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 .
Examiner’s Note
While claim 1 included mathematical operations, it is tied to a specific practical application of trailer measurement that uses a scaling factor to derive trailer features and dimension from image data sets. The examiner does not believe the claims are tied to an abstract idea.
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) 1, 4-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herman (20190347498) in view of Goja (20190220990) in further view of El-sawah (20220147742).
Regarding claim 1, Herman teaches a trailer measurement system, comprising: a processor (pars. 58-61):
receiving a first image data set obtained from a first imager included in a device external to a vehicle (pars. 58-61);
identifying the vehicle and a trailer coupled with the vehicle in the first image data set (par. 58-64, attached trailer);
using a factor to derive at least one trailer feature dimension from the trailer identified in the first image data set (pars. 60-64).
Goja also teaches identifying a reference feature having at least one known dimension in the first image data set (par. 8-13, labels);
deriving a scaling factor for the first image data set by comparing a size of the reference feature with respect to the first image data and the at least one known dimension (par. 13-15, scale).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Herman the ability to use reference features with known dimension and scale calculation as taught by Goja. The reason is to improve calculation the relationship between the images for image property estimation.
El-sawah teaches portable device external to the vehicle (see par. 12 and 22).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Herman and Goja to have an external imaging device as taught by El-sawah in order to allow the system to work in various environments.
Regarding claim 4, see par. 12, 22 and 75 of El-sawah.
Regarding claim 5, Goja teaches the first image data set comprises the visual image data as a plurality of images including the vehicle and trailer from a corresponding plurality of locations surrounding the vehicle and the trailer (see pars. 58-63); and
prior to identifying the reference feature, the processor uses a photogrammetry process to construct the first image data set into a three-dimensional model of the vehicle and trailer (par. 61-63).
Regarding claim 6, see Goja, pars. 58-63, multiple images.
Regarding claim 7, see Goja, pars. 58-63 which teaches multiple image and video frames are just single images. Also El-sawah in pars. 12 and 22-23 teach portable camera which can capture videos.
Regarding claim 8, see pars. 18, 38 and 64 of Goja, Lidar and 3d point clouds.
Regarding claim 9, see the rejection of claims 1 and 5.
Regarding claim 10, see the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 11, see the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 12, see pars. 12, 22-23 of El-sawah which teaches a mobile device and pars. 58-64 of Gaja which teaches receiving images.
Regarding claim 13, see pars. 70-73 of El-sawah.
Regarding claim 14, see par. 60 of Goja.
Regarding claim 16, the three references teach a trailer measurement system for use in connection with a vehicle, comprising: a first processor: receiving a first image data set obtained from a first imager included in a portable electronic device external to the vehicle (see Goja, pars. 58-61 and El-Sawah pars. 12 and 22-23);
receiving three-dimensional point-location data from a lidar sensor included in the portable electronic device (Goja pars. 18, 38 and 64);
identifying a vehicle and a trailer coupled with the vehicle in the first image data set (Goja aprs. 58-64);
identifying a reference feature having at least one known dimension in the first image data set (Herman pars. 11);
and deriving at least one trailer feature dimension from the trailer identified in the first image data set including using the first image data set in combination with the three-dimensional point-
location data to scale the first image data set based on the known dimension of the reference feature, the at least one trailer feature dimension being measured in at least the scaled first image data set (Goja pars. 38 and 60-64 for 3d data and Herman pars. 11-15 for scaling based on a known feature).
Regarding claim 17, see pars. 58-64 of Goja.
Regarding claim 18, see pars. 70-75 of El-sawah for guidance and trasmiting and pars. 38 and 64 of Goja for 3d data.
Claim(s) 2-3, 15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herman (20190347498) in view of Goja (20190220990) in view of El-sawah (20220147742) in further view of Pliefke (20140160276).
Regarding claim 2, Goja already teaches known dimension and scale of in pars. 8-15 for reference object.
Pliefke teaches features can be a taillight in pars. 58-64.
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in El-sawah, Herman and Goja to have an a taillight be feature as taught by Pliefke because that is a common feature in trailers.
Regarding claim 3, see par. 28 and 51 of Pliefke.
Regarding claim 15, see par. 28 of Pliefke.
Regarding claims 19-20, see par. 28 of Pliefke.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HADI AKHAVANNIK whose telephone number is (571)272-8622. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 PM Monday to Friday.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-4637. 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.
/HADI AKHAVANNIK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676