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 Amendment
This communication is in response to the action filed on 06/29/2026.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15 are currently amended. Claims 1-15 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06/29/2026 on pages 6-10, under REMARKS with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1 applicants on page 7 state that:
PNG
media_image1.png
294
655
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner would like to point to primary reference of record US 2014/0285676 A1 to BARRETO et al. (hereinafter “BARRETO”), specifically sections figs 7-8, and 14; and paragraphs [0023-0024], and [0033]. Where paragraph [0033] states “apparatus that is disclosed in this patent application consists of a calibration box (FIG. 14) used to acquire a single image of a known pattern. The acquired image is used as input to the novel calibration algorithm (FIG. 13), that will provide the necessary camera parameters to perform a real time and lens rotation independent image distortion correction”, which clearly shows a calibration box having a circular pattern of dots projected onto it to estimate an ellipse using a calibration algorithm wherein the calibration box acts substantially as the calibration board as claimed. Further BARRETO at paragraph [0024] states “FIG. 8 shows the radial distortion correction of endoscopic video sequences with lens probe rotation. The original and warped frames are presented in the top and bottom rows, respectively. (a) shows the reference position (a=0) for which the initial calibration is performed. (b) compares the distortion correction results without (left) and with (right) compensation of the lens rotation motion”, which clearly shows image correction/compensation being performed based on image distortion/warping. These sections clearly cover the limitations as claimed, and include technical mechanisms in order to determine the ellipses center during the calibration process, if the applicant would like to claim a specific technical mechanism that mechanism must be explicitly defined in the claimed language. See full rejections to the claims below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 § U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2014/0285676 A1 to BARRETO et al. (hereinafter “BARRETO”).
As per claim 1, BARRETO discloses the camera calibration method performed by a computer device (a system and method of camera calibration using ellipse’s and a conic curve; abstract; figs 4a-c; paragraphs [0051-0055]), the method comprising: calculating an ellipse in a normalized coordinate system from a circular pattern, arranged on a calibration board in a space (the computing system is adapted to calculate an ellipse with five degrees of freedom in a coordinate space and utilizes circular dot patterns to do so, these circular patterns are displayed onto a calibration box acting as the calibration board for the circular dot patterns to be projected onto and arranged on; abstract; figs 2, 4a-c, and 14; paragraphs [0018], [0033], [0043], [0049-0055]); expressing a center of a distorted ellipse in a camera coordinate system as a linear combination of moments of the ellipse to compensate for a bias caused by distortion (the distorted ellipse generated from the circular dot pattern includes a center point and the coordinate system generates the ellipse by looking at motion vectors acting as the moments of the images and patterns projected onto the calibration box and is used to account for bias/error caused by warping/distortion in the image and uses equation 11 acting as the model to determine bias/error compensation; figs 4c, and 7-8; paragraphs [0023-0024], [0053], [0059]); and performing camera calibration using an image of the circular pattern and the center as a control point (and performing camera calibration where in the defined center points of the pattern align with the dot pattern and act as control points; paragraphs [0008-0009], [0051-0055]).
As per claim 2, BARRETO discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein calculating the ellipse comprises: transforming the circular pattern in the space into a conic curve in the camera coordinate system (mapping of the detected points back into the original image and fitting of a conic curve using robust estimation; paragraph [0049]; claim 8); and calculating the ellipse in the normalized coordinate system by projecting the conic curve onto the normalized coordinate system (tracking the boundary contour across frames by fitting a conic curve to edge points detected in radial directions and projecting it as the ellipse into the coordinate system; paragraphs [0039-0045], [0049]; claim 8).
As per claim 4, BARRETO discloses the method according to claim 3,wherein the n-th-order moments are first-order moments (vector moments are tracked for each point on the distorted ellipse and the first moments are the center points of the ellipse; paragraphs [0047], [0051-0055]; note specification paragraph [81] states first moments are the centers of the shape).
As per claim 5, BARRETO discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the camera calibration is performed based on a pinhole camera model (the system is applied to and based on a pin hole model and is an improvement on standard pin hole models; paragraphs [0003], [0008-0009], [0021-0023]).
As per claim 7, BARRETO discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the distorted ellipse is distorted by radial distortion (the distortion of the ellipse is due to radial distortion; paragraphs [0002], [0019], [0024], [0031]).
As per claim 8, BARRETO discloses the method according to The method according to wherein calculating the ellipse comprises calculating the ellipse using a matrix corresponding to the circular pattern and extrinsic parameters between target coordinates of the space and the camera coordinate system (the system utilizes matrices in order to determine the dot pattern to follow to determine the ellipse shape; paragraphs [0042-0048], [0061-0063]); and wherein expressing the center of the distorted ellipse comprises expressing the center of the distorted ellipse using a distortion parameter of the camera coordinate system and an intrinsic parameter of the camera (the system includes a calibration parameter acting as the distortion parameter to control the level of distortion of the generated ellipse; fig 5; paragraphs [0021-0022], [0038], [0053], [0059]).
As per claim 9, BARRETO discloses a computer device for camera calibration (a system and method of camera calibration using ellipse’s and a conic curve; abstract; figs 4a-c; paragraphs [0051-0055]), comprising: a memory (the computing system comprises a memory to store instructions related to the method; fig 9; paragraphs [0076-0079]); and one or more processors communicatively connected to the memory and configured to execute instructions stored in the memory to (the computing system further includes at least one processor to execute instructions stored in memory related to the method; fig 9; paragraphs [0076-0079]): calculate an ellipse in a normalized coordinate system from a circular pattern arranged on a calibration board in a space (the computing system is adapted to calculate an ellipse with five degrees of freedom in a coordinate space and utilizes circular dot patterns to do so, these circular patterns are displayed onto a calibration box acting as the calibration board for the circular dot patterns to be projected onto and arranged on; abstract; figs 2, 4a-c, and 14; paragraphs [0018], [0033], [0043], [0049-0055]); express a center of a distorted ellipse in a camera coordinate system as a linear combination of moments of the ellipse to compensate for a bias caused by distortion (the distorted ellipse generated from the circular dot pattern includes a center point and the coordinate system generates the ellipse by looking at motion vectors acting as the moments of the images and patterns projected onto the calibration box and is used to account for bias/error caused by warping/distortion in the image and uses equation11 acting as the model to determine bias/error compensation; figs 4c, and 7-8; paragraphs [0023-0024], [0053], [0059]); and perform camera calibration using an image of the circular pattern and the center as a control point (and performing camera calibration where in the defined center points of the pattern align with the dot pattern and act as control points; paragraphs [0008-0009], [0051-0055]).
As per claim 10, BARRETO discloses the computer device according to claim 9, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: transform the circular pattern in the space into a conic curve in the camera coordinate systems (mapping of the detected points back into the original image and fitting of a conic curve using robust estimation; paragraph [0049]; claim 8) and calculate the ellipse in the normalized coordinate system by projecting the conic curve onto the normalized coordinate system (tracking the boundary contour across frames by fitting a conic curve to edge points detected in radial directions and projecting it as the ellipse into the coordinate system; paragraphs [0039-0045], [0049]; claim 8).
As per claim 11, BARRETO discloses the computer device according to claim 9, wherein the moments comprises first-order moments (vector moments are tracked for each point on the distorted ellipse and the first moments are the center points of the ellipse; paragraphs [0047], [0051-0055]; note specification paragraph [81] states first moments are the centers of the shape).
As per claim 12, BARRETO discloses the computer device according to claim 9, further comprising a camera module communicatively connected to the one or more processors and configured to capture images, the camera module being implemented according to a pinhole camera model, wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform the camera calibration for the camera module (the computing device is a camera comprising processors and memory components and a camera/image sensor wherein the camera is a pin hole camera; figs 4a-c; paragraphs [0003], [0051-0055]).
As per claim 14, BARRETO discloses the computer device according to claim 9, wherein the distorted ellipse is distorted by radial distortion (the distortion of the ellipse is due to radial distortion; paragraphs [0002], [0019], [0024], [0031]).
As per claim 15, BARRETO discloses a non- transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a computer program that, when executed by one or more processors of a computer device (a system and method of camera calibration using a camera a computer and a digital generated ellipse’s and a conic curve; abstract; figs 4a-c; paragraphs [0051-0055]), causes the computer device to perform a camera calibration method the camera calibration method comprising calculating an ellipse in a normalized coordinate system from a circular pattern arranged on a calibration board in a space (the computing system is adapted to calculate an ellipse with five degrees of freedom in a coordinate space and utilizes circular dot patterns to do so, where the dot patterns are projected onto the calibration box acting substantially as the calibration board; abstract; figs 4a-c; paragraphs [0033], [0043], [0049-0055]); expressing a center of a distorted ellipse in a camera coordinate system as a linear combination of moments of the ellipse to compensate for a bias caused by distortion (the distorted ellipse generated from the circular dot pattern includes a center point and the coordinate system generates the ellipse by looking at motion vectors acting as the moments of the images; fig 4c; paragraphs [0053], [0059]); and performing camera calibration using an image of the circular pattern and the center as a control point (and performing camera calibration where in the defined center points of the pattern align with the dot pattern and act as control points; paragraphs [0008-0009], [0051-0055]).
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 non-obviousness.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 § U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 2014/0285676 A1 to BARRETO et al. (hereinafter “BARRETO”) in view of US 10,373,336 B1 to ISLAM et al (hereinafter “ISLAM”).
As per claim 3, BARRETO discloses the method according to claim 1. BARRETO fails to disclose wherein the moments comprise n-th-order moments, wherein n is an integer equal to or greater than 1.
ISLAM discloses wherein the moments comprise n-th-order moments, wherein n is an integer equal to or greater than 1 (during calibration the plurality of locations may be exactly n^3 locations that are uniformly distributed on or within the imaginary cube, wherein n is a positive integer that is equal to or greater than 2, or equal to or greater than 3, which both conditions are able to meet and exceed the condition of greater than one set forth in the claims; fig 5C; column 16, lines 5-54).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BARRETO to have the moments comprise n-th-order moments, wherein n is an integer equal to or greater than 1 of ISLAM reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide the three points for generation of the cube/ellipse for calibration are uniformly distributed as suggested by column 16, lines 5-54 of ISLAM. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine ISLAM with BARRETO to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 § U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 2014/0285676 A1 to BARRETO et al. (hereinafter “BARRETO”) in view of US 2023/0168081 A1 to GU (hereinafter “GU”).
As per claim 6, BARRETO discloses the method according to claim 1. BARRETO fails to disclose wherein expressing the center of the distorted ellipse comprises expressing the center as the linear combination of the moments using a Riemann metric.
GU discloses wherein expressing the center of the distorted ellipse comprises expressing the center as the linear combination of the moments using a Riemann metric (the computing system during generation of the calibration shape the ellipse the system uses Riemann algorithms comprising Riemann metrics; paragraphs [0170-0171]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BARRETO to have wherein expressing the center of the distorted ellipse comprises expressing the center as the linear combination of the moments using a Riemann metric of GU reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide much easier and faster than conventional methods, the conformal geometric method described herein may handle surfaces in the real world with complicated topologies and geometries and map them onto one of three canonical shapes, e.g. aspheric, Euclidean plane, or hyperbolic plane as suggested by paragraph [0170] of GU. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine GU with BARRETO to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
As per claim 13, BARRETO discloses the computer device according to claim 9. BARRETO fails to disclose wherein the one or more processors are configured to express the center of the distorted ellipse as the linear combination of the moments using a Riemann metric.
GU discloses wherein the one or more processors are configured to express the center of the distorted ellipse as the linear combination of the moments using a Riemann metric (the computing system during generation of the calibration shape the ellipse the system uses Riemann algorithms comprising Riemann metrics; paragraphs [0170-0171]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BARRETO to have wherein the one or more processors are configured to express the center of the distorted ellipse as the linear combination of the moments using a Riemann metric of GU reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide much easier and faster than conventional methods, the conformal geometric method described herein may handle surfaces in the real world with complicated topologies and geometries and map them onto one of three canonical shapes, e.g. aspheric, Euclidean plane, or hyperbolic plane as suggested by paragraph [0170] of GU. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine GU with BARRETO to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited figures, and paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested for the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Examiner has also cited references in PTO892 but not relied on, which are relevant and pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, and may also be reading (anticipatory/obvious) on the claims and claimed limitations. Applicant is advised to consider the references in preparing the response/amendments in-order to expedite the prosecution.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVIN JACOB DHOOGE whose telephone number is (571) 270-0999. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached on (571) 270-5183. 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.
/D J DHOOGE/Examiner, Art Unit 2677
/ANDREW W BEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights