applicant’s specification this feature refers to a known foam board material Gatorboard© that is available off-the-shelf. This feature appears to be nothing more than a combination of familiar elements (foam board calibration target known from Ning and off-the-shelf foam board commercially available) using known methods (applying the calibration pattern to the foam board). It has been held that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results.” KSR., 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (2007) (Citing Graham, 383 U.S. at 12).
In regards to claim 19, Ramegowda/Mitra/Shotan teach all the limitations of claim 4 and claim 19 contains similar limitations to that of claim 10. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 10.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramegowda in view of Mitra in view of Shotan in view of Ning in view of Mitra US 2020/0261302 hereinafter referred to as Mitra.
In regards to claim 12, Ramegowda/Mitra/Shotan teach all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach:
“wherein: the first set of geometric objects reflects less than a first threshold amount of light wavelengths; and the second set of geometric objects reflects greater than a second threshold amount of light wavelengths”
However, any black and white regions received at a camera are necessarily distinguished by the differences in reflectivities from the black and white regions on the calibrator board. There is necessarily a value between these two extremes with which the black regions reflect less than and a value with which the white regions reflect greater than. For example, all the grey scale values between black and white. These values may be chosen as thresholds. Therefore, the ability to detect black and white regions necessitates at least two grey scale values which may be interpreted as thresholds. Ramegowda teaches detection of the dark and lighter regions of the checkerboard pattern as indicated in claim 1 (see claim 1).
In regards to claim 13, Ramegowda/Mitra/Shotan/Ning teach all the limitations of claim 12 and further teach:
“wherein the first set of geometric objects appears as black and the second set of geometric objects appears as white”
Ramegowda Figure 1.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramegowda in view of Mitra in view of Shotan in view of Dierderichs in view of Wu 2022/0284630 hereinafter referred to as Wu.
In regards to claim 17, Ramegowda/Xiang teach all the limitations of claim 14 and further teach:
“the two different ways that the geometric objects are perceived by the thermal sensor comprise thermal images of different thermal values”
Ramegowda Figure 3 illustrates different thermal values detected.
“and the third way comprises a temperature greater than a threshold temperature and the fourth way comprises a temperature perceived by the thermal sensor are different by greater less than the threshold temperature”
Ramegowda paragraph [0014] teaches the first and second emissivity values should be at least 20 percent different from each other for effortless viewing and use of calibration target 12 in infrared image 16.
Ramegowda/Dierderichs do not explicitly teach:
“wherein: the first way comprises an amount of light greater than a threshold amount of light and the second way comprises an amount of light less than the threshold amount of light”
The ability to tell the difference between black and white implies the sensor can detect black and lighter than black colors at least. The Examiner interprets that the light squares are greater than whatever minimum detection amount results in lighter than black detection. This claimed feature does not appear to provide any unpredictable results. It has been held that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results.” KSR., 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (2007) (Citing Graham, 383 U.S. at 12).
For example, Wu teaches in paragraph [0043] it should be understood that specific colors of the checkerboard are not particularly limited in this embodiment, provided that a color contrast between a checkerboard cell and an adjacent cell is greater than a particular preset threshold. The preset threshold may be customized according to the intensity of the contrast provided that the preset threshold meets a camera calibration requirement. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Ramegowda/Dierderichs to have included the features of “wherein: the first way comprises an amount of light greater than a threshold amount of light and the second way comprises an amount of light less than the threshold amount of light” because an image of a calibration board with a fixed-pitch pattern array is captured by a camera, and through calculation using a calibration algorithm, a geometric model of the camera can be obtained, thereby obtaining a high-precision measurement and reconstruction result (Wu [0003]).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramegowda in view of Mitra in view of Shotan in view of Dierderichs.
In regards to claim 20, Ramegowda/Mitra/Shotan teach all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach:
“A calibration tool comprising: a sheet comprising a material that is rigid, lightweight, and thermally non-conductive; a first set of unpowered geometric objects formed by three or more sections of a dark- colored tape applied discretely to a surface of the sheet, wherein the dark-colored tape is heat- absorbent; and a second set of unpowered geometric objects comprising exposed portions of the surface of the sheet disposed adjacent to the first set of unpowered geometric objects; wherein:the calibration tool is unpowered”
These features are similar to feature contained in claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 1.
Ramegowda further teaches:
“detecting intensity of visible light for each of the geometric objects of the first set and of the second set from at least one digital image sensed by the visual spectrum sensor to produce detected intensities; detecting a temperature value for each of the geometric objects of the first set and of the second set from at least one thermal image sensed by the thermal sensor to produce detected temperature values”
Ramegowda Figure 5 and paragraph [0016] teaches in a situation where camera 21 is an electro-optical camera, an infrared image of target 12 from camera 15 and a visible wavelength image of target 12 from camera 21 may go to processor 20 for comparison from a geometrical or other perspective, as long as target 12 has attributes visible to the electro-optical camera. From Figures 1 and 3-4 inter alia, the darker geometrical symbols 18 and light geometrical symbols 17 are able to be perceived by both sensors. Ramegowda claim 6 teaches the camera may be a digital camera. Ramegowda teaches in paragraph [0015] FIG. 5 is a diagram of thermal camera 15 and another camera 21 capturing images of calibration target 12. Camera 21 may be another thermal camera or an electro-optical camera. In a situation where camera 21 is a thermal camera, infrared images of target 12 from cameras 15 and 21 may go to processor 20 for comparison or analysis. Camera 15 may be calibrated to camera 21 or vice versa. The Examiner interprets dark and light regions as “two different ways”.
“calibrating the visual spectrum sensor using the detected intensity of visible light for each of the geometric objects of the first set and second set, calibrating the thermal sensor using the detected temperature value for each of the geometric objects of the first set and second set, …”
Ramegowda teaches in paragraph [0015] FIG. 5 is a diagram of thermal camera 15 and another camera 21 capturing images of calibration target 12. Camera 21 may be another thermal camera or an electro-optical camera. In a situation where camera 21 is a thermal camera, infrared images of target 12 from cameras 15 and 21 may go to processor 20 for comparison or analysis. Camera 15 may be calibrated to camera 21 or vice versa.
Ramegowda/Mitra/Shotan does not explicitly teach:
“and a range sensor of a vehicle” and “detecting a range value for each of the geometric objects of the first set and the second set from a plurality of radar scans taken by the range sensor to produce a detected range values” and “[calibrate the visual spectrum sensor] and calibrating the range sensor using the detected range value for each geometric objects of the first set and the second set”
Dierderichs paragraph [0002] teaches this description relates generally to the operation of vehicles and specifically to camera-to-LiDAR calibration and validation. Dierderichs teach in paragraph [0139] Checkerboards are commonly used to perform the extrinsic calibration of various cameras and LiDAR range sensors because they provide numerous geometrical constraints and are easily detected by both sensors. Traditionally, checkerboard plane parameters are estimated in both the camera and LiDAR data. By establishing a plane-to-plane correspondence between the checkerboard observed by each sensor, the coordinate transformation between the LiDAR and camera is derived. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Ramegowda in view of Diederichs to have included the features of “and a range sensor of a vehicle” and “detecting a range value for each of the geometric objects with the range sensor to produce a detected range value” and “[calibrate the visual spectrum sensor] and the range sensor using the detected range value” because this enables autonomous vehicles to generate a deeper understanding of the surrounding environment (Diederichs [0003]).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6,10,12-17 and 19-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground 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.
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 MICHAEL E TEITELBAUM, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-5996. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM EST.
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, John Miller can be reached at 571-272-7353. 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.
/MICHAEL E TEITELBAUM, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights