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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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.
The examine notes the applicant has incorporated the features of claim 2, into claim 1 and 11. It is noted the examiner had taken “OFFICIAL NOTICE” with regard to the features of now canceled claim 2, although the applicant has not properly traversed such notice. IAW MPEP 2144.03:
C. If Applicant Traverses a Factual Assertion as Not Properly Officially Noticed or Not Properly Based Upon Common Knowledge, the Examiner Must Support the Finding With Adequate Evidence
To adequately traverse a finding based on official notice, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. A mere request by the applicant that the examiner provide documentary evidence in support of an officially-noticed fact is not a proper traversal. See 37 CFR 1.111(b). See also Chevenard, 139 F.2d at 713, 60 USPQ at 241. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without any reference to the examiner’s assertion of official notice would be inadequate. If applicant adequately traverses the examiner’s assertion of official notice, the examiner must provide documentary evidence in the next Office action if the rejection is to be maintained. If the examiner is relying on personal knowledge to support the finding of what is known in the art, the examiner must provide an affidavit or declaration setting forth specific factual statements and explanation to support the finding. See 37 CFR 1.104(d)(2).
If applicant does not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or applicant’s traverse is not adequate, the examiner should clearly indicate in the next Office action that the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate. See Ahlert, 424 F.2d at 1091, 165 USPQ at 420. If the traverse was inadequate, the examiner should include an explanation as to why it was inadequate.
Although the traversal was not adequate, the examiner nonetheless has updated the rejection to provide evidence that the SLAM algorithm in calibration of cameras is convention.
The examiner notes claim 10, “OFFICIAL NOTICE” was also taken and based upon no traversal, thus the features of claim 10 is taken to be admitted prior art (MPEP 2144.03(c).
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
The examiner notes claim 2 recites the same language that has been included into claim 1—thus it appears claim 2 should be cancelled.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Johnson et al., US 20220284627 in view of TOKUNAGA et al., US 2021/0124174.
PNG
media_image1.png
403
665
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claimed storage medium…where the computing system 1500 includes memory 1515, ROM 1520, RAM 1525 which can be computing system 110 (para 242-247), remote system 150, or any component thereof.
The claimed processor…is met by internal computing system 110 (para 43) which also includes transmitting and receiving software/hardware (para 46), including transceivers in each component (Fig 7) of the analysis system.
the claimed receive…as noted by the disclosure, the system receives the charts after capturing (capturing is not explicitly claimed)….as noted by Johnson, the system can capture physical calibration targets (par 106, 108, 110, 127, 130, 237) where one or more camera may be used (para 86) vis sensor 180 (which include one or more cameras)(para 40, Fig 1) which are stored, then received by 110 then transmitted within the vehicle 102 and remote system 150.
The claimed generate a virtual calibration chart…is met where virtual calibration targets may be generated (Fig 2h, 5a, 6b, 6c, ; para 93-97, 100, 102, 105-106, 108-110, 121, 124-127, 130, 134-136, 144, 149-151, 153, 155-176, 179, 198-199, 211, 225, 228. 237, where the physical targets (para 110) may be positioned in one manner and the virtual to an optimal position (para 234, 237)
Is met where the computer 110 of vehicle 102 receives the images captured by the cameras (para 119) and are used to calibrate (both intrinsic and extrinsic properties) the camera(s) (para 110, 113, 132, 133) using both the physical targets and virtual targets.
Regarding the amendment (same limitations as claim 2)
The examiner previously took “OFFICIA NOTICE”
Johnson does not explicitly recite SLAM algorithm which is a conventional algorithm, notably used in vehicles to locate/map out locations around the vehicle, thus providing the ability to ensure proper calibration of the sensors and safe vehicle operation, regarding the SLAM algorithm being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the benefit as noted above.
The examiner notes the conventional SLAM relies on estimate the cameras pose (position) and the geometry of the environment to build a map, if there are errors in camera parameters then vehicle navigation would be affected (inaccurate).
The examiner evidences TOKUNAGA et al., US 20210124174 which discloses calibrates the camera(s) (para 156, cameras 31a(imaging units 53) (para 193, 286of a head-mounted display by using SLAM (para 95, 277, 296, 341) which is used to generate the calibration pattern displayed on the HMD to ensure proper calibration of the HMD/camera(s). TOKUNAGA discloses the SLAM provides higher accuracy in calibration then just capturing an image alone.
TOKUNAGA is analogous art which is used to calibrate a camera by using a calibration pattern (chart) 33 (Fig 2-3 (33), para 53-54,57, 60, 65,-68, 70-87, 91, 112- 120, 135-142 and 331.
The motivation to modify JOHNSON with TOKUNAGA for the advantages as noted above—higher accuracy in calibration and would ensure the
cameras of the vehicle are calibrated properly using such known algorithm (SLAM) and ensure a safe vehicle operation (highly accurate camera calibration), thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In considering claim 2,
Refer to claim 1(d).
