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 required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/30/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are considered by examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is an example suggestion: Image processing device, method and storage medium for camera calibration in a vehicle or other mobile object.
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 limitations 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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: in claim 1
“acquirer” element 110 of FIG. 1.
“extractor” element 120 of FIG. 1.
“first detector” element 130 of FIG. 1.
“second detector” element 132 of FIG. 1.
“first feature point extractor” element 140 of FIG. 1.
“second feature point extractor” element 142 of FIG. 1.
“calibrator” element 150 of FIG. 1.
And in ¶ [0017] “the image processing device 100 are realized, for example, by causing a hardware processor such as a central processing unit (CPU) to execute a program (software). Some or all of these constituents may be realized by hardware (a circuit unit including circuitry) such as a large scale integration (LSI) circuit, an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), a graphics processing unit (GPU), or a system-on-chip (SOC) or may be cooperatively realized by software and hardware. The program may be stored in a storage device (a storage device including a non-transitory storage medium) such as a hard disk drive (HDD) or a flash memory in advance or may be stored in a detachable storage medium (a non-transitory storage medium) such as a DVD or a CD-ROM and installed by setting the storage medium into a drive device.”
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.
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 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation " wherein the calibrator calibrates pitch angles of the first imager that captures the first image and the second imager" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 depends from claim 6, which depends from claim 1. Claim 6 should depend from claim 2 to fix this issue, otherwise claim 7 should be amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabe et al. (US 2020/0211224 A1; “Kawabe”) in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0001776 A1; “Kim”).
Regarding claim 1:
Kawabe discloses: an image processing device (Kawabe discloses an image processing device comprising an ECU 107 including a calibration apparatus 110 configured to process images captured by a plurality of vehicle-mounted cameras and automatically calibrate external camera parameters using the captured images. See Kawabe ¶¶ 25, 27–28 and Fig. 1. Kawabe's front, rear, left side, and right side cameras image different respective directions around the vehicle) comprising:
an acquirer configured to acquire a first image obtained by imaging in a first direction of a mobile object and a second image obtained by imaging in a second direction other than the first direction from an imaging device mounted in the mobile object (Kawabe teaches a front camera 102 that captures an area in front of the vehicle and left/right side cameras 104, 105 that capture respective lateral areas of the vehicle, with ECU 107 receiving and processing the images captured by the cameras. See Kawabe ¶¶ 25, 27–28 and Fig. 1);
an extractor configured to extract feature points from the first image and the second image acquired by the acquirer (Kawabe teaches first feature point detection unit 201 for detecting feature points from images of front camera 102 and second feature point detection unit 202 for detecting feature points from images of side camera 106. Kawabe extracts feature points from the front camera image and subsequently detects feature points from the side camera image in the same manner. See Kawabe ¶¶ 34, 37, 44–45; Fig. 2; steps S302 and S311 of Fig. 3);
a first detector configured to detect a road area included in the first image (Kawabe determines which feature points detected in the front camera image are located at the same height as the road surface and estimates the distribution range of those road surface feature points as a road surface range. See Kawabe ¶¶ 39–40; step S307 of Fig. 3; Fig. 4);
a second detector configured to detect a road area included in the second image (Kawabe teaches road surface range setting unit 207, which receives the estimated road surface range and determines (sets) a range to be judged as the road surface on the side camera side. See Kawabe ¶41; steps S308–S309 of Fig. 3; Fig. 4);
a first feature point extractor configured to extract a feature point in the road area detected by the first detector out of the feature points extracted by the extractor as a first feature point (Kawabe determines which front camera feature points are located on the road surface and uses the road surface feature points for camera angle calibration. Kawabe explains that calibration of the front camera is performed using only feature points on the road surface in front of the vehicle. See Kawabe ¶¶ 31, 39–40);
a second feature point extractor configured to extract a feature point in the road area detected by the second detector out of the feature points extracted by the extractor as a second feature point (Kawabe teaches feature point sorting unit 208, which determines whether each detected side camera feature point is located within the established road surface range and sorts out only the feature points having coordinates within the road surface range, sending those feature points to calibration operation unit 209. See Kawabe ¶47; steps S313–S315 of Fig. 3);
Kawabe further teaches calibrating the front camera based on its road surface feature points and calibrating the side camera based on the selected side camera road surface feature points. See Kawabe ¶31 and ¶¶48–51. In particular, calibration operation unit 209 determines a camera angle parameter from the selected road surface feature points and may iteratively repeat the calibration to improve accuracy.
