DETAILED ACTION
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 submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record on file.
Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed on November 12th, 2024 has been acknowledged and entered.
Information Disclosure Statement(s)
The Information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) filed on November 12th, 2024 and May 27th, 2025 have been acknowledged and considered by the examiner.
Drawing Objection(s)
Figures 1-3 are objected to as depicting a block diagram without “readily identifiable” descriptors of each block, as required by 37 CFR 1.84(n). Rule 84(n) requires “labeled representations” of graphical symbols, such as blocks; and any that are “not universally recognized may be used, subject to approval by the Office, if they are not likely to be confused with existing conventional symbols, and if they are readily identifiable.” In the case of figures 1-3, the blocks are not readily identifiable per se and therefore require the insertion of text that identifies the function of that block. That is, each vacant block should be provided with a corresponding label identifying its function or purpose.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7-9 and 11-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 12, “the specified arrangement properties” should be read as “specified arrangement properties” since there is no antecedent support for this feature of the claim, no prior instantiation of an antecedent reference, therefore, should be read as a first instantiation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claim 1, lines 14-15, “when the calibration device” should be read as “when the calibration device is used” to follow complete sentence claim language and stay consistent with the same claim language appear in the following limitations. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, line 23, “the said correction parameter” should be read as “the correction parameter” to follow proper claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, line 24, “the target position” should be read as “a target position” since there is no antecedent support for this feature of the claim, no prior instantiation of an antecedent reference, therefore, should be read as a first instantiation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claim 1, lines 24-25, “the respective calibration feature” should be read as “a respective calibration feature” since there is no antecedent support for this feature of the claim, no prior instantiation of an antecedent reference, therefore, should be read as a first instantiation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claim 7, line 17, “the evaluation unit” should be read as “an evaluation unit” since there is no antecedent support for this feature of the claim, no prior instantiation of an antecedent reference, therefore, should be read as a first instantiation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claim 8, line 2, “by the digital camera images the information storage means” should be read as “by the digital camera being stored in the information storage means” to follow proper claim language and making the claim comprehensive, the information storage mean should be used to store the image recorded by the digital camera, not to have the digital camera images the information storage means. Appropriate correction is required to avoid indefiniteness 112(b) issue.
Claim 12, line 4, “by the digital camera” should be read as “by a digital camera” since, claim 12 includes contingency language as recited as “a method of image correction configured to correct an image recorded by a digital camera of an image processing system or configured to correct at least one…of the object recorded by the digital camera of the image processing system” therefore, “or” indicates two separate claim scopes, only one option is the instant scope of the claim, therefore, doesn’t carry over the features of the option, therefore, the second option’s digital camera and image processing system is separate and doesn’t carry over antecedent basis referencing of the first option, therefore, should be recited as first instantiation of themselves. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claim 12, line 4, “of the image processing system” should be read as “of an image processing system” since, claim 12 includes contingency language as recited as “a method of image correction configured to correct an image recorded by a digital camera of an image processing system or configured to correct at least one…of the object recorded by the digital camera of the image processing system” therefore, “or” indicates two separate claim scopes, only one option is the instant scope of the claim, therefore, doesn’t carry over the features of the option, therefore, the second option’s digital camera and image processing system is separate and doesn’t carry over antecedent basis referencing of the first option, therefore, should be recited as first instantiation of themselves. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claim 13, line 3, “one calibration parameter configured to calibrate” should be read as “one calibration parameter to calibrate” to follow proper claim language and meaning of the term, a parameter is a value or a calculation results as output to perform a subsequent action, hence, not configuration at this outputting point. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15, line 14, “the suitable at least one calibration” should be read as “a suitable at least one calibration” since there is no antecedent support for this feature of the claim, no prior instantiation of an antecedent reference, therefore, should be read as a first instantiation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claims 9, 11-12 and 14-15 and associated dependent claims are being objected to because the recitation of the limitation “it”, “whose” each is a pronoun with no direct object and therefore, is difficult to determine whether “it” refers to the pitch in the claim, the elongated interface object, the sensing surface driver or another claimed limitation, the procedures which goes to make up the method of determining or the structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The method of determining or structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete system. Please see claim 9 in line 3, claim 11 in line 3, claim 12 in line 23 and 26, claim 14 in line 3, claim 15 in line 11. For examination purposes the office has interpreted the term “it” and “whose” in: claim 9 as “the at least one camera parameter”, claim 11 as “the at least one calibration parameter”, claim 12 as “the determined at least one calibration parameter”, claim 14 as “the determined at least one calibration parameter”, claim 15 as “the at least one calibration parameter’s”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitation(s) that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claims 1, 5, 7 and 12, recite(s) limitation(s) that use words like “means” (or “step”) or similar terms with functional language and do invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
Claim 1; recites the limitation, “a calibration device configured to determine…,” [Lines 1-2] .
Claim 5; recites the limitation, “the at least one information storage means additionally stores an…” [Line 2].
Claim 7; recites the limitation, “an arrangement configured to determine…” [Line 1].
Claim 7; recites the limitation, “the evaluation unit is configured to ascertain …” [Line 15].
Claim 12; recites the limitation, “the evaluation unit ascertains …” [Line 12].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
After a careful analysis, as disclosed above, and a careful review of the specification the following limitations in claims 1, 5, 7 and 12;
(i) “a calibration device” Par. [0006], of the instant specification, filed on November 12th, 2024, discloses calibration device consists a body (e.g., a plate) made of material (e.g. metal, plastic, ceramic, glass or composite) and its spatial extent as well as one or more calibration features such as different geometric and colored figures such as, circles or rings or squares. thus have sufficient structure or material/act wherein is a calibration plate with structure and characteristics as discussed.).
(ii) “the at least one information storage means” Par. [0038], of the instant specification filed on November 12th, 2024, discloses the information storage means is arranged on the calibration device can be adhesively bonded, printed, impressed (e.g. stamped, engraved, etc.) on the calibration device, such as depicted in FIG. 5 of a structure of a chip thus have sufficient structure or material/act wherein is chip memory attached to the calibration device.
(iii) “an arrangement”, the instant specification, filed on November 12th, 2024 has no written support for the recited arrangement to perform the corresponding recited function in claim 7, the closest disclosure can be found in Par. [0051] wherein it discloses the figure 1 depicts an arrangement of the digital camera such as the digital camera comprises optical components, however, does not provide structure, material/act for the arrangement to perform the recited function of determine at least one calibration parameter, thus have no sufficient structure or material/act.
(iv) “the evaluation unit”, Par. [0052], of the instant specification filed on November 12th, 2024, discloses the evaluation unit is microprocessor-based hardware, for example a microcontroller thus have sufficient structure or material/act of a structure of a microprocessor/processor.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 along with their dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 7’s limitation:
Claim 7; recites the limitation, “an arrangement configured to determine…” [Line 1].
Claim 7 respectively invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed functions. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of the ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure performed(s) the claimed function.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 7 along with their dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function in the recited limitation.
Claim 7; recites the limitation, “an arrangement configured to determine…” [Line 1].