In considering claim 3,
Johnson discloses capturing images of real physical calibration targets and generated virtual targets which are used to compare the original checkerboard pattern with what the camera captures (para 59, 63, 67, 71, 88, 164, 202, 207,) where the parameters include the intrinsic (para 04, 88, 110, 113, 119, 132-133, 182, 189, 194, 201, 206, 208-209) and extrinsic (para 19, 20, 23-24, 87, 92, 103, 107, 110, 117-120, 132-134, 196, 198, 201, 203, 206-207 and 209) camera parameters.
In considering claim 4,
Johnson discloses calibrating the intrinsic camera parameters (see claim 3).
In considering claim 5,
Johnson discloses the calibration may include multiple cameras (para 16, 21, 25, 27, 39, 58, 86, 98, 107, 110, 114, 118, 128, 132, 136, 137, 143, 144, 147, 149, 150, 151, 206, 216, 218) to align locations (extrinsic calibration) within the data captured (para 132, 202, 203-206), where the intrinsic (first) and extrinsic (second) parameters of the cameras are calibrated using the captured images of the real physical chart images and virtual image charts.
In considering claim 6,
Refer to claim 5, where Johnson disclose calibrating the intrinsic (first parameter) and extrinsic (second parameter) of each camera.
In considering claim 7,
Johnson does not explicitly recite “overlapping” fields however as noted in claim 6, Johnson discloses calibration of the sensors (cameras) to ensure alignment and the ability for full 360 degree coverage (para 220), where it is known when operating a vehicle to ensure proper coverage of the forward, rearward and blind spot regions to ensure safe operation. In accordance with KSR (a-g) depending upon the number of camera and their orientation and FOV would determine if camera FOV overlapped or not, based upon system needs/application to ensure proper coverage thus the features of overlapping or not FOV provides expected results in accordance with KSR and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Where as noted in claim 1, Johnson disclose generating virtual targets to ensure all cameras (sensor) have targets/calibration patterns when such physical targets are oriented/positioned different than need.
Principles of Law:
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) and include:
a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
b) simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
c) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
d) applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results:
e) “obvious to try”—choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
f) known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; and
g) some teaching, suggestion, motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teaching to arrive at the claimed invention.
As noted by the PTAB recent decision (12 July 2022):
“"The correct legal framework for obviousness does not involve divining the intention of an inventor of a prior art reference but, rather, involves determining 'what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art”
Microsoft Word - IPR2021-00417 FD - Ready (law360news.com)
In considering claim 8,
The first image may include one or more real and/or virtual calibration charts (see claim 1).
In considering claim 9,
Johnson discloses a checkerboard (para 8, 58, 59, 63, 67 (ArUco target), 71, 74, 83, 86, 94, 105, 106, 114, 125, 161, 164, 186, 188, 191, 228 and 234), which include dark (black) and light (white) checkers (para 59, 62, 63) (Fig 2a))
In considering claim 10,
Johnson does not explicitly recite different resolutions of the image, although does disclose image of multiple pixels (para 186) wherein resolution is comprised of number of pixels in the vertical and horizontal direction.
It is also known that resolution of an image may different from the resolution (capability) of a camera, and thus the examiner notes it is well-known in the field of calibration to use various resolutions in the calibration images to ensure the range of the camera is calibrated to ensure full calibration and thus the examiner takes “OFFICIAL NOTICE” regarding such for the advantages as noted above, thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In considering claim 11,
Refer to claim 1.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure—see cited references on attached form PTO-892:
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian Yenke whose telephone number is (571)272-7359. The examiner work schedule is Monday-Thursday, 0730-1830 hrs.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s Supervisor, John Miller, can be reached at (571)272-7353.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to:
(571)-273-8300
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Technology Center 2400 Customer Service Office whose telephone number is
(703)305-HELP.
General information about patents, trademarks, products and services offered by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and other related information is available by contacting the USPTO’s General Information Services Division at:
800-PTO-9199 or 703-308-HELP
(FAX) 703-305-7786
(TDD) 703-305-7785
An automated message system is available 7 days a week, 24 hours a day providing informational responses to frequently asked questions and the ability to order certain documents. Customer service representatives are available to answer questions, send materials or connect customers with other offices of the USPTO from 8:30 a.m. - 8:00p.m. EST/EDT, Monday-Friday excluding federal holidays.
For other technical patent information needs, the Patent Assistance Center can be reached through customer service representatives at the above numbers, Monday through Friday (except federal holidays) from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST/EDT.
The Patent Electronic Business Center (EBC) allows USPTO customers to retrieve data, check the status of pending actions, and submit information and applications. The tools currently available in the Patent EBC are Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) and the Electronic Filing System (EFS). PAIR (http://pair.uspto.gov) provides customers direct secure access to their own patent application status information, as well as to general patent information publicly available. EFS allows customers to electronically file patent application documents securely via the Internet. EFS is a system for submitting new utility patent applications and pre-grant publication submissions in electronic publication-ready form. EFS includes software to help customers prepare submissions in extensible Markup Language (XML) format and to assemble the various parts of the application as an electronic submission package. EFS also allows the submission of Computer Readable Format (CRF) sequence listings for pending biotechnology patent applications, which were filed in paper form.
/BRIAN P YENKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422