Kawabe, however, does not expressly teach a calibrator configured to calibrate the first image and the second image on the basis of the first feature point and the second feature point.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches: a calibrator configured to calibrate the first image and the second image on the basis of the first feature point and the second feature point (Kim discloses calibration of a plurality of vehicle cameras by obtaining first and second images captured from different directions, detecting feature points in respective regions of the images, matching a first feature point of a first image with a second feature point of a second image, calculating respective first and second bird view coordinates for the first and second feature points, calculating an error between those coordinates, and calibrating the plurality of cameras by adjusting their extrinsic parameters based on that error. See Kim, Abstract; claim 1; claim 6; Fig. 5, operations 510–560. Kim identifies the vehicle cameras as including front, rear, left, and right cameras. More particularly, Kim teaches that the first and second feature points correspond to a common region viewed by different cameras, that the first feature point is transformed to a first bird view coordinate using the extrinsic parameter of the first camera, and that the second feature point is transformed to a second bird view coordinate using the extrinsic parameter of the second camera. Kim then adjusts the camera extrinsic parameter so as to minimize the error between the first and second bird view coordinates. See Kim Fig. 5, operations 540–560; claims 1 and 6. The Examiner notes that the instant specification states in ¶40 “The reference coordinate system is, for example, a coordinate system based on the posture of the vehicle M (a vehicle coordinate system), and calibration of camera images is to calibrate the camera coordinate system of the first image and the second image with the vehicle coordinate system”. Therefore, Kim satisfies the claim limitation).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Kawabe's calibration apparatus such that the road surface feature points obtained from the respective differently directed camera images are jointly used in calibrating the cameras as taught by Kim. Kim teaches that images from a plurality of vehicle cameras are used to generate a bird view image and that calibration based on corresponding feature points permits the coordinate relationships of the different camera images to be aligned. Such modification would therefore have predictably improved alignment between Kawabe's separately calibrated camera images when those images are represented in a common vehicle coordinate system.
Regarding claim 8 and 9: the claims limitations are similar re to hose of claim 1; therefore, rejected in the same manner as applied above. Kim teaches a CRM in ¶73.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabe in view of Kim, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sypitkowski et al. (US 2017/0136948 A1, “Bosch”).
Regarding claim 2:
Kawabe further teaches: wherein the imaging device includes a first imager configured to capture the first image and a second imager configured to capture the second image (Kawabe discloses an image processing device comprising an ECU 107 including a calibration apparatus 110 configured to process images captured by a plurality of vehicle mounted cameras and automatically calibrate external camera parameters using the captured images. See Kawabe ¶¶ 25, 27–28 and Fig. 1);
Kawabe and Kim do not expressly teach wherein the calibrator derives a relative angle between the first imager and the second imager on the basis of a result of calibration of the first image and the second image.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bosch teaches the calibrator derives a relative angle between the first imager and the second imager on the basis of a result of calibration of the first image and the second image (Bosch teaches determining an angular relationship between respective vehicle camera. Bosch identifies camera extrinsic parameters as including the camera mounting angles of yaw, pitch, and roll and determines calibrated camera positions and angles relative to common references coordinates. See Bosch ¶¶27-30. Bosch detects, extract, and matches feature points between images of adjacent camera and uses the matched points to determine appropriate yaw, pitch, and roll adjustments. See ¶37-38. Bosch further determines the yaw, pitch, and roll by minimizing error between matched feature points from the respective camera images. See ¶47. Bosch then uses the determined orientation parameters to align the camera image with the image of adjacent camera. Also see ¶¶ 2, and 50);
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the relative angular relationship between the first and second calibrated imagers of Kawabe in view of Kim using the image based inter camera orientation determination taught by Bosch, because Bosch teaches that determining camera-orientation misalignment between adjacent cameras allows images from the respective cameras to be geometrically aligned in a unified multi camera image.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabe in view of Kim, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. et al. (US 2018/0365858 A1, “Kim2”) and Zhang et al. (US 2013/0293717 A1, “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 3:
