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 .
Claim limitations “ a first state estimator trained to estimate…”, “a second state estimator trained to estimate…”, “a feature estimator trained to estimate…” in claim 1 and “a first state estimator configured to estimate…”, “a second state estimator configured to estimate…”, “ a feature estimator for estimating…”, “a diagnosis unit configured to diagnose…” in claim 3 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a non-structural terms coupled with functional languages without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the non-structural term is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since this claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1-3 are interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: figure 3, Learning device 200.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not wish to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim so that it will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because claim 1 is interpreted as software programs per se, wherein software program does not belong to any of the statutory categories: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claim 10 is directed to “A state estimation program”. It is suggested to amend claim 11 to “A non-transitory readable medium storing a state estimation program causing a computer to execute…”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakai (US 2015/0287197), in view of Nehmadi et al (US 2022/0398851) and further in view of Pertsel (US 10,272,838).
For claim 1, Nakai teaches a state estimation device comprising:
estimate second feature amount data from second image data comprising a road obtained by the imaging device by imaging (e.g. abstract, paragraph 8: “Calibration techniques for calculating a camera installation parameter utilizing a vanishing point include a technique for extracting two sets of parallel lines in a real space from a photographed image of a road mark”); and
estimate the installation state parameters of the imaging device having obtained input image data by imaging from the first feature amount data (e.g. abstract, paragraph 8: “Calibration techniques for calculating a camera installation parameter utilizing a vanishing point include a technique for extracting two sets of parallel lines in a real space from a photographed image of a road mark”, the two sets of parallel lines corresponds to the claimed feature amount data).
Nakai do not further disclose:
estimate first feature amount data from first image data comprising a moving object obtained by an imaging device by imaging;
estimate the installation state parameters of the imaging device having obtained input image data by imaging from the second feature amount data;
training model (include a first state estimator, second state estimator, and a feature estimator).
Nehmadi et al teach:
estimate first feature amount data from first image data comprising a moving object obtained by an imaging device by imaging (e.g. paragraph 56: The calibration information would be specific to the installation, such as the vehicle on which the camera is placed as the mounting location on the vehicle could affect calibration…The calibrated image information is supplied to a camera detection block 22. The purpose of the detector block 22 is to identify objects of interest in the image and also geometric features of the scene represented by the image. Examples of objects of interest include vehicles and pedestrians among others. Examples of geometric features detection includes road detection, lanes detection, landmark detection and occupied areas, among others);
estimate the installation state parameters of the imaging device having obtained input image data by imaging from the second feature amount data (e.g. paragraph 56: The calibration information would be specific to the installation, such as the vehicle on which the camera is placed as the mounting location on the vehicle could affect calibration…The calibrated image information is supplied to a camera detection block 22. The purpose of the detector block 22 is to identify objects of interest in the image and also geometric features of the scene represented by the image. Examples of objects of interest include vehicles and pedestrians among others. Examples of geometric features detection includes road detection, lanes detection, landmark detection and occupied areas, among others). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Nehmadi et al into the teaching of Nakai for camera calibration to improve the image quality.
Nakai and Nehmadi et al do not further disclose:
training model (include a first state estimator, second state estimator, and a feature estimator).
Pertsel teaches training model (include a first state estimator, second state estimator, and a feature estimator) (e.g. figures 1-5, column 7, line 58-column 8, line 2: FIG. 10, a flow diagram is shown illustrating a training process in accordance with an example embodiment of the invention. When installing a device with a lane departure warning system including an imaging mechanism in accordance with an embodiment of the invention, a user may perform a turn signal detection training (calibration) procedure (or method) 800. In one example, the training procedure 800 may be part of an installation process. In another example, the device may prompt the user to perform the training procedure 800 when first turned on. In some embodiments, the device may be configured to prompt the user to recalibrate the device periodically to assure accurate detection of the turn signal indicators).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Pertsel into the teaching of Nakai and Nehmadi et al to improve accuracy of the camera.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 3-10 are allowed.
Claim 11 would have been allowed if the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection was overcome.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Nakai (US 2015/0287197) teach, see abstract: a calibration apparatus for calculating a camera installation parameter with respect to a flat surface without preparing two sets of parallel lines on the flat surface, with respect to which the camera installation parameter is to be obtained. An acquirer acquires a photographed image of two linearly-extending lines substantially perpendicular to a flat surface. An extractor extracts the two linearly-extending lines from the acquired image through image processing. A calculator calculates a vanishing point from the extracted two linearly-extending lines and calculates a camera installation parameter with respect to the flat surface on the basis of coordinates of the vanishing point and given coordinates different from the coordinates of the vanishing point.
Nehmadi et al (US 2022/0398851) teach, paragraph 56: The calibration information would be specific to the installation, such as the vehicle on which the camera is placed as the mounting location on the vehicle could affect calibration. The calibrated image information is supplied to a camera detection. The purpose of the detector is to identify objects of interest in the image and also geometric features of the scene represented by the image. Examples of objects of interest include vehicles and pedestrians among others. Examples of geometric features detection includes road detection, lanes detection, landmark detection.
There’s no teaching or suggestion in the prior arts for the claimed method and apparatus for diagnosing an installation sate of an imaging device.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAQUAN ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)270-1119. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur: 7:00 am-5:00 pm.
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, Thai Tran can be reached on 571-272-7382. 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.
Email: daquan.zhao1@uspto.gov.
Phone: (571)270-1119
/DAQUAN ZHAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484