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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/18/2024, 02/03/2025, and 06/09/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 14-16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US 8223230 to Chan et al, hereinafter “Chan.”
With regard to claim 1, Chan discloses an image quality evaluation system, col. 3, line 50-65, comprising: an image calibration device placed in a scene for displaying a calibration pattern, col. 6, lines 14-19; an image capturing device for capturing a first comparison image of the scene and the calibration pattern, col. 4, lines 47-61; and a processing device configured to obtain the first comparison image and a reference image containing the calibration pattern, compare the calibration pattern in the first comparison image and the reference image to generate a comparison result, and generate calibration information based on the comparison result; wherein the image capturing device is calibrated according to the calibration information, the calibrated image capturing device captures a second comparison image of the scene and the calibration pattern, and the processing device compares the calibration pattern in the second comparison image and the reference image to generate an image quality evaluation result (col. 4, lines 58-61 where iterations are performed to refine the calibration, essentially taking the updated parameters from the previous iteration and applying them to the new image of the reference pattern (second comparison image)).
With regard to claim 2, Chan discloses the image quality evaluation system according to claim 1, wherein the calibration pattern comprises a positioning block (“markers” col. 12, lines 16-29), and the processing device is configured to: analyze the positioning block in the first comparison image to obtain first positioning information; analyze the positioning block in the reference image to obtain reference positioning information; and compare the first positioning information and the reference positioning information to obtain the calibration information, col. 11, lines 6-10.
With regard to claim 4, Chan discloses the image quality evaluation system according to claim 1, wherein the calibration pattern comprises an analysis block (reference patterns, see Fig 4 for example), and the processing device compares the analysis block in the second comparison image and the reference image to generate the image quality evaluation result (iterative process, col. 4, line 58).
Claim 7 is rejected for reasoning, mutatis mutandis, as that of claim 1 above.
Claim 8 is rejected for reasoning, mutatis mutandis, as that of claim 4 above.
With regard to claim 14, Chan discloses the image quality evaluation method according to claim 7, wherein the calibration pattern comprises an analysis block, and the processing unit analyzes the analysis block in the second comparison image and the analysis block in the reference image to obtain respectively a peak signal-to-noise ratio and a reference peak signal-to-noise ratio, and based on a deviation percentage between the peak signal-to-noise ratio and the reference peak signal-to-noise ratio, generates a noise level evaluation result of the image quality evaluation result, col. 6, lines 20-38 and col. 18, lines 21-44.
With regard to claim 15, Chan discloses an image calibration device comprising: a calibration pattern, see Figure 10 comprising a background block (dark gray outer portions of Figure 10), an analysis block (alternating white/black line portions of Figure 10), and a positioning block (dots interspersed throughout); wherein the analysis block and the background block provide image quality information, and the positioning block is different from the analysis block and provides positioning information (col. 7, line 48 and col. 11, line 6 et seq).
With regard to claim 16, Chan discloses the image calibration device according to claim 15, wherein the positioning block comprises at least one color, and a color of the background block is different from the at least one color of the positioning block, col. 11, line 41 where positioning markers (blocks) are different colors.
With regard to claim 18, Chan discloses the image calibration device according to claim 15, wherein the positioning block comprises a plurality of sub-positioning blocks located respectively at a plurality of corners of the calibration pattern, see Figure 10.
With regard to claim 19, Chan discloses the image calibration device according to claim 18, wherein each of the plurality of sub-positioning blocks comprises a plurality of color blocks of different colors, and the plurality of color blocks in one of the plurality of sub-positioning blocks are arranged differently from the plurality of color blocks in another one of the plurality of sub-positioning blocks, col. 11, line 41 - col. 12, line 15.
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.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan in view of WO2017149869, hereinafter WO’869. Note that all citations and references to WO’869 are in relation to the English translation provided by Applicant in the 02/03/2025 IDS.
Chan discloses a calibration process in col. 10, lines 9-15 that describes positioning nonidealities between the camera and the reference pattern, see also col. 9, lines 50-63, roll, tilt, pitch, skew, and yaw. The markers employed in the reference pattern permit a compensation to be performed for positioning errors, col. 11, lines 6-17.
However, Chan fails to set forth a moving mechanism connected to the image capturing device according to adjust a direction and a position of the image capturing device, and the calibration information comprises center translation, rotation, scaling, and camera tilt.
In the same field of endeavor, WO’869 discloses in claim 3 the use of markers that are imaged in order to calibrate camera positioning in the imaging space so as to provide optimal arrangement of the camera. This would inherently involve, panning, tilting, rotation, translation, etc. in order to arrive at optimal placement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided Chan with a mechanism to adjust the camera position relative to positioning markers as taught by WO’869 as doing this would provide for optimal placement of the camera in relation to the reference pattern in order to ensure the camera is tuning image parameters in the most accurate position.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan in view of WO2020107196, hereinafter “WO’196” and also in view of US 2019/0043220 to Kumar et al, hereinafter “Kumar.” Note that all citations and references to WO’196 are in relation to the English translation provided by Applicant in the 02/03/2025 IDS.