The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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 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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8, 11-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David Y. Li et. al., (“US 2019/0122388 A1” hereinafter as “Li”) in view of John J. Keating III (“US 2008/0012850 A1” hereinafter as “Keating”).
(best understood based on the 112f interpretation as stated above) Regarding claim 1, Li explicitly teaches a calibration device (Par. [0004] discloses “the calibration object or target (often in the form of a plate)” is analogous to the recited calibration device as claimed) configured to determine at least one calibration parameter (Par. [0033] discloses “in the step 560 of the calibration procedure of FIG. 5, the transformed features are stored as calibration parameters for each camera in the vision system” hence, the plate is used to determine the calibration parameters), the at least one calibration parameter configured to calibrate a digital camera of an image processing system (Par. [0033] discloses “in the step 560 of the calibration procedure of FIG. 5, the transformed features are stored as calibration parameters for each camera in the vision system” indicating a calibration of cameras of a vision system [analogous to the recited image processing system]), with calibration features (Par. [0036] discloses “the calibration target can comprise a polyhedron…calibration patterns” being analogous to the recited calibration features) and at least one information storage means being arranged on the calibration device (Par. [0031] discloses “information related to the relationship of calibration features on the specific calibration target is accesses-either from storage or by reading an ID code” indicating the target [calibration device] includes a storage or ID code for reading being arranged with the target such as shown in FIG. 6) and the at least one information storage means being inseparably connected to the calibration device (Par. [0031] discloses “the ID code is located on the target” indicating the information storage means being inseparably connected to the target [the calibration device]), with the at least one information storage means containing specified arrangement properties (Par. [0031] discloses “the ID code is located on the target... ID features…the ID can encode feature location coordinates or other relationships” indicating specified arrangement properties [encoding of feature location coordinates and relationships]) which describe the arrangement of the calibration features on the calibration device (Par. [0032] discloses “the retrieved feature relationship data…is associated with the actual located features in the image of the calibration target” therefore, the relationship [the arrangement] indicating the actual located features of the target [calibration features of the calibration device as claimed]), wherein the at least one information storage means contains a reference target position of a reference calibration feature (Par. [0032] discloses “the calibration process determines which features located in the calibration target…correspond to features in the relationship data. This correspondence can be accomplished by registering a fiducial on the target with the location of same fiducial in the relationship data…the calibration target can include fiducials embedded at predetermined locations within the artwork, each of which references a portion of the overall surface” indicating the fiducials being reference positions of the target of calibration features as part of the feature relationship data being the information from the ID embedding [information storage mean]) from the calibration features on the calibration device (Par. [0032] discloses “the calibration process determines which features located in the calibration target…correspond to features in the relationship data. This correspondence can be accomplished by registering a fiducial on the target” indicating the fiducial being reference target position being calibration of the target [the calibration device as claimed]), with the specified arrangement properties and the reference target position of the reference calibration feature being readable from the at least one information storage means is used (Par. [0031] discloses “the ID code is located on the target... ID features…the ID can encode feature location coordinates or other relationships” indicating specified arrangement properties [encoding of feature location coordinates and relationships]; Par. [0032] discloses “the retrieved feature relationship data…is associated with the actual located features in the image of the calibration target…the calibration process determines which features located in the calibration target…correspond to features in the relationship data. This correspondence can be accomplished by registering a fiducial on the target with the location of same fiducial in the relationship data…the calibration target can include fiducials embedded at predetermined locations within the artwork, each of which references a portion of the overall surface…this arrangement can be desirable” indicating a specific arrangement indicating the fiducials being reference positions of the target of calibration features as part of the feature relationship data being the information from the ID embedding [information storage mean] indicating that the arrangement, the reference target position all obtained by the ID encoding) by the digital camera of the image processing system (Par. [0033] discloses “in the step 560 of the calibration procedure of FIG. 5, the transformed features are stored as calibration parameters for each camera in the vision system”) when the calibration device, wherein a target position of at least one further calibration feature from the calibration features on the calibration device is ascertainable from the specified arrangement properties (Par. [0032] discloses “this arrangement can be desirable, for example, where parts of the calibration target are obscured to one or more cameras of the cameras’ field of view is smaller than the overall surface of the target so that certain cameras image only a portion of the overall target. The embedded IDs allow the vision system processor to orient the separate views to the global coordinate system and register the partial views into a single overall image of the target” indicating a registering step [ascertaining] to ascertain the obscured or missing area of the target capturable by the cameras, to obtain further calibration feature [previously obscured or missing, now is obtained through reorienting performed by the vision system processor] through a desired arrangement [analogous to the recited specific arrangement properties], the vision system processor here is analogous to the recited evaluation unit as claimed) and the reference target position of the reference calibration feature by an evaluation unit of the image processing system when the calibration device is used (Par. [0032] discloses “the calibration process determines which features located in the calibration target…correspond to features in the relationship data. This correspondence can be accomplished by registering a fiducial on the target with the location of same fiducial in the relationship data…the calibration target can include fiducials embedded at predetermined locations within the artwork, each of which references a portion of the overall surface” indicating the fiducials being reference positions of the target of calibration features as part of the feature relationship data being the information from the ID embedding; therefore, the registering as stated in Par. [0032] being performed by the processor [the evaluation unit] based on the fiducials reference positions determination of the registering if is necessary to be performed).
However, Li does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one information storage means contains a respective correction parameter configured to be used with the reference calibration feature and/or the at least one further calibration feature, the said correction parameter describing a relative deviation between a known actual position and the target position of the respective calibration feature, with the correction parameter being readable from the at least one information storage means by the digital camera of the image processing system when the calibration device is used.
Keating explicitly teaches wherein the at least one information storage means contains a respective correction parameter configured to be used with the reference calibration feature and/or the at least one further calibration feature (“and/or” indicates a selection, hence only one option is the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “with the reference calibration feature” which is disclosed in Keating, Par. [0131], which discloses “at step 254, the differences measured are used to calculate the calibration corrections for each optical recorder relative to the refence optical recorder. At step 256, the calibration corrections are used to compensate the desired images either mechanically or electronically. The methodology”, moreover, Par. [0141] discloses “the misalignment of the virtual calibration pattern is determined. At step 314, the correction factors, for example, shift, rotation and scaling in an orthogonal coordinate system, as a function of position in the desired object…the corrections are applied for each optical recorder” indicating a misalignment determination for correction process of registering/aligning the views which is analogous to Li’s registering step to compensate the obscured and/or missing parts of the target in the camera’s field of view, which has been mapped to Li to be based on the information storage means, now Keating further teach to base on correction factors and the refence pattern [analogous to the recited respective correction parameter and reference calibration feature]), the said correction parameter describing a relative deviation between a known actual position and the target position of the respective calibration feature (Par. [0131], which discloses “at step 252, the differences in the virtual calibration pattern of each optical recorder other than the reference optical recorder is measured…at step 254, the differences measured are used to calculate the calibration corrections for each optical recorder relative to the refence optical recorder.”, moreover, Par. [0141] discloses “the misalignment of the virtual calibration pattern is determined. At step 314, the correction factors, for example, shift, rotation and scaling in an orthogonal coordinate system, as a function of position in the desired object…the corrections are applied for each optical recorder” indicating the correction factor informs the misalignment of the differences between measurement [analogous to the recited deviation], FIG. 37, at step 252, illustrates the difference is measured between the virtual calibration pattern [target position of the respective calibration feature] to the reference optical recorder [known actual position]), with the correction parameter being readable from the at least one information storage means (The misalignment determination for correction process of registering/aligning the views which is analogous to Li’s registering step to compensate the obscured and/or missing parts of the target in the camera’s field of view, which has mapped to Li to be based on the information storage means, now Keating further teach to base on correction factors and the refence pattern) by the digital camera of the image processing system when the calibration device is used (Par. [0130] discloses “during calibration…this arrangement enables the recording of desired and calibration information…implementation of panoramic cameras such as those that are now implemented mechanically in CineMax systems” indicating the processing is performed by camera of a system which is analogous to image processing system which the digital camera belongs to when the calibration device is in use).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teaches of Li of having a calibration device configured to determine at least one calibration parameter, the at least one calibration parameter configured to calibrate a digital camera of an image processing system, wherein the at least one information storage means contains a reference target position of a reference calibration feature from the calibration features on the calibration device, with the specified arrangement properties and the reference target position of the reference calibration feature being readable from the at least one information storage means is used by the digital camera of the image processing system when the calibration device, wherein a target position of at least one further calibration feature from the calibration features on the calibration device is ascertainable, with the teachings of Keating of having wherein the at least one information storage means contains a respective correction parameter configured to be used with the reference calibration feature and/or the at least one further calibration feature, the said correction parameter describing a relative deviation between a known actual position and the target position of the respective calibration feature, with the correction parameter being readable from the at least one information storage means by the digital camera of the image processing system.
