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 claims 1-19 have been considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-19 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 20-27 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Additionally based upon the amendment of independent claim 20 a secondary rejection is also being provided, given the broadness of claim 20.
Applicant’s Arguments:
(claims 20-27) Applicant’s groups arguments for claims 1 and 20.
Examiner Response:
The examiner notes applicant argues claim 1 and 20, but the arguments pertain to features of claim 1 that are not in claim 20. Nonetheless, the examiner has provided a new rejection with regard to claim 20, 25 and 27, based upon the amendment (broadening) as noted below.
”OFFICIAL NOTICE”
The examiner notes there was not arguments/traversal regarding the previous “OFFICIAL NOTICE” taken in the previous action, thus the “OFFICIAL NOTICE” is taken to be admitted prior art. (MPEP 2143.03©)
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.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 20 and 25- 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SABO et al., US 20260017877 in view of Liu et al., US 20230283906.
In considering claim 1,
PNG
media_image1.png
339
670
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claimed generating at least one fisheye image….is met by the vehicle cameras ((Fig 4, 410) which include wide-angle (fisheye lens) (para 31,33, 35, 55, 57, 61)which are used to generate a surround view (SV) to form a virtual bird’s eye view image (para 4-6, 31, 75)
Generating a stitching image…is met where adjacent cameras (where views are adjacent and overlap) are combined/stitched together to form the bird’s eye view image (para 6, 30, 31, 33, 42, 44, 47, 134, 137, 139, 146, 148), where the predetermined direction is met by the camera coordinates and the real world 3D coordinates (para 29, 93, 99, 107 vehicle state, 120, 126) which includes directions in each axis), including the perpendicular direction for overlapping/corners of combined images (para 50)
The claimed determining…is met where the extrinsic parameters are optimized (para 64, 176, 196) based on loss terms, where loss includes the overlapped regions (para 82-83). Sabo discloses pixel differences can compose an error function (para 146, 150-152), including the differences in the overlapped regions (para 45, 83, 146, 148, 153, 177 and 190).
The examiner notes SABO does not explicitly recite the limitations, “simulate”, however the examiner notes as evidenced in the previous action, the evidenced Liu et al., US 20230283906 (Fig 1, 2,6, para 1, 3, 5-8616, 26, 27-31, 34discloses a vehicle camera calibration simulation which may be calibrated using remote/cloud (online) calibration.
The motivation to implement the teaches of Liu with SABO would provide the designer/user/system the ability to remotely update/correct/calibrate the vehicle sensors (cameras) to ensure a proper/safe operating environment for the vehicle/driver 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 25,
Sabo discloses that adjacent camera and the extrinsic parameters are optimized in order to generate a surround view image, where the combined surround view image is after (the result) of optimizing the extrinsic camera parameters between adjoining cameras.
In considering claim 26,
SABO disclose mis-projection (para 134-135), which included projected objects (2d) to 3D coordinates (reprojection), color/brightness correction (para 43-44, 45, 49-53, 83, 148, 151-154, 164, 166, 177, 178, 190-191 and corrects for any seam/edge issues (para 8, 45, 47, 50, 83, 138, 140, 141, 146, 148, 153-156, 162, 164, 165, 168, 177, 190, 191).
In considering claim 27,
Both Liu and SABO disclose fish eye cameras installed on a “vehicle” as noted above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 are allowed.
Claims 21-24 are 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
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 newly 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 2600 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