DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heidemann et al. US Publication 2017/0188015 (hereafter “Heidemann”) and Li et al. CN Publication 203893820 (hereafter “Li”).
Referring to claim 1, Heidemann discloses a method comprising:
placing a calibration target in a scan volume of a 3D scanning system (paragraph 90, Both for an initial calibration and for recalibration, which is performed routinely or when inconsistencies are identified and calibration parameters require correction, an external calibration object may be used in principle, according to one embodiment, a calibration plate 400, as described below and illustrated in FIG. 14);
capturing images of the calibration target using the 3D scanning system (paragraph 96, Each mark 402, 403, 404, 404a along with information code 401 can be recorded by cameras 111, 112, 113 and can be clearly identified (by control and evaluation device 122) in the recorded images);
determining image pixel correspondences of the captured images (paragraph 77, The correspondence may be found, for example, in that point 216, 236 may be the image of a spot from the pattern X on the object O, i.e. point 216, 236 is illuminated and the area around it is dark); and
calibrating the 3D scanning system using the image pixel correspondences (paragraph 88, If an inconsistency resulting from a deviation in the relative distance or the relative alignment of the two cameras 111 and 112 is found, the two different distances can be used to distinguish between the two types of errors, and the calibration can be corrected).
While Heidemann discloses placing a calibration target, Heidemann does not disclose expressly placing a calibration target having a plurality of spheres.
Li discloses placing a calibration target having a plurality of spheres in a scan volume of a 3D scanning system (paragraph 21, The spherical surface is matt ball 3 diffusely reflective surface, so that it can ensure the 3D scanner laser scanning, structured light scanner capable of obtaining high-quality 3D cloud can be used as all kinds of 3D optical scanner, a standard three-dimensional profile measuring system measuring precision calibration).
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to calibration target having a plurality of spheres. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase the effectiveness of calibration in order to obtain high quality point cloud data without errors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Li with Heidemann to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Referring to claims 2 and 10, Heidemann discloses wherein calibrating the 3D scanning system using the image pixel correspondences comprises:
constructing surface points of the spheres using the image pixel correspondences and camera models (paragraph 74, With respect to FIG. 10, an inconsistency may be a deviation in the actual position of the point X0 from its expected position in one of the three planes);
solving an error function based on the constructed surface points (paragraph 64, Triangulation calculations can be performed between the two cameras 111, 112 based on the baseline distance between the two cameras 111, 112 and the relative tilt angles of the two cameras 111, 112); and
adjusting parameters of the camera models to reduce the error function (paragraph 88, If an inconsistency resulting from a deviation in the relative distance or the relative alignment of the two cameras 111 and 112 is found, the two different distances can be used to distinguish between the two types of errors, and the calibration can be corrected).
Referring to claims 3 and 11, Heidemann discloses wherein solving the error function comprises determining, for surface points, a difference error between the estimated distance at a surface point and the known distance (paragraph 74, With respect to FIG. 10, an inconsistency may be a deviation in the actual position of the point X0 from its expected position in one of the three planes).
Li discloses wherein each sphere has a known radius, and solving the error function comprises determining, for surface points of each sphere, a difference error between the estimated radius at a surface point and the known radius (paragraph 27, calculating the light ball and each matt sphere of sphere between the sphere centre of the ball matt plate distance calibration value (standard value) are compared to obtain the 3D scanner length size measuring error value)
Referring to claim 4, Heidemann discloses wherein the method comprises:
placing a further calibration target having a plurality of two-dimensional markers in the scan volume;
capturing images of the further calibration target using the 3D scanning system;
determining positions of the markers in the captured images; and
calibrating the 3D scanning system using the determined positions of the markers (paragraph 98, When checking calibration parameters, calibration plate 400 is customarily placed in various positions relative to the 3D measurement device. Once the calibration parameters have been checked, the previous calibration parameters are adjusted where necessary. As part of an optimization strategy, for example, the calibration parameters are adjusted until the measurement results for marks 402, 403, 404, 404a and textures of calibration plate 400 match their known characteristics, which can be retrieved using information code 401).
