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 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: “a calibration part” in claims 1-7.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasazaki et al (JP 2020147962 A, please refer to attached translation), hereafter known as Sasazaki in light of Soon et al (US Pub 2023/0089832 A1), hereafter known as Soon, in light of Meng et al (US Pub 2022/0390579 A1), hereafter known as Meng.
For Claim 1, Sasazaki teaches A periphery monitoring apparatus for a work machine, comprising:
a plurality of object detection devices configured to detect an object around the work machine; and ([0008] The present application includes a plurality of means for solving the above problems. For example, a plurality of cameras for photographing the surroundings of the vehicle body and a composite image synthesized from the images captured by the plurality of cameras are displayed. In a work machine including a display device to be displayed and a controller that generates the composite image based on the composition conditions and outputs the composite image to the display device, the controller calibrates a plurality of images captured by the plurality of cameras. The positions of the calibration markers having a predetermined shape to be used for the processing are specified, the coordinates of the feature points of the calibration markers in the vehicle body coordinate system are calculated for each of the plurality of images, and the features of the calibration markers. It is assumed that the coordinate difference of the points in the plurality of images is calculated, the necessity of the calibration process is determined based on the coordinate difference, and the determination result is output to the display device.)
a calibration part configured to perform calibration of coordinate systems of the plurality of object detection devices, ([0008] The present application includes a plurality of means for solving the above problems. For example, a plurality of cameras for photographing the surroundings of the vehicle body and a composite image synthesized from the images captured by the plurality of cameras are displayed. In a work machine including a display device to be displayed and a controller that generates the composite image based on the composition conditions and outputs the composite image to the display device, the controller calibrates a plurality of images captured by the plurality of cameras. The positions of the calibration markers having a predetermined shape to be used for the processing are specified, the coordinates of the feature points of the calibration markers in the vehicle body coordinate system are calculated for each of the plurality of images, and the features of the calibration markers. It is assumed that the coordinate difference of the points in the plurality of images is calculated, the necessity of the calibration process is determined based on the coordinate difference, and the determination result is output to the display device.)
wherein the calibration part is configured to advise additional recalibration if the calibration is a failure. ([0037] 8 and 9 are diagrams showing a display example in the display device of the determination result of the calibration determination, FIG. 8 is a display example when it is determined to be acceptable, and FIG. 9 is determined to be unacceptable. It is a figure which shows each display example at the time of. When the calibration determination unit 125 determines that the calibration determination has passed, as shown in FIG. 8, the calibration determination unit 125 outputs a message indicating that the calibration has passed to the display device 17 as a determination result and displays the result. When it is determined that the result is acceptable, as shown in FIG. 9, a message indicating the failure and a message prompting the execution of recalibration are output to the display device 17 as the determination result and displayed. ..)
Sasazaki does not explicitly teach execute a plurality of calibration algorithms for the calibration in ascending order of processing time duration and number of manual operations, until the calibration is completed
Soon, however, does teach execute a plurality of calibration algorithms for the calibration in an order. ([0114] Additionally, one or more calibration algorithms can be utilized. Given the sensed data from vehicle and/or course, there may be software module(s) or other features, such as features of the AV compute 400, that are configured to combine the data and apply algorithms to estimate the calibration. These algorithms could be run in real-time with direct feedback and control of the course or processed in an offline manner via logged data playback. The course can be specifically designed to work in tandem with calibration algorithms such as Ego-Motion estimation, hand-eye calibration, and machine learning.
[0112] Calibration or validation of sensors using data received while traversing the calibration course 500 may include the use of one or more software-based components or modules. For example, one or more software modules may be associated with control of the calibration course. Such software can be configured to interface with the calibration course and to control its automation capabilities (e.g., to manage the vehicles 516 coming in and out of the course). Such modules may also be configured to control any electronically controllable elements (e.g. lights, actuators) of the course.
[0113] Additionally, calibration or validation may include the use of one or more on-vehicle sensor software modules. For example, in order to calibrate the vehicle's sensors, the calibration system must have access to the sensor data, either as part of the on-vehicle software system or via an external logging interface (which the vehicle must provide sensor observations to).