Wherein having Lee’s a calibration device configured to determine at least one calibration parameter, the at least one calibration parameter configured to calibrate a digital camera of an image processing system, wherein the at least one information storage means contains a reference target position of a reference calibration feature from the calibration features on the calibration device, with the specified arrangement properties and the reference target position of the reference calibration feature being readable from the at least one information storage means is used by the digital camera of the image processing system when the calibration device, wherein a target position of at least one further calibration feature from the calibration features on the calibration device is ascertainable, wherein the at least one information storage means contains a respective correction parameter configured to be used with the reference calibration feature and/or the at least one further calibration feature, the said correction parameter describing a relative deviation between a known actual position and the target position of the respective calibration feature, with the correction parameter being readable from the at least one information storage means by the digital camera of the image processing system.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to provide vision systems that can perform calibration of 3D and 3D vision data reliably and versatilely with high accuracy based on feature relationships and 3D calibration data in a single image acquisition and to perform image acquisition in high speed environment wherein desired object can be calibrated more accurately. Since both Li and Keating share the same endeavor of systems that perform calibration using checkerboard plate. Wherein Li’s system improve 3D calibration data in a single image acquisition, see Li’s Par. [0035] and Keating’s system perform image acquisition in high speed environment wherein desired object can be calibrated more accurately, see Keating’s Par. [0154].
Regarding claim 2, Li in view of Keating explicitly teaches the calibration device as claimed in claim 1.
However, Li does not explicitly teach wherein the correction parameter additionally describes a relative deviation of a size and/or a shape and/or an orientation of the reference calibration feature and/or of the at least one further calibration feature.
Keating explicitly teaches wherein the correction parameter additionally describes a relative deviation of a size and/or a shape and/or an orientation of the reference calibration feature and/or of the at least one further calibration feature (“and/or” indicates a selection, only one of the option is the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “an orientation of the reference calibration feature” for mapping which is taught in Keating’s Par. [0141], which discloses “the correction factors, for example, shift, rotation, and scaling in an orthogonal coordinate system” rotation indicating an orientation of the difference [deviation] that the correction factors are used for compensating).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teaches of Li of having a calibration device configured to determine at least one calibration parameter, the at least one calibration parameter configured to calibrate a digital camera of an image processing system, with the teachings of Keating of having wherein a correction parameter additionally describes a relative deviation of a size and/or a shape and/or an orientation of the reference calibration feature and/or of the at least one further calibration feature.
Wherein having Lee’s a calibration device configured to determine at least one calibration parameter, the at least one calibration parameter configured to calibrate a digital camera of an image processing system, wherein a correction parameter additionally describes a relative deviation of a size and/or a shape and/or an orientation of the reference calibration feature and/or of the at least one further calibration feature.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to provide vision systems that can perform calibration of 3D and 3D vision data reliably and versatilely with high accuracy based on feature relationships and 3D calibration data in a single image acquisition and to perform image acquisition in high speed environment wherein desired object can be calibrated more accurately. Since both Li and Keating share the same endeavor of systems that perform calibration using checkerboard plate. Wherein Li’s system improve 3D calibration data in a single image acquisition, see Li’s Par. [0035] and Keating’s system perform image acquisition in high speed environment wherein desired object can be calibrated more accurately, see Keating’s Par. [0154].
Regarding claim 3, Li in view of Keating explicitly teaches the calibration device as claimed in claim 1, wherein Li explicitly teaches the at least one information storage means is optically readable by means of the digital camera (Par. [0031] discloses “information related to the relationship of calibration features on the specific calibration target is accesses-either from storage or by reading an ID code” indicating the target [calibration device] includes a storage or ID code for reading being arranged with the target such as shown in FIG. 6, which optically readable by the camera).
Regarding claim 4, Li in view of Keating explicitly teaches the calibration device as claimed in claim 3, wherein Li explicitly teaches the specified arrangement properties, the reference target position of the reference calibration feature are stored in the at least one information storage mean (Par. [0031] discloses “information related to the relationship of calibration features on the specific calibration target is accesses-either from storage or by reading an ID code” indicating the target [calibration device] includes a storage or ID code for reading being arranged with the target such as shown in FIG. 6, indicating the ID code storing relationship data of the feature, in other words the reference target position of the reference calibration feature).
However, Li does not explicitly teach the correction parameter are stored in the at least one information storage mean.
Keating explicitly teaches the correction parameter are stored in the at least one information storage mean (Par. [0131], which discloses “at step 254, the differences measured are used to calculate the calibration corrections for each optical recorder relative to the refence optical recorder. At step 256, the calibration corrections are used to compensate the desired images either mechanically or electronically. The methodology”, moreover, Par. [0141] discloses “the misalignment of the virtual calibration pattern is determined. At step 314, the correction factors, for example, shift, rotation and scaling in an orthogonal coordinate system, as a function of position in the desired object…the corrections are applied for each optical recorder” indicating a misalignment determination for correction process of registering/aligning the views which is analogous to Li’s registering step to compensate the obscured and/or missing parts of the target in the camera’s field of view, which has mapped to Li to be based on the information storage means, now Keating further teach to base on correction factors and the refence pattern [analogous to the recited respective correction parameter and reference calibration feature], indicating that the correction factors are also being stored in the relationship data of the features being associated with the ID).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teaches of Li of having a calibration device configured to determine at least one calibration parameter, the at least one calibration parameter configured to calibrate a digital camera of an image processing system, with the teachings of Keating of having the correction parameter are stored in the at least one information storage mean.
Wherein having Lee’s a calibration device configured to determine at least one calibration parameter, the at least one calibration parameter configured to calibrate a digital camera of an image processing system, wherein the correction parameter are stored in the at least one information storage mean.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to provide vision systems that can perform calibration of 3D and 3D vision data reliably and versatilely with high accuracy based on feature relationships and 3D calibration data in a single image acquisition and to perform image acquisition in high speed environment wherein desired object can be calibrated more accurately. Since both Li and Keating share the same endeavor of systems that perform calibration using checkerboard plate. Wherein Li’s system improve 3D calibration data in a single image acquisition, see Li’s Par. [0035] and Keating’s system perform image acquisition in high speed environment wherein desired object can be calibrated more accurately, see Keating’s Par. [0154].
(best understood based on the 112f interpretation above) Regarding claim 5, Li in view of Keating explicitly teaches the calibration device as claimed in claim 1, wherein Li explicitly teaches wherein the at least one information storage means additionally stores an identification number of the calibration device (Par. [0031] discloses “information related to the relationship of calibration features on the specific calibration target is accesses-either from storage or by reading an ID code” indicating an identification number of the calibration device).
Regarding claim 6, Li in view of Keating explicitly teaches the calibration device as claimed in claim 1, wherein Li explicitly teaches wherein the at least one information storage means additionally contains the position of the at least one information storage means on the calibration device (Par. [0031] discloses “information related to the relationship of calibration features on the specific calibration target is accesses-either from storage or by reading an ID code”; moreover, Par. [0023] discloses “the vision system process(or) can also include an ID/code finding and decoding module, that locates and decodes barcodes” indicating position of the one information means [the location of the barcode] on the calibration device).
(best understood based on the 112f interpretation above) Regarding claim 7, Li in view of Keating, wherein Li explicitly teaches an arrangement (Par. [0029] discloses “the vision system arrangement” indicating an arrangement) configured to determine at least one calibration parameter (Par. [0032] discloses “the retrieved feature relationship data…is associated with the actual located features in the image of the calibration target…the calibration process determines which features located in the calibration target…correspond to features in the relationship data. This correspondence can be accomplished by registering a fiducial on the target with the location of same fiducial in the relationship data…the calibration target can include fiducials embedded at predetermined locations within the artwork, each of which references a portion of the overall surface…this arrangement can be desirable” indicating an arrangement; Par. [0033] discloses “in the step 560 of the calibration procedure of FIG. 5, the transformed features are stored as calibration parameters for each camera in the vision system” hence, the plate is used to determine the calibration parameters), the at least one calibration parameter configured to calibrate a digital camera of an image processing system using a calibration device as claimed in claim 1 (Par. [0033] discloses “in the step 560 of the calibration procedure of FIG. 5, the transformed features are stored as calibration parameters for each camera in the vision system” indicating a calibration of cameras of a vision system [analogous to the recited image processing system], of the device mapped to Li in claim 1), with the calibration device being arranged in a recording area of the digital camera and the digital camera of the image processing system (Par. [0028] discloses “the manufactured calibration target…is positioned within the field of view of a highly accurate vision system. A stereoscopic vision system with one or more stereo camera assemblies” indicating the calibration target [the calibration device] is located within the field of view of the stereo camera [digital camera], the field of view here indicating the target is arranged in a recording area of the digital camera, of a vision system [of the image processing system]) being configured to record at least one image of the calibration device (The camera is used to image the calibration target [the calibration device]), wherein the digital camera of the image processing system is configured to read the specified arrangement properties (Par. [0031] discloses “the ID code is located on the target... ID features…the ID can encode feature location coordinates or other relationships” indicating specified arrangement properties [encoding of feature location coordinates and relationships]), the reference target position of the reference calibration feature and from the at least one information storage means of the calibration device (Par. [0032] discloses “this arrangement can be desirable, for example, where parts of the calibration target are obscured to one or more cameras of the cameras’ field of view is smaller than the overall surface of the target so that certain cameras image only a portion of the overall target. The embedded IDs allow the vision system processor to orient the separate views to the global coordinate system and register the partial views into a single overall image of the target” indicating a registering step [ascertaining] to ascertain the obscured or missing area of the target capturable by the cameras, to obtain further calibration feature [previously obscured or missing, now is obtained through reorienting performed by the vision system processor] through a desired arrangement [analogous to the recited specific arrangement properties], the vision system processor here is analogous to the recited evaluation unit as claimed; the relationship of feature would include information of the reference target position of the reference calibration feature obtained from the ID [the information storage mean]) and transmit the at least one image of the calibration device, the specified arrangement properties, the reference target position of the reference calibration feature to the evaluation unit of the image processing system (Par. [0023] discloses “the cameras each include an image sensor S that transmit image data to one or more internal or external vision system processors, that carry out appropriate vision system processes using functional modules” indicating that the data/information obtained by the camera such as the image of the calibration device, the specified arrangement properties, the reference target position would be transmitted to the invention’s functional modules to carry out its corresponding functions here, being the evaluation function of the evaluation unit); and wherein the evaluation unit is configured to ascertain the target position of the at least one further calibration feature from the specified arrangement properties (Par. [0032] discloses “this arrangement can be desirable, for example, where parts of the calibration target are obscured to one or more cameras of the cameras’ field of view is smaller than the overall surface of the target so that certain cameras image only a portion of the overall target. The embedded IDs allow the vision system processor to orient the separate views to the global coordinate system and register the partial views into a single overall image of the target” indicating a registering step [ascertaining] to ascertain the obscured or missing area of the target capturable by the cameras, to obtain further calibration feature [previously obscured or missing, now is obtained through reorienting performed by the vision system processor] through a desired arrangement [analogous to the recited specific arrangement properties], the vision system processor here is analogous to the recited evaluation unit as claimed) and the reference target position of the reference calibration feature and to evaluate the at least one image of the calibration device and also the reference target position of the reference calibration feature (Par. [0032] discloses “the calibration process determines which features located in the calibration target…correspond to features in the relationship data. This correspondence can be accomplished by registering a fiducial on the target with the location of same fiducial in the relationship data…the calibration target can include fiducials embedded at predetermined locations within the artwork, each of which references a portion of the overall surface” indicating the fiducials being reference positions of the target of calibration features as part of the feature relationship data being the information from the ID embedding; therefore, the registering as stated in Par. [0032] being performed by the processor [the evaluation unit] based on the fiducials reference positions determination of the registering if is necessary to be performed), the target position of the at least one further calibration feature from the at least one information storage means in order to determine the at least one calibration parameter (Par. [0031] discloses “information related to the relationship of calibration features on the specific calibration target is accesses-either from storage or by reading an ID code” indicating the target [calibration device] includes a storage or ID code for reading being arranged with the target such as shown in FIG. 6, indicating the ID code storing relationship data of the feature, in other words the reference target position of the reference calibration feature; Par. [0031] discloses “information related to the relationship of calibration features on the specific calibration target is accesses-either from storage or by reading an ID code”; moreover, Par. [0023] discloses “the vision system process(or) can also include an ID/code finding and decoding module, that locates and decodes barcodes” indicating position of the one information means [the location of the barcode] on the calibration device, in order to determine appropriate calibration parameter for the calibration).
However, Li does not explicitly teach wherein the digital camera of the image processing system is configured to read the correction parameter; transmit the correction parameter to the evaluation unit; evaluate the correction parameter to determine the at least one calibration parameter.
Keating explicitly teaches wherein the digital camera of the image processing system is configured to read the correction parameter (Par. [0131], which discloses “at step 254, the differences measured are used to calculate the calibration corrections for each optical recorder relative to the refence optical recorder. At step 256, the calibration corrections are used to compensate the desired images either mechanically or electronically. The methodology”, moreover, Par. [0141] discloses “the misalignment of the virtual calibration pattern is determined. At step 314, the correction factors, for example, shift, rotation and scaling in an orthogonal coordinate system, as a function of position in the desired object…the corrections are applied for each optical recorder” indicating a misalignment determination for correction process of registering/aligning the views which is analogous to Li’s registering step to compensate the obscured and/or missing parts of the target in the camera’s field of view, which has mapped to Li to be based on the information storage means, now Keating further teach to base on correction factors and the refence pattern [analogous to the recited respective correction parameter and reference calibration feature], indicating that the correction factors are also being stored in the relationship data of the features being associated with the ID, which is read by the camera); transmit the correction parameter to the evaluation unit (Par. [0131], which discloses “at step 254, the differences measured are used to calculate the calibration corrections for each optical recorder relative to the refence optical recorder. At step 256, the calibration corrections are used to compensate the desired images either mechanically or electronically. The methodology”, moreover, Par. [0141] discloses “the misalignment of the virtual calibration pattern is determined. At step 314, the correction factors, for example, shift, rotation and scaling in an orthogonal coordinate system, as a function of position in the desired object…the corrections are applied for each optical recorder” indicating a misalignment determination for correction process of registering/aligning the views which is analogous to Li’s registering step to compensate the obscured and/or missing parts of the target in the camera’s field of view, which has mapped to Li to be based on the information storage means, now Keating further teach to base on correction factors and the refence pattern [analogous to the recited respective correction parameter and reference calibration feature], indicating that the correction factors are also being stored in the relationship data of the features being associated with the ID; as mapped to Li, Par. [0023] discloses “the cameras each include an image sensor S that transmit image data to one or more internal or external vision system processors, that carry out appropriate vision system processes using functional modules” indicating that the data/information obtained by the camera such as the image of the calibration device, the specified arrangement properties, the reference target position would be transmitted to the invention’s functional modules to carry out its corresponding functions here, being the evaluation function of the evaluation unit); evaluate the correction parameter to determine the at least one calibration parameter (Par. [0141] discloses “the correction factors…the corrections are applied for each optical recorder to both the virtual calibration pattern and the desired object” indicating the correction parameter is used to determine the calibration parameter).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teaches of Li of having a calibration device configured to determine at least one calibration parameter, the at least one calibration parameter configured to calibrate a digital camera of an image processing system, wherein the at least one information storage means contains a reference target position of a reference calibration feature from the calibration features on the calibration device, with the specified arrangement properties and the reference target position of the reference calibration feature being readable from the at least one information storage means is used by the digital camera of the image processing system when the calibration device, wherein a target position of at least one further calibration feature from the calibration features on the calibration device is ascertainable, with the teachings of Keating of having wherein the digital camera of the image processing system is configured to read the correction parameter; transmit the correction parameter to the evaluation unit; evaluate the correction parameter to determine the at least one calibration parameter.
Wherein having Lee’s a calibration device configured to determine at least one calibration parameter, the at least one calibration parameter configured to calibrate a digital camera of an image processing system, wherein the at least one information storage means contains a reference target position of a reference calibration feature from the calibration features on the calibration device, with the specified arrangement properties and the reference target position of the reference calibration feature being readable from the at least one information storage means is used by the digital camera of the image processing system when the calibration device, wherein a target position of at least one further calibration feature from the calibration features on the calibration device is ascertainable, wherein the digital camera of the image processing system is configured to read the correction parameter; transmit the correction parameter to the evaluation unit; evaluate the correction parameter to determine the at least one calibration parameter.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to provide vision systems that can perform calibration of 3D and 3D vision data reliably and versatilely with high accuracy based on feature relationships and 3D calibration data in a single image acquisition and to perform image acquisition in high speed environment wherein desired object can be calibrated more accurately. Since both Li and Keating share the same endeavor of systems that perform calibration using checkerboard plate. Wherein Li’s system improve 3D calibration data in a single image acquisition, see Li’s Par. [0035] and Keating’s system perform image acquisition in high speed environment wherein desired object can be calibrated more accurately, see Keating’s Par. [0154].
Regarding claim 8, Li in view of Keating explicitly teaches the arrangement as claimed in claim 7, wherein Li explicitly teaches wherein the image recorded by the digital camera images the information storage means (Par. [0031] discloses “information related to the relationship of calibration features on the specific calibration target is accesses-either from storage or by reading an ID code” indicating the ID code [the information storage mean] being imaged by the digital camera).
Regarding claim 11, Li in view of Keating explicitly teaches the arrangement as claimed in claim 7, wherein Li explicitly teaches wherein the digital camera and/or the evaluation unit (“and/or” indicates a selection, only one option is the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “the digital camera” which is disclosed in Li’s Par. [0005], which discloses “the 2D calibration of a stationary object, determining the relative position of individual checkerboard tile corners by edges of the calibration checkerboards…to determine accuracy of the vision system…provide correction factors to the camera’s processor so that runtime objects are measured in view of such correction factors”) stores the determined at least one calibration parameter and uses it to correct an image recorded by the digital camera (Par. [0005] discloses “the 2D calibration of a stationary object, determining the relative position of individual checkerboard tile corners by edges of the calibration checkerboards…to determine accuracy of the vision system…provide correction factors to the camera’s processor so that runtime objects are measured in view of such correction factors” indicating the camera store correction factors to correct the image recorded by the digital camera based on the stored calibration parameter).
(best understood based on the 112f interpretation above) Regarding claim 12, Li in view of Keating, wherein Li explicitly teaches a method of image correction configured to correct an image recorded by a digital camera of an image processing system or configured to correct at least one property of an object in an image of the object recorded by the digital camera of the image processing system (“or” indicates a selection, therefore, only one option is the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “a method of image correction configured to correct an image recorded by a digital camera of an image processing system” which is disclosed in Li’s Par. [0005], which discloses “provides certain advantages in terms of accuracy and robustness in performing calibration…of a stationary object, determining the relative position of individual checkerboard title corners by edges of the calibration checkerboards is typically sufficient to determine accuracy of the vision system, and as appropriate, provide correction factors to the camera’s processor so that runtime objects are measured in view of such correction factors” indicating a calibration to correct image recorded by a camera of a vision system [a image processing system]), with a calibration device as claimed in claim 1 being positioned in the recording area of a digital camera and the digital camera of the imaging processing system (Par. [0028] discloses “the manufactured calibration target…is positioned within the field of view of a highly accurate vision system. A stereoscopic vision system with one or more stereo camera assemblies” indicating the calibration target [the calibration device] is located within the field of view of the stereo camera [digital camera], the field of view here indicating the target is arranged in a recording area of the digital camera, of a vision system [of the image processing system]) recording at least one image of the calibration device (The camera is used to image the calibration target [the calibration device]), wherein the digital camera reads specified arrangement properties (Par. [0031] discloses “the ID code is located on the target... ID features…the ID can encode feature location coordinates or other relationships” indicating specified arrangement properties [encoding of feature location coordinates and relationships]), a reference target position of a reference calibration feature and a correction parameter from the at least one information storage means (Par. [0032] discloses “this arrangement can be desirable, for example, where parts of the calibration target are obscured to one or more cameras of the cameras’ field of view is smaller than the overall surface of the target so that certain cameras image only a portion of the overall target. The embedded IDs allow the vision system processor to orient the separate views to the global coordinate system and register the partial views into a single overall image of the target” indicating a registering step [ascertaining] to ascertain the obscured or missing area of the target capturable by the cameras, to obtain further calibration feature [previously obscured or missing, now is obtained through reorienting performed by the vision system processor] through a desired arrangement [analogous to the recited specific arrangement properties], the vision system processor here is analogous to the recited evaluation unit as claimed; the relationship of feature would include information of the reference target position of the reference calibration feature obtained from the ID [the information storage mean]) and transmits them to an evaluation unit of the image processing system (Par. [0023] discloses “the cameras each include an image sensor S that transmit image data to one or more internal or external vision system processors, that carry out appropriate vision system processes using functional modules” indicating that the data/information obtained by the camera such as the image of the calibration device, the specified arrangement properties, the reference target position would be transmitted to the invention’s functional modules to carry out its corresponding functions here, being the evaluation function of the evaluation unit), wherein the evaluation unit ascertains a target position of at least one further calibration feature from the specified arrangement properties (Par. [0032] discloses “this arrangement can be desirable, for example, where parts of the calibration target are obscured to one or more cameras of the cameras’ field of view is smaller than the overall surface of the target so that certain cameras image only a portion of the overall target. The embedded IDs allow the vision system processor to orient the separate views to the global coordinate system and register the partial views into a single overall image of the target” indicating a registering step [ascertaining] to ascertain the obscured or missing area of the target capturable by the cameras, to obtain further calibration feature [previously obscured or missing, now is obtained through reorienting performed by the vision system processor] through a desired arrangement [analogous to the recited specific arrangement properties], the vision system processor here is analogous to the recited evaluation unit as claimed) and the reference target position of the reference calibration feature and evaluates the at least one image of the calibration device and also the reference target position of the reference calibration feature (Par. [0032] discloses “the calibration process determines which features located in the calibration target…correspond to features in the relationship data. This correspondence can be accomplished by registering a fiducial on the target with the location of same fiducial in the relationship data…the calibration target can include fiducials embedded at predetermined locations within the artwork, each of which references a portion of the overall surface” indicating the fiducials being reference positions of the target of calibration features as part of the feature relationship data being the information from the ID embedding; therefore, the registering as stated in Par. [0032] being performed by the processor [the evaluation unit] based on the fiducials reference positions determination of the registering if is necessary to be performed), the target position of the at least one further calibration feature from the at least one information storage means in order to determine the at least one calibration parameter (Par. [0031] discloses “information related to the relationship of calibration features on the specific calibration target is accesses-either from storage or by reading an ID code” indicating the target [calibration device] includes a storage or ID code for reading being arranged with the target such as shown in FIG. 6, indicating the ID code storing relationship data of the feature, in other words the reference target position of the reference calibration feature; Par. [0031] discloses “information related to the relationship of calibration features on the specific calibration target is accesses-either from storage or by reading an ID code”; moreover, Par. [0023] discloses “the vision system process(or) can also include an ID/code finding and decoding module, that locates and decodes barcodes” indicating position of the one information means [the location of the barcode] on the calibration device, in order to determine appropriate calibration parameter for the calibration), and wherein the digital camera and/or the evaluation unit stores the determined at least one calibration parameter and uses it to correct an image recorded by the digital camera, or the digital camera and/or the evaluation unit ascertains at least one property of an object from an image of the object recorded by the digital camera and stores the determined at least one calibration parameter and uses it to correct the at least one property of the object (“or” indicates a selection, therefore, only one of the options is the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “uses it to correct an image recorded by the digital camera” which is disclosed in Li’s [0005], which discloses “provides certain advantages in terms of accuracy and robustness in performing calibration…of a stationary object, determining the relative position of individual checkerboard title corners by edges of the calibration checkerboards is typically sufficient to determine accuracy of the vision system, and as appropriate, provide correction factors to the camera’s processor so that runtime objects are measured in view of such correction factors” indicating a calibration to correct image recorded by a camera of a vision system [a image processing system]).
However, Li does not explicitly teach evaluate the correction parameter to determine the at least one calibration parameter.
Keating explicitly teaches evaluate the correction parameter to determine the at least one calibration parameter (Par. [0141] discloses “the correction factors…the corrections are applied for each optical recorder to both the virtual calibration pattern and the desired object” indicating the correction parameter is used to determine the calibration parameter).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teaches of Li of having a calibration device configured to determine at least one calibration parameter, the at least one calibration parameter configured to calibrate a digital camera of an image processing system, wherein the at least one information storage means contains a reference target position of a reference calibration feature from the calibration features on the calibration device, with the specified arrangement properties and the reference target position of the reference calibration feature being readable from the at least one information storage means is used by the digital camera of the image processing system when the calibration device, wherein a target position of at least one further calibration feature from the calibration features on the calibration device is ascertainable, with the teachings of Keating of evaluating the correction parameter to determine the at least one calibration parameter.
Wherein having Lee’s a calibration device configured to determine at least one calibration parameter, the at least one calibration parameter configured to calibrate a digital camera of an image processing system, wherein the at least one information storage means contains a reference target position of a reference calibration feature from the calibration features on the calibration device, with the specified arrangement properties and the reference target position of the reference calibration feature being readable from the at least one information storage means is used by the digital camera of the image processing system when the calibration device, evaluate the correction parameter to determine the at least one calibration parameter.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to provide vision systems that can perform calibration of 3D and 3D vision data reliably and versatilely with high accuracy based on feature relationships and 3D calibration data in a single image acquisition and to perform image acquisition in high speed environment wherein desired object can be calibrated more accurately. Since both Li and Keating share the same endeavor of systems that perform calibration using checkerboard plate. Wherein Li’s system improve 3D calibration data in a single image acquisition, see Li’s Par. [0035] and Keating’s system perform image acquisition in high speed environment wherein desired object can be calibrated more accurately, see Keating’s Par. [0154].
Regarding claim 14, Li in view of Keating explicitly teaches the method as claimed in claim 12, wherein Li explicitly teaches the digital camera and/or the evaluation unit stores (“or” indicates a selection, only one option is the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “the digital camera” for mapping which is disclosed in Li’s Par. [0005], which discloses “determine accuracy of the vision system, and as appropriate, provide correction factors to the camera’s processor so that runtime objects are measured in view of such correction factors” indicating the digital camera) the determined at least one calibration parameter and uses it to correct an image of an object recorded by the digital camera (“or” indicates a selection, only one option is the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “the digital camera” for mapping which is disclosed in Li’s Par. [0005], which discloses “determine accuracy of the vision system, and as appropriate, provide correction factors to the camera’s processor so that runtime objects are measured in view of such correction factors” indicating the digital camera used to correct the object recorded by the digital camera based on the calibration using the calibration parameter).