Kawabe in view of Kim does not specifically teach: wherein the calibrator calibrates the first image and the second image when each of the first feature point extractor and the second feature point extractor has extracted a feature point included in the road area successively in a predetermined number of frames or more.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim2 teaches: wherein the calibrator calibrates the first image and the second image when each of the first feature point extractor and the second feature point extractor has extracted a feature point included in the road area in a predetermined number of frames or more (Kim2 teaches detecting road marking lines from images acquired by multiple vehicle cameras and validating those roadway features using information accumulated over a predetermined number of frames or more. Kim2 teaches generating a histogram by accumulating a predetermined number of frames or more and using the resulting statistical distribution to identify and remove misdetected lanes. See ¶65. Kim2 also applies this to road marking lines acquired from the front and rear camera images. See ¶66. And from left and right camera images. See ¶67. Kim further estimates the installation angles of the cameras based on the resulting valid lanes. See ¶72., and withholds angle estimation until a preset quantity of valid information is available, thereby improving reliability. See ¶75).
Kim2 does not explicitly require the frames to be successive or consecutive.
Zhang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches this. (Zhang teaches a temporal constraint in which the roadway line information in consecutive image frames must match, and camera recalibration is performed when the consecutive frames fail the temporal constraint. Zhang further explains that image points from two or more frames are aligned from one frame to the next based upon vehicle motion. See Zhang ¶¶30-34).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Kawabe in view of Kim to require the feature information to be obtained over a predetermined number of frames for calibration as disclosed by Kim2 in order to improve the statistical reliability of the roadway features used for camera calibration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Kawabe in view of Kim and Kim2 to use successive frames of the continuously acquired image stream as a predicable manner of carrying out temporal accumulation to reduce the influence of erroneous feature detections as disclosed by Zhang.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabe in view of Kim, and Bosch, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Schoff et al. (US 2024/0404108 A1, “Schoff”).
Regarding claim 4:
Kawabe in view of Kim and Bosch does not teach: wherein the calibrator derives the relative angle on the basis of a normal vector of a road surface of the road area included in the first image and a normal vector of a road surface in the road area included in the second image, converts a coordinate system of the second image to a coordinate system of the first image on the basis of the derived relative angle, and calibrates the first image and the second image.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Schoff teaches: wherein the calibrator derives the relative angle on the basis of a normal vector of a road surface of the road area included in the first image and a normal vector of a road surface in the road area included in the second image (Schoff discloses determining a first ground plane vector, denoted by 1n, representing a first ground plane normal relative to the first camera sensor of the first camera 104, and determines a second ground plane vector, denoted by 2n, representing the ground plane normal relative to the second camera sensor of the first camera 104. See ¶052. Schoff further teaches determining a relative transformation between the first and second cameras based upon the first and second ground plane normals, including a camera to camera rotation matrix See ¶¶53-55 and Eq.1);
converts a coordinate system of the second image to a coordinate system of the first image on the basis of the derived relative angle, and calibrates the first image and the second image (Schoff teaches using the determined camera to camera rotation matrix and translation vector to transform the second camera coordinate system into the first camera coordinate system. See ¶56-57, and Eq. 3. Schoff further teaches mapping and converting features from the second coordinate system into the first based on the determined relative rotation and translation. See ¶¶61-63).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Kawabe in view of Kim and Bosch to determine the relative orientation between the first and second imagers using the respective road (ground plane normal vectors) and then transform the second camera coordinate system into the first camera coordinate system using that relative rotation, as taught by Schoff. Such a transformation provides a common camera coordinate framework for geometrically relating information obtained from the respective cameras and thereby facilitates consistent multi camera calibration.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabe in view of Kim, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Imura et al. (US 2021/0331680 A1, “Imura”)
Regarding claim 6:
Kawabe in view of Kim does not specifically teach: wherein the road area includes a first road area in which the mobile object moves and a second road area which crosses the first road area.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Imura teaches: wherein the road area includes a first road area in which the mobile object moves and a second road area which crosses the first road area (Imura teaches a vehicle traveling on a road of travel and an intersecting road, defined as a road intersecting the road of travel on which the vehicle is traveling. Imura further provides a road surface recognizer configured to recognize, from an image captured by a vehicle mounted camera, the road surface of the intersecting road. See ¶¶19, 49-53, and 61).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Kawabe in view of Kim to configure the road area detection to distinguish between the road surface on which the vehicle travels and an intersecting-road surface, as taught by Imura in order to provide identifiable road surface regions from which road features are selected for calibration.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabe in view of Kim and Imura, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Kim2 (US 2018/0365858 A1).