Figure 5)
Meng, however, does teach selecting from a plurality of calibration algorithms for the calibration on a basis computational load. ([0051] In some embodiments, the error handling system 106 may be configured to calibrate one or more sensors if the sensor system 104 determines that calibration is to be done. In some embodiments, the error handling system 106 may be a module. In some embodiments, the error handling system 106 may be configured to eliminate data determined to be erroneous based on origination from a sensor determined to require calibration. In some embodiments, the error handling system 106 may be configured to eliminate only data determined to be erroneous while retaining the correct data. In some embodiments, the error handling system 106 may be configured to initiate a backup sensor to operate until the sensor requiring calibration is fixed, if it is so desired. In some embodiments, the error handling system 106 may be configured to recalibrate the sensor requiring such, based on a landmark, if possible. In some embodiments, the error handling system 106 may be configured to issue an alert of an uncalibrated sensor or potentially uncalibrated sensor. In some embodiments, the error handling system may be configured to use a recalibration method or combination of methods that consumes a minimum system load on the error handling system 106. In some embodiments, the selection of the recalibration method or methods may be based on an amount of availability of a computation load of the error handling system 106, a history of the sensor, a density of moving objects detected, a weather condition, or an environment condition. In some embodiments, the selection of the recalibration method or methods may be based on any combination of an amount of availability of a computation load of the error handling system 106, a history of the sensor, a density of moving objects detected, a weather condition, or an environment condition. In some embodiments, after recalibration efforts, the sensor system 104 may attempt to validate the sensor again using a same validation or sequence of validation as was done to determine whether the sensor is to be calibrated. In some embodiments, after recalibration efforts, the sensor system 104 may attempt to validate the sensor again using a different validation or sequence of validation. For example, the sensor system 104 may conduct validation based on the second data instead of conducting the first validation after recalibration efforts. In some embodiments, the sensor system 104 may select a validation or validations after recalibration efforts based on which validation or validations consumes or requires a least system load on the sensor system 104. In some embodiments, the error handling system 106 may be configured to initiate shut down of the vehicle, such as an AV, if recalibration attempts are unsuccessful. In some embodiments, the error handling system 106 may be configured to retry recalibration and/or attempt a different method of recalibration.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Sasazaki in light of Soon and Meng such that the system will execute a plurality of calibration algorithms for the calibration in ascending order of processing time duration and number of manual operations, until the calibration is completed.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Sasazaki in this way because if a number of calibration algorithms are going to be used until the system is calibrated, it would make sense to start with methods that would be more efficient. The processing time duration and number of manual operations would obvious elements to optimize because it is generally understood that processes that occur in a faster period of time or require less labor to perform may be more efficient than other methods. If the system did not prioritize these metrics, slower and more laborious methods may be chosen for calibration when other methods would have sufficed.
For Claim 2, Sasazaki teaches The periphery monitoring apparatus for the work machine according to claim 1, wherein the calibration part is configured to calculate an amount of deviation between results of detection by the plurality of object detection devices based on results of detection of a same object by the plurality of object detection devices, and determine, based on the amount of deviation, whether the calibration is necessary, or whether the calibration is completed. ([0035] In FIG. 7, the position of the calibration marker 20c in the vehicle body coordinate system in the image captured in the imaging range 111c of the camera 11c and the calibration marker 20d in the vehicle body coordinate system in the image captured in the imaging range 111d of the camera 11d. The position is illustrated. The calculation of the coordinate difference in the marker coordinate difference calculation unit 124 is performed by subtracting the smaller one from the larger one on each coordinate axis for the coordinates of the installation positions of the cameras 11a to 11d in each of the x coordinate and the y coordinate (). Difference calculation conditions). That is, for example, when considering the difference between the feature point of the calibration marker 20c, for example, the feature point C (x1, y1) and the feature point of the calibration marker 20d, for example, the feature point D (x2, y2), the difference (X2-x1, y2-y1) is calculated. The same applies to the calculation of the coordinate difference of the calibration marker 20 between the images acquired by the other cameras 11a to 11d.
[0036] Subsequently, the calibration determination unit 125 determines whether or not the calibration process is necessary by determining whether or not the coordinate difference of each axis is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value based on the coordinate difference calculated in step S120. (Step S130), if the determination result is YES, that is, if it is determined that the result is passed, a message indicating that the result is passed is output to the display device 17 as the determination result (step S140), and the process is terminated. .. Further, when the determination result in step S130 is NO, that is, when it is determined that the calibration is rejected, the calibration determination unit 125 outputs a message indicating the failure to the display device 17 as the determination result. (Step S150), the process is terminated.)
For Claim 4, Sasazaki teaches The periphery monitoring apparatus for the work machine according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of calibration algorithms include a calibration algorithm for performing coordinate transformations by manually associating feature points of a same object detected by each of the plurality of object detection devices. ([0035] In FIG. 7, the position of the calibration marker 20c in the vehicle body coordinate system in the image captured in the imaging range 111c of the camera 11c and the calibration marker 20d in the vehicle body coordinate system in the image captured in the imaging range 111d of the camera 11d. The position is illustrated. The calculation of the coordinate difference in the marker coordinate difference calculation unit 124 is performed by subtracting the smaller one from the larger one on each coordinate axis for the coordinates of the installation positions of the cameras 11a to 11d in each of the x coordinate and the y coordinate (). Difference calculation conditions). That is, for example, when considering the difference between the feature point of the calibration marker 20c, for example, the feature point C (x1, y1) and the feature point of the calibration marker 20d, for example, the feature point D (x2, y2), the difference (X2-x1, y2-y1) is calculated. The same applies to the calculation of the coordinate difference of the calibration marker 20 between the images acquired by the other cameras 11a to 11d.
[0036] Subsequently, the calibration determination unit 125 determines whether or not the calibration process is necessary by determining whether or not the coordinate difference of each axis is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value based on the coordinate difference calculated in step S120. (Step S130), if the determination result is YES, that is, if it is determined that the result is passed, a message indicating that the result is passed is output to the display device 17 as the determination result (step S140), and the process is terminated. .. Further, when the determination result in step S130 is NO, that is, when it is determined that the calibration is rejected, the calibration determination unit 125 outputs a message indicating the failure to the display device 17 as the determination result. (Step S150), the process is terminated.)
For Claim 7, Sasazaki teaches The periphery monitoring apparatus for the work machine according to claim 1, comprising an output part configured to synthesize and output results of detection of the object by the plurality of object detection devices. ([0008] The present application includes a plurality of means for solving the above problems. For example, a plurality of cameras for photographing the surroundings of the vehicle body and a composite image synthesized from the images captured by the plurality of cameras are displayed. In a work machine including a display device to be displayed and a controller that generates the composite image based on the composition conditions and outputs the composite image to the display device, the controller calibrates a plurality of images captured by the plurality of cameras. The positions of the calibration markers having a predetermined shape to be used for the processing are specified, the coordinates of the feature points of the calibration markers in the vehicle body coordinate system are calculated for each of the plurality of images, and the features of the calibration markers. It is assumed that the coordinate difference of the points in the plurality of images is calculated, the necessity of the calibration process is determined based on the coordinate difference, and the determination result is output to the display device.)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasazaki in light of Soon in light of Ming in light of Ramirez Luna et al (US Pub 2019/0327394 A1), hereafter known as Ramirez Luna.
For Claim 3, Sasazaki teaches The periphery monitoring apparatus for the work machine according to claim 1, wherein the calibration part is configured to advise a next calibration algorithm among the plurality of calibration algorithms when the calibration does not complete after repeating an ongoing calibration algorithm, among the plurality of calibration algorithms. ([0023] The present invention is applied to the work machine configured as described above, and the controller 12 of the peripheral display system of the work machine according to the present embodiment is a bird's-eye view of displaying on the display device 17 from the images of the cameras 11a to 11d. In addition to the image generation function that generates images and the calibration function that adjusts the composition conditions used for synthesizing the bird's-eye view image, the calibration judgment function that determines the necessity of adjusting the composition conditions by the calibration function and the pass / fail of the adjustment result is provided.
[0036] Subsequently, the calibration determination unit 125 determines whether or not the calibration process is necessary by determining whether or not the coordinate difference of each axis is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value based on the coordinate difference calculated in step S120. (Step S130), if the determination result is YES, that is, if it is determined that the result is passed, a message indicating that the result is passed is output to the display device 17 as the determination result (step S140), and the process is terminated. .. Further, when the determination result in step S130 is NO, that is, when it is determined that the calibration is rejected, the calibration determination unit 125 outputs a message indicating the failure to the display device 17 as the determination result. (Step S150), the process is terminated.
[0037] 8 and 9 are diagrams showing a display example in the display device of the determination result of the calibration determination, FIG. 8 is a display example when it is determined to be acceptable, and FIG. 9 is determined to be unacceptable. It is a figure which shows each display example at the time of. When the calibration determination unit 125 determines that the calibration determination has passed, as shown in FIG. 8, the calibration determination unit 125 outputs a message indicating that the calibration has passed to the display device 17 as a determination result and displays the result. When it is determined that the result is acceptable, as shown in FIG. 9, a message indicating the failure and a message prompting the execution of recalibration are output to the display device 17 as the determination result and displayed. )
Sasazaki does not teach wherein the calibration part is configured to execute a next calibration algorithm among the plurality of calibration algorithms when the calibration does not complete after repeating an ongoing calibration algorithm, among the plurality of calibration algorithms, a predetermined number of times.
Ramirez Luna, however, does teach that if calibration fails, a user may rerun it. ([0487] Returning to FIG. 42, after the optical axis and/or IPD of the example stereoscopic visualization camera 300 is calibrated, the example processor 4102 is configured to complete the calibration process to enable the camera 300 to be connected to the robotic arm 506 (block 4212). The procedure 4200 may then end. In some embodiments, at least portions of the example procedure 4200 are repeated if the camera 300 is reinitialized and/or if any of the calibration cannot be verified or validated.
[0524] Returning to FIG. 48, after the robot space boundaries are determined, the example processor 4102 and/or the robotic arm controller 4106 are configured to enable the robotic arm 506 for operation with the stereoscopic visualization camera 300 (block 4812). This may include enabling the robotic arm 506 and the stereoscopic visualization camera 300 to be used during a surgical procedure. This may also include enabling features, such as assisted drive and/or lock-to-target. Additionally or alternatively, this may include enabling one or more user controls at one or more of the input devices 1410 of FIG. 41. The example procedure 4800 ends after the robotic arm 506 is enabled with the stereoscopic visualization camera 300. The example procedure 4800 may repeat if the stereoscopic visualization platform 516 is reinitialized, experiences a detected failure, or the calibration cannot be validated.)
Soon, however, does teach execute a plurality of calibration algorithms for the calibration in an order. ([0114] Additionally, one or more calibration algorithms can be utilized. Given the sensed data from vehicle and/or course, there may be software module(s) or other features, such as features of the AV compute 400, that are configured to combine the data and apply algorithms to estimate the calibration. These algorithms could be run in real-time with direct feedback and control of the course or processed in an offline manner via logged data playback. The course can be specifically designed to work in tandem with calibration algorithms such as Ego-Motion estimation, hand-eye calibration, and machine learning.
[0112] Calibration or validation of sensors using data received while traversing the calibration course 500 may include the use of one or more software-based components or modules. For example, one or more software modules may be associated with control of the calibration course. Such software can be configured to interface with the calibration course and to control its automation capabilities (e.g., to manage the vehicles 516 coming in and out of the course). Such modules may also be configured to control any electronically controllable elements (e.g. lights, actuators) of the course.
[0113] Additionally, calibration or validation may include the use of one or more on-vehicle sensor software modules. For example, in order to calibrate the vehicle's sensors, the calibration system must have access to the sensor data, either as part of the on-vehicle software system or via an external logging interface (which the vehicle must provide sensor observations to).
Figure 5)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Sasazaki’s method in light of Soon and Ramirez Luna such that wherein the calibration part is configured to execute a next calibration algorithm among the plurality of calibration algorithms when the calibration does not complete after repeating an ongoing calibration algorithm, among the plurality of calibration algorithms, a predetermined number of times.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Sasazaki in this way because if a particular method of calibration has failed a few times in a row, it may indicate an issue that will not be corrected by running it again. The issue could be a persistent environment problem or a flaw in the method itself. By switching to another calibration method, it may allow the vehicle to be calibrated properly, which would allow it to be back into service faster.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasazaki in light of Soon in light of Meng in light of Gitz et al (US Pub 10,235,774 B1), hereafter known as Gitz.
For Claim 5, Sasazaki teaches The perimeter monitoring apparatus for the work machine according to claim 1,
Sasazaki does not teach wherein the plurality of calibration algorithms include a calibration algorithm for performing coordinate transformations by which polygons align between at least two of the plurality of object detection devices, each of the polygons having vertices that are points on a ground surface obtained by projecting a balance point of three or more same objects detected by each of the plurality of object detection devices.
Gitz, however, does teach wherein the plurality of calibration algorithms include a calibration algorithm for performing coordinate transformations by which polygons align between at least two of the plurality of object detection devices, each of the polygons having vertices that are points on a ground surface obtained by projecting a balance point of three or more same objects detected by each of the plurality of object detection devices. (Page 13, Column 4, Lines 17-47 (15) Various embodiments of the present disclosure are directed towards calibration of the image capturing device 112. The calibration includes adjusting alignment parameters such as a roll, a yaw, and a pitch, and/or adjusting translational parameters such as a x-coordinate, a y-coordinate, and a z-coordinate of the image capturing device 112 until the image capturing device 112 is calibrated. For performing calibration, a calibration target 114 is placed in a field of view of the image capturing device 112. In the illustrated embodiment, the calibration target 114 includes four points 116 (marked by cones) on the ground. The image capturing device 112 captures one or more images of the calibration target 114. The image capturing device 112 may be electrically coupled to a display (not shown) mounted in the operator cabin 106 to allow the operator to view one or more captured images.
(16) FIG. 2 illustrates a calibration system 200 for calibration of the image capturing device 112 in accordance with certain embodiments of the invention. The calibration system 200 includes the calibration target 114 used for calibrating the image capturing device 112. In one embodiment, the calibration target 114 includes at least three non-collinear points on the ground. The points may be marked using objects such as cones that are easy to view in the image. In another embodiment, the calibration target 114 may be an object in the shape of a polygon, such as, triangle, rectangle, trapezium, or square. Vertices of the polygon may be considered as marked points for the calibration. In some embodiments, the calibration target 114 may be a fixed infrastructure such as a rectangular cement pad on the ground.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Sasazaki in light of Gitz such that the calibration algorithm includes considering vertices of a polygon of points on a ground because it would be expected to be successful at determining if the two sensors are consistent when looking at shapes. Polygons and vertices provide axis’s that can be shown to align as well as points, which can be useful when performing calibrations.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasazaki in light of Soon in light of Meng in light of Choi et al (US Pub 2020/0311956 A1), hereafter known as Choi.
For Claim 6, Sasazaki teaches The perimeter monitoring apparatus for the work machine according to claim 1,
Sasazaki does not teach wherein the plurality of calibration algorithms include a calibration algorithm for performing coordinate transformations by which lower end central points of bounding boxes align between at least two of the plurality of object detection devices, each of the bounding boxes surrounding a same object detected by each of the plurality of object detection devices.
Choi, however, does teach wherein the plurality of calibration algorithms include a calibration algorithm for performing coordinate transformations by which lower end central points of bounding boxes align between at least two of the plurality of object detection devices, each of the bounding boxes surrounding a same object detected by each of the plurality of object detection devices. ([0159] Based on the known height substantially perpendicular to the surface (the width W in this case) and the known long dimension (the height H in this case) being oriented substantially parallel to the surface, the distance to the vessel and its angular position (vertical, horizontal) relative to the optical axis of one or more cameras may be determined in the same manner as for the method of FIG. 10A. The centroid location may be determined using this information in the same manner as for the method of FIG. 10A. The orientation may be determined using an image (M3, FIG. 15A) from a camera 104 looking down substantially perpendicular to the surface and calibrated with respect to the surface 400. The orientation of the oriented 2D bounding box will be apparent in such an image and may be estimated due to calibration of the camera 104 with respect to the surface 400 that relates vertices of the 2D oriented bounding box to horizontal positions in a plane parallel to the surface such that the angular orientation of the 2D oriented bounding box may be determined.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Sasazaki in light of Choi such that the corners of bounding boxes centered on objects are used because the use of bounding boxes around objects is a known method of determining an object’s location, and would be expected to be useful at allowing objects in the vehicle’s environment to be calibration targets. It would allow the system to use items it commonly detects as its target for calibration, or would not require specific calibration points or patterns to be used to make calibrations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ikegami et al (US Pub 2014/0326039 A1) relates to calibration of work vehicles.
Kean et al (US Pub 2024/0310408 A1), hereafter relates to calibration routes for work vehicles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRISTAN J GREINER whose telephone number is (571)272-1382. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30-4:30.
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, Tran Khoi can be reached at Monday-Thursday. 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.
/T.J.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3656 /KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights