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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 11, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiorini et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0029796) in view of Lin (US Pub. No. 2020/0191927).
Consider claim 1. Fiorini et al. discloses a system, comprising: at least one processor coupled to a memory and programmed and/or configured to: obtain a calibration image including a calibration marker (para. 0039 describes the optical identification of objects in motion through digital cameras), wherein the calibration image including the calibration marker is captured by an image capture device with the calibration marker located at a known distance from the image capture device (para. 0040 describes determining one reference physical dimension on a surface of the object to determine the distance of the surface from said camera; 0068 describes determining the distance of coded information from the camera on the basis the comparison between the known dimension and the dimensions in the image), and wherein the calibration marker has a known dimension (para. 0027 describes the calibration marker having a known dimension); extract one or more features associated with the calibration marker in an image space of the calibration image (para. 0073 describes determining the distance at which the coded information is with respect to the camera itself); determine, based on the one or more features associated with the calibration marker in the image space of the calibration image, the known distance of the calibration marker from the image capture device (para. 0073 describes determining, through the magnification ratio of the camera, the distance at which the coded information is with respect to the camera itself), and the known dimension of the calibration marker (para. 0027 describes the known dimension of the calibration marker); obtain an image including an object, wherein the image including the object is captured by the image capture device (para. 0039 describes acquiring an image by the camera); extract at least one feature associated with the object in an image space of the image (para. 0101 describes determining the volume of said at least one object); obtain a dimension of the object (para. 0102 describes determining object dimensions); determine, based on the at least one feature associated with the object in the image space of the image, the dimension of the object, the distance of the object from the image capture device (para. 0183 describes measuring, using the object height information, the distance of the object from the camera); and provide the distance of the object from the image capture device (para. 0183 describes providing the distance of the object from the camera).
Fiorini et al. does not disclose determining one or more calibration parameters.
However, Lin teaches determining one or more calibration parameters (para. 0046 describes a calculation unit generating external parameters for each calibration marker).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine one or more calibration parameters, in order to calibrate a sensor as disclosed by the prior art.
Consider claim 2. Fiorini et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more features associated with the calibration marker in the image space of the calibration image include a pixel dimension of the calibration marker in the image space of the calibration image (para. 0073 describes a pixel dimension of the calibration marker).
Consider claim 9. Fiorini et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is programmed and/or configured to provide the distance of the object from the image capture device by using the distance of the object from the image capture device to determine whether the object is connected to another object in the image (para. 0183 describes using the distance of the object from the camera to determine whether the object is connected to another object in the image).
Claims 11, 12, and 20 are rejected using similar reasoning as the corresponding claims above.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiorini et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0029796) in view of Lin (US Pub. No. 2020/0191927) in further view of Van der Zwan et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0169604).
Consider claim 8.Fiorini et al. and Lin teaches all claimed limitations as stated above, except providing the distance of the object from the image capture device by displaying, on a display, the distance of the object from the image capture device concurrently with the image including the object.
However, Van der Zwan et al. teaches providing the distance of the object from the image capture device by displaying, on a display, the distance of the object from the image capture device concurrently with the image including the object (para. 0027 describes capturing with the camera a plurality of images of a planar or substantially planar surface of the target object from a plurality of different positions, and measuring with the laser distance meter one or more distances to the planar surface, wherein each of the measured distances to the planar surface is associated with a captured image of the planar surface).
Therefore, it would have obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to providing the distance of the object from the image capture device by displaying, on a display, the distance of the object from the image capture device concurrently with the image including the object, in order to create a spatial model of a target object with a hand-held distance measuring device as suggested by the prior art.
Claim 18 is rejected using similar reasoning as corresponding claim 8 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7, 10, 13-17, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mishawn N Hunter whose telephone number is (571)272-7635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thai Tran can be reached at 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.
/MISHAWN N. HUNTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484