Referring to claim 5, Heidemann discloses wherein calibrating the 3D scanning system comprises:
determining parameters of camera models using the determined positions of the markers (paragraph 73, Extrinsic parameters for each unit (cameras 111, 112, 113 and projector 121) are generally the six degrees of freedom of a rigid body, i.e. three spatial coordinates and three angles. Intrinsic parameters refer to camera and projector device characteristics, such as focal length, position of the primary point, distortion parameters, centering of the photo sensor array or the MEMS projector array, the dimensions of these arrays in each dimension, the rotation of these arrays relative to the local system of coordinates of the 3D measurement device 100, and the aberration correction coefficients for the camera lens or projector lens systems. Operating parameters include the wavelength of the light source 121a, the temperature and the humidity); and
refining the parameters using the determined image pixel correspondences (paragraph 73, The calibration parameters that may require correction may be extrinsic parameters, intrinsic parameters and operating parameters).
Referring to claims 6 and 13, Heidemann discloses wherein refining the parameters comprises adjusting the parameters within constraints (paragraph 77, FIG. 13 shows the error field for a rotation of the first camera 111 about the viewing angle, i.e. the calibration parameter for the roll angle of the first camera 111 must be corrected [angles are at least constrained to values between 0 and 360]).
Referring to claims 7 and 14, Li discloses wherein the calibration target comprises at least three spheres (FIG. 1 shows light ball plate having 16 spheres).
Referring to claim 8, Heidemann discloses wherein the calibration target comprises at least four spheres, three of the spheres lie in a common plane, and at least a fourth sphere lies outside the common plane (FIG. 2 shows light ball plate having 4 spheres in the same plane and 3 spheres in another plane).
Referring to claim 9, Heidemann discloses a method comprising:
receiving image data from cameras of a 3D scanning system, the image data comprising views of a calibration target in a scan volume (paragraph 90, Both for an initial calibration and for recalibration, which is performed routinely or when inconsistencies are identified and calibration parameters require correction, an external calibration object may be used in principle, according to one embodiment, a calibration plate 400, as described below and illustrated in FIG. 14);
determining from the image data image pixel correspondences (paragraph 77, The correspondence may be found, for example, in that point 216, 236 may be the image of a spot from the pattern X on the object O, i.e. point 216, 236 is illuminated and the area around it is dark); and
refining parameters of camera models of the 3D scanning system using the determined image pixel correspondences (paragraph 73, Extrinsic parameters for each unit (cameras 111, 112, 113 and projector 121) are generally the six degrees of freedom of a rigid body, i.e. three spatial coordinates and three angles. Intrinsic parameters refer to camera and projector device characteristics, such as focal length, position of the primary point, distortion parameters, centering of the photo sensor array or the MEMS projector array, the dimensions of these arrays in each dimension, the rotation of these arrays relative to the local system of coordinates of the 3D measurement device 100, and the aberration correction coefficients for the camera lens or projector lens systems. Operating parameters include the wavelength of the light source 121a, the temperature and the humidity).
While Heidemann discloses placing a calibration target, Heidemann does not disclose expressly placing a calibration target having a plurality of spheres.
Li discloses placing a calibration target having a plurality of spheres in a scan volume of a 3D scanning system (paragraph 21, The spherical surface is matt ball 3 diffusely reflective surface, so that it can ensure the 3D scanner laser scanning, structured light scanner capable of obtaining high-quality 3D cloud can be used as all kinds of 3D optical scanner, a standard three-dimensional profile measuring system measuring precision calibration).
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to calibration target having a plurality of spheres. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase the effectiveness of calibration in order to obtain high quality point cloud data without errors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Li with Heidemann to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Referring to claims 12 and 15, Heidemann discloses receiving further image data from the cameras, the further image data comprising views of a further calibration target having a plurality of two-dimensional markers in the scan volume;
determining from the further image data positions of the markers;
determining parameters of the camera models using the determined positions of the markers; and
refining the parameters using the determined image pixel correspondences (paragraph 98, When checking calibration parameters, calibration plate 400 is customarily placed in various positions relative to the 3D measurement device. Once the calibration parameters have been checked, the previous calibration parameters are adjusted where necessary. As part of an optimization strategy, for example, the calibration parameters are adjusted until the measurement results for marks 402, 403, 404, 404a and textures of calibration plate 400 match their known characteristics, which can be retrieved using information code 401).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER K HUNTSINGER whose telephone number is (571)272-7435. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 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, Benny Q Tieu can be reached at 571-272-7490. 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.
/PETER K HUNTSINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682