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David Y. Li et. al., (“US 2019/0122388 A1” hereinafter as “Li”) in view of John J. Keating III (“US 2008/0012850 A1” hereinafter as “Keating”) and Rolf Heidemann et. al. (“US 2017/0188015 A1” hereinafter as “Heidemann”).
Regarding claim 9, Li in view of Keating explicitly teaches the arrangement as claimed in claim 7, wherein Li explicitly teaches the evaluation unit is configured to receive at least one camera parameter (Par. [0033] discloses “the transformed features are stored as calibration parameters for each camera in the vision system” indicating camera parameter being received [calibration parameters for each camera], or in some other instances, the camera’s field of view can be understood to be the camera parameter as claimed) and evaluate it in order to determine the at least one calibration parameter (Par. [0032] discloses “parts of the calibration target are obscured to one or more cameras or the camera’s field of view is smaller than the overall surface of the target so that certain cameras image only a portion of the overall target…register the partial views into a single overall image of the target” indicating the camera being used their field of view to evaluate/assess through alignment or registration between the views to determine the calibration parameters more accurately).
However, Li in view of Keating does not explicitly teach receive the least one camera parameter from a factory calibration.
Heidemann explicitly teaches receive the least one camera parameter from a factory calibration (Par. [0047] discloses “first camera and second camera are adjusted relative to one another such that their fields of view overlap…the fixed alignments may at first be discretionary, and then later provided to the 3D measurement device, for example during factory calibration” indicating the field of views are determined based on a factory calibration, which is analogous to the field of view of Li which as mapped to the recited camera parameter as discussed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teaches of Li in view of Keating of having a calibration device configured to determine at least one calibration parameter, the at least one calibration parameter configured to calibrate a digital camera of an image processing system, wherein the at least one information storage means contains a reference target position of a reference calibration feature from the calibration features on the calibration device receive at least one camera parameter and evaluate it in order to determine the at least one calibration parameter, with the teachings of Heidemann of receiving the least one camera parameter from a factory calibration.
Wherein having Lee in view of Keating’s a calibration device configured to determine at least one calibration parameter, the at least one calibration parameter configured to calibrate a digital camera of an image processing system, wherein the at least one information storage means contains a reference target position of a reference calibration feature from the calibration features on the calibration device receive at least one camera parameter from a factory calibration and evaluate it in order to determine the at least one calibration parameter.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to provide vision systems that can perform calibration of 3D and 3D vision data reliably and versatilely with high accuracy based on feature relationships and 3D calibration data in a single image acquisition and perform 3D measurement and calibration in an improved approach to correct and avoid deformation during capturing of measurement device due to environment. Since both Li and Keating share the same endeavor of systems that perform calibration using checkerboard plate. Wherein Li’s system improve 3D calibration data in a single image acquisition, see Li’s Par. [0035] and Heidemann’s system perform 3D measurement and calibration in an improved approach to correct and avoid deformation during capturing of measurement device due to environment see Heidemann’s Pars. [0028] and [0032].
Regarding claim 13, Li in view of Keating explicitly teaches the method as claimed in claim 12, wherein Li explicitly teaches the evaluation unit receives at least one camera parameter (Par. [0033] discloses “the transformed features are stored as calibration parameters for each camera in the vision system” indicating camera parameter being received [calibration parameters for each camera], or in some other instances, the camera’s field of view can be understood to be the camera parameter as claimed) and ascertains the at least one calibration parameter configured to calibrate the digital camera of the image processing system (Par. [0032] discloses “parts of the calibration target are obscured to one or more cameras or the camera’s field of view is smaller than the overall surface of the target so that certain cameras image only a portion of the overall target…register the partial views into a single overall image of the target” indicating the camera being used their field of view to evaluate/assess/ascertain through alignment or registration between the views to determine the calibration parameters more accurately) from the at least one camera parameter together with the at least one image of the calibration device and also the reference target position of the reference calibration feature (Par. [0031] discloses “information related to the relationship of calibration features on the specific calibration target is accesses-either from storage or by reading an ID code” indicating the target [calibration device] includes a storage or ID code for reading being arranged with the target such as shown in FIG. 6, indicating the ID code storing relationship data of the feature, in other words the reference target position of the reference calibration feature), the target position of the at least one further calibration feature and the correction parameter from the at least one information storage means (Par. [0032] discloses “this arrangement can be desirable, for example, where parts of the calibration target are obscured to one or more cameras of the cameras’ field of view is smaller than the overall surface of the target so that certain cameras image only a portion of the overall target. The embedded IDs allow the vision system processor to orient the separate views to the global coordinate system and register the partial views into a single overall image of the target” indicating a registering step [ascertaining] to ascertain the obscured or missing area of the target capturable by the cameras, to obtain further calibration feature [previously obscured or missing, now is obtained through reorienting performed by the vision system processor] through a desired arrangement [analogous to the recited specific arrangement properties], the vision system processor here is analogous to the recited evaluation unit as claimed; the relationship of feature would include information of the reference target position of the reference calibration feature obtained from the ID [the information storage mean]).
However, Li in view of Keating does not explicitly teach receive the least one camera parameter from a factory calibration.
Heidemann explicitly teaches receive the least one camera parameter from a factory calibration (Par. [0047] discloses “first camera and second camera are adjusted relative to one another such that their fields of view overlap…the fixed alignments may at first be discretionary, and then later provided to the 3D measurement device, for example during factory calibration” indicating the field of views are determined based on a factory calibration, which is analogous to the field of view of Li which as mapped to the recited camera parameter as discussed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teaches of Li in view of Keating of having a calibration device configured to determine at least one calibration parameter, the at least one calibration parameter configured to calibrate a digital camera of an image processing system, wherein the at least one information storage means contains a reference target position of a reference calibration feature from the calibration features on the calibration device receive at least one camera parameter and evaluate it in order to determine the at least one calibration parameter, with the teachings of Heidemann of receiving the least one camera parameter from a factory calibration.
Wherein having Lee in view of Keating’s a calibration device configured to determine at least one calibration parameter, the at least one calibration parameter configured to calibrate a digital camera of an image processing system, wherein the at least one information storage means contains a reference target position of a reference calibration feature from the calibration features on the calibration device receive at least one camera parameter from a factory calibration and evaluate it in order to determine the at least one calibration parameter.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to provide vision systems that can perform calibration of 3D and 3D vision data reliably and versatilely with high accuracy based on feature relationships and 3D calibration data in a single image acquisition and perform 3D measurement and calibration in an improved approach to correct and avoid deformation during capturing of measurement device due to environment. Since Li and Heidemann share the same endeavor of systems that perform calibration using checkerboard plate. Wherein Li’s system improve 3D calibration data in a single image acquisition, see Li’s Par. [0035] and Heidemann’s system perform 3D measurement and calibration in an improved approach to correct and avoid deformation during capturing of measurement device due to environment see Heidemann’s Pars. [0028] and [0032].
Claim 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David Y. Li et. al., (“US 2019/0122388 A1” hereinafter as “Li”) in view of John J. Keating III (“US 2008/0012850 A1” hereinafter as “Keating”) and Robert G. Baker (“US 2004/0027451 A1” hereinafter as “Baker”).
Regarding claim 15, Li in view of Keating explicitly teaches the method as claimed in claim 12, wherein Li explicitly teaches the at least one calibration parameter is determined (Par. [0029] discloses “the manufactured calibration target…is positioned within the field of view of the highly accurate vision system…these three cameras allow for triangulation of features from three perspective, thereby increasing the accuracy over a conventional stereoscopic system that is, each camera can be triangulated with two others” indicating a calibration parameter is determined based on a triangulation of cameras).
However, Li in view of Keating does not explicitly teach for a respective specified calibration distance from a plurality of specified calibration distances from the digital camera of the image processing system to the calibration device, and the at least one calibration parameter for the respective specified calibration distance is stored in the digital camera and/or the evaluation unit, and wherein an image of an object recorded by the digital camera is corrected by the at least one stored calibration parameter whose calibration distance comes closest to the distance from the digital camera to the object while the object is recorded, or an interpolation of the stored calibration parameters is carried out in order to determine the suitable at least one calibration parameter for the distance from the digital camera to the object while the object is recorded.
In the same field of triangulation of cameras (Par. [0028], Baker), Baker explicitly teaches for a respective specified calibration distance from a plurality of specified calibration distances from the digital camera of the image processing system to the calibration device (Par. [0067] discloses “measuring distances through triangulation of stereo images”, moreover, Par. [0136] discloses “different interocular separation distances for all stereoscopic fields produces by opposite-side imagers” indicating the distances obtained based on the fields of view of the cameras, which is analogous to the triangulation process of Li, here Baker further teaches it is based on determination of the distances obtained from the cameras), and the at least one calibration parameter for the respective specified calibration distance is stored in the digital camera and/or the evaluation unit (“and/or” indicates a selection, therefore, only one option is the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “the digital camera” for mapping, which is disclosed in Par. [0145], which discloses “interpolation parameters can be modified dynamically to more closely approximate normal interocular separation distances to correspond with objects centered in the window selected” wherein the object centered is analogous to the calibration target of Li being imaged and centered between cameras, moreover, the triangulation of cameras of Li is used to determine the calibration parameter, wherein Baker further teaches the triangulation is based on distances between cameras which is being stored in the system of the digital cameras), and wherein an image of an object recorded by the digital camera is corrected by the at least one stored calibration parameter whose calibration distance comes closest to the distance from the digital camera to the object while the object is recorded, or an interpolation of the stored calibration parameters is carried out in order to determine the suitable at least one calibration parameter for the distance from the digital camera to the object while the object is recorded (“or” indicates a selection, the examine selects “an interpolation of the stored calibration parameters is carried out in order to determine the suitable at least one calibration parameter for the distance from the digital camera to the object while the object is recorded” for mapping which is disclosed in Baker’s Par. [0161] discloses “the triangulation of points on objects in the visual space from the fixed relative positions of the imager sub-systems”, Par. [0163] discloses “triangulation is one preferred general method employed to determine distance information”, Par. [0172] discloses “interpolated views are dynamically constructed by the interpolation processes. These processes use convergence angle corrections, as appropriate, based on the off-axis position of the object of interest as determined” indicating the triangulation is used for determination of the distance information used for the interpolation of the fields of views of the cameras capturing the object of interest [analogous to the checkerboard of Li], the interpolation here is to align and register the object positions for the field of view of the cameras which can be applied for Li’s invention of calibration device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teaches of Li in view of Keating of having a calibration device configured to determine at least one calibration parameter, the at least one calibration parameter configured to calibrate a digital camera of an image processing system, wherein the at least one information storage means contains a reference target position of a reference calibration feature from the calibration features on the calibration device receive at least one camera parameter and evaluate it in order to determine the at least one calibration parameter, with the teachings of Baker of a respective specified calibration distance from a plurality of specified calibration distances from the digital camera of the image processing system to the calibration device, and the at least one calibration parameter for the respective specified calibration distance is stored in the digital camera and/or the evaluation unit, and wherein an image of an object recorded by the digital camera is corrected by the at least one stored calibration parameter whose calibration distance comes closest to the distance from the digital camera to the object while the object is recorded, or an interpolation of the stored calibration parameters is carried out in order to determine the suitable at least one calibration parameter for the distance from the digital camera to the object while the object is recorded.
Wherein having Lee in view of Keating’s a calibration device configured to determine at least one calibration parameter, the at least one calibration parameter configured to calibrate a digital camera of an image processing system, wherein the at least one information storage means contains a reference target position of a reference calibration feature from the calibration features on the calibration device receive at least one camera parameter and evaluate it in order to determine the at least one calibration parameter, a respective specified calibration distance from a plurality of specified calibration distances from the digital camera of the image processing system to the calibration device, and the at least one calibration parameter for the respective specified calibration distance is stored in the digital camera and/or the evaluation unit, and wherein an image of an object recorded by the digital camera is corrected by the at least one stored calibration parameter whose calibration distance comes closest to the distance from the digital camera to the object while the object is recorded, or an interpolation of the stored calibration parameters is carried out in order to determine the suitable at least one calibration parameter for the distance from the digital camera to the object while the object is recorded.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to provide vision systems that can perform calibration of 3D and 3D vision data reliably and versatilely with high accuracy based on feature relationships and 3D calibration data in a single image acquisition and perform 3D measurement and calibration in an improved approach to correct and avoid deformation during capturing of measurement device due to environment. Since both Li and Baker share the same endeavor of triangulation of cameras. Wherein Li’s system improve 3D calibration data in a single image acquisition, see Li’s Par. [0035] and Baker’s system perform producing high resolution and detail analysis in enhancing viewing through stereoscopic capture of object in secondary sensing technologies, see Baker’s Pars. [0053].
Pertinent Prior Art(s)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Adam Rowell et. al., “US 2019/0208181 A1”, discloses dynamic calibration processes of camera system (Abstract) through triangulation (See, Par. [0029]) and interpolated calibration of the cameras (see Par. [0062]) based on coordinate information including distances (See. Par. [0137]).
KISHIWADA; Jun et. al., “US 20170070725 A1”, discloses a calibration method is for a photographic device that photographs an object through a transparent body. The calibration method includes: acquiring a first photographic image by photographing the object without interposing the transparent body; acquiring a second photographic image by photographing the object through the transparent body; calculating an absolute positional deviation that indicates a deviation in coordinates of an image of the object due to the transparent body based on coordinates of an image of the object on the first photographic image and coordinates of an image of the object on the second photographic image; calculating a correction parameter for calibrating the absolute positional deviation; and storing the correction parameter in the photographic device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG HAU CAI whose telephone number is (571)272-9424. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00pm.
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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached at (571) 272-9752. 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.
/PHUONG HAU CAI/Examiner, Art Unit 2673
/CHINEYERE WILLS-BURNS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2673
Prosecution Insights