Regarding claim 7:
Kawabe further teaches: wherein the calibrator calibrates pitch angles of the first imager that captures the first image and the second imager that captures the second image on the basis of the feature point in the first road area (Kawabe selects feature points located within the road surface range and explains that, when camera pitch is incorrect, the feature point displacement in bird's eye coordinates differs from the vehicle travel distance. Kawabe varies the pitch angle used for bird's eye transformation and identifies the pitch angle that minimizes the difference between feature-point displacement and vehicle travel distance as the correct pitch angle. See Kawabe ¶¶47 and 49–51);
Kawabe in view of Kim and Imura does not specifically teach: wherein the calibrator calibrates roll angles of the first imager and the second imager on the basis of the feature point in the second road area.
However, Kim2 teaches this. (Kim 2 teaches calibration of front, rear, left, and right vehicle cameras, including estimation of pitch, yaw, and roll. Kim2 further teaches that when a sufficient number of roadway lines not parallel to the traveling direction of the vehicle are detected, transverse stop lines are extracted and specifically used to reestimate the rolls of the front and rear cameras. Kim2 explains that the detected transverse stop line geometry permits the roll estimates to be refined with greater precision. See ¶¶91-92, 94-97 and steps S415-S417 at ¶ 125).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Kawabe in view of Kim and Imura to use feature information associated with transversely oriented roadway geometry for roll calibration as taught by Kim2 in order to provide an additional geometric constraint for estimating roll while Kawabe's travel road features provide the pitch constraint.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-8 of copending Application No. 18/999,192 in view of the prior art references applied in the 103 rejections above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Instant claim
Co-pending claim(s)
Secondary reference(s)
1, 8, and 9
1+2, 7, and 8
Kawabe and Kim as needed
2
2
Kawabe, Kim, and Bosch as needed
3
4
Kawabe and Kim as needed
4
1+2
Kawabe, Kim, and Scoff as needed
6
1
Kawabe and Kim as needed
7
3
Kawabe and Kim as needed
For example, regarding Instant claim 1. The claim differs in requiring the area detection, area feature point extraction, and calibration operations with respect to both the first and second image, and calibration of the first and second images based upon their respective first and second feature points. Kawabe teaches performing road surface feature point extraction and calibration with respect to images obtained from respective differently directed vehicle cameras. Kim further teaches using feature points obtained from respective first and second camera images in a multi camera calibration process, including matching feature points from the respective images and adjusting camera extrinsic parameters based upon an error between the transformed feature-point coordinates. Motivation to combine is similar to that found the 103 rejection above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 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.
Regarding claim 5: although the prior art of record separately teaches multi camera road feature calibration, temporal validation of road features over successive frames, and recognition of roads intersecting the vehicle's road of travel, the prior art of record does not provide a sufficiently supported reason to combine those teachings in the particular dual image, dual road region, successive frame arrangement recited by claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WASSIM MAHROUKA whose telephone number is (571)272-2945. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Stephen Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
/WASSIM MAHROUKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665
Prosecution Insights