Chan discloses a calibration process for a camera that employs reference patterns for correcting noise (claimed “noise evaluation result”), edge sharpness (claimed “clarity evaluation result” and “contrast evaluation result”), but fails to disclose a white balance evaluation result, a saturation evaluation result, and a brightness evaluation result as claimed in claim 5.
However, in the same field of endeavor, WO’196 discloses near the top of page 6 that the test pattern shown in Figure 10, see page 12, the saturation and brightness are evaluated and adjusted.
Also, in the same field of endeavor, Kumar discloses a calibration process for a camera in [0026] that calibrates cameras to have similar white balance properties so that images taken by any of the cameras are consistent in white balance with images taken by other cameras in the group of cameras.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the calibration process of Chan with additional functions directed to saturation, brightness, and white balance as taught by WO’196 and Kumar as these are crucial parameters in producing the most ideal image quality for a user.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan in view of US 7423666 to Sakakibara et al, hereinafter “Sakakibara.”
Chan discloses a calibration process for a camera that employs reference patterns for correcting noise (claimed “noise evaluation result”), edge sharpness (claimed “clarity evaluation result” and “contrast evaluation result”), but fails to disclose a total of five image calibration devices located respectively at four corners and a center of the scene.
Sakakibara discloses a calibration process that involves placing multiple calibration charts 2 at peripheral portions of the scene, see Fig. 85 and col. 43, lines 31-44 and col. 93, lines 36-45.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the calibration system of Chan with multiple charts placed around the scene being imaged as doing so would have increased the accuracy of the positioning of the camera in the scene, which would have enabled an increase in the accuracy of the calibration parameters being decided, see also Sakakibara at col. 93, lines 28-35.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan in view of Kumar.
With regard to claim 9, Chan discloses a calibration process for a camera that employs reference patterns for correcting noise (claimed “noise evaluation result”), edge sharpness (claimed “clarity evaluation result” and “contrast evaluation result”), but fails to disclose a modulation transfer function and a reference modulation transfer function, and based on a deviation percentage between the modulation transfer function and the reference modulation transfer function, generates a clarity evaluation result of the image quality evaluation result.
On the other hand, Kumar discloses a calibration process in [0044] and Figure 8 that uses a modulation transfer function of slave cameras to compare to a region of interest of a master camera so as to improve sharpness.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the calibration process of Chan with the added ability to calculate sharpness as an adjustable parameter so as to create images that are sharp and clear to the user’s eye.
With regard to claim 10, Chan discloses a calibration process for a camera that employs reference patterns for correcting noise (claimed “noise evaluation result”), edge sharpness (claimed “clarity evaluation result” and “contrast evaluation result”), but fails to disclose a color space value and a reference color space value, and based on a deviation percentage between the color space value and the reference color space value, generates a white balance evaluation result of the image quality evaluation result.
However, Kumar discloses a camera calibration process that calibrates the white balance of multiple cameras so that the master camera has a white balance as similar to the slave cameras as possible, see [0026] of Kumar.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the calibration process of Chan with the ability to match/calibrate white balance as taught by Kumar as doing this would create images with consistent white balance, see Kumar at [0026] “may appear more consistent with respect to these parameters.”.
Claims 11-13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan in view of WO’196.
With regard to claims 11-13, Chan discloses a calibration process for a camera that employs reference patterns for correcting noise (claimed “noise evaluation result”) and edge sharpness but fails to disclose a grayscale and a reference grayscale, and based on a deviation percentage between the gray scale and the reference grayscale, generates a contrast evaluation result of the image quality evaluation result (Claim 11); a color space value and a reference space value, and based on the deviation percentage between the color space value and the reference color space value, generates a saturation evaluation result (Claim 12); and an average grayscale and a reference average grayscale, and based on a deviation percentage between the average grayscale and the reference average grayscale, generates a brightness evaluation result (Claim 13).
However, in the same field of endeavor, WO’196 discloses on page 6 that the test pattern shown in Figure 10, see page 12, the saturation and brightness are evaluated and adjusted. Furthermore, WO’196 discloses a 24-color chart and a gray chart, and a gray-scale chart used in calculation color saturation and the contrast and brightness via the gray card/gray-scale.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided Chan with the added functionality of calibrating contrast via a gray-scale calculation, using color space values to calculate saturation, and using average gray-scale values to calculate brightness as taught by WO’196 as doing so would enhance image quality ultimately produced by the camera after calibration, i.e. these are crucial parameters in producing the most ideal image quality for a user.
With regard to claim 17, Chan discloses a calibration process for a camera that employs reference patterns for correcting noise (claimed “noise evaluation result”) and edge sharpness, but fails to disclose wherein the analysis block comprises at least three sub-analysis blocks that are different in color or pattern.
WO’196 discloses in Figure 10 an analysis block, i.e. patterned test chart, that has multiple sub-blocks 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, and 1005 composed of different colors and/or patterns.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided Chan with the test chart having at least three sub-blocks as taught by WO’196 since doing so would enable the camera to image a wider variety of patterns and colors. This would lead to higher quality images as the parameters of the calibration would have been more finely tuned.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art sets forth the general state of the art in camera calibration where one or more test charts are inserted into a scene in order to calibrate parameters of the image sensor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID OMETZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-4pm.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at 571-272-3638. 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.
DAVID OMETZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2672
/DAVID OMETZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights