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:
Claims 1-7
Recognition unit;
Selection unit:
Execution unit:
Provision unit (claim 6);
The examiner notes the specification states the units may be integrated into hardware or software units and may be implemented as a processor.
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.
Hardware being a processor (including the elements being integrated or not) using at least one processor.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly
claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “best” in claims 6 and 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “best” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The examiner notes the specification discloses selecting a calibration algorithm corresponding to the “best” calibration result value among the calculated calibration result value. The specification says different algorithms for different patterns, but nowhere in the specification does it state/show what the “algorithms” specifically are/include. The specification is absent any specifics/parameters to what the algorithms include (don’t include), there are no calculations/formulas disclosed or what is compared/computed/matched with respect to the stored patterns and captured patterns, luminance, brightness and/or some other parameters.
The specification states the selection unit is further configured to select the algorithm with a “smallest calibration error” and recognize a pattern with a “highest degree of similarity”, however “best” is unclear since the smallest error or highest degree of similarity are not explained/detailed to what those errors/similarities include (don’t include) to arrive at the “best”.
Recent Federal Circuit decisions (e.g., Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. MediaPointe, Inc.) have tightened the standard for terms like "best" or "optimal," emphasizing that they must be supported by objective and exclusive boundaries.
The court held that simply claiming a "best" result without a clear, consistent formula for measuring that result in the specification does not provide "reasonable certainty".
If the specification defines "best" as "closest match" but the method for determining "closest" is ambiguous or inconsistent, the claim will be found indefinite.
The examiner suggests changing the claims from “best” to include either “highest degree of similarity” or “smallest calibration error”.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANG et al .US 20240013438 (includes Foreign Priority to KR-10-2022-0084960 (earliest priority 11 Jul 2022, which FP supports the US filed portions relied upon, see translation attached) in view of Xu et al., US 2018/0367681 and Chen et al., US 20220358679.
In considering claim 1,
PNG
media_image1.png
294
709
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claimed recognition unit… is met where (Fig 1) a calibration patterns are generated (S100) and then verified to perform calibration (S200) which may be implemented in system 1000 (Fig 9) processor 1010. As noted by KANG in related art recognition of markers rather than the pattern causes problems (para 7, 39-40, 69) where multiple patterns, checkerboard, elliptical or concentric may be used.
The claimed camera calibration is met by KANG which performs camera calibration on the recognized pattern (para 2, 3, 9-10, 27-28, 30-35, 37, 40, 62-64, 67, 69) via the processor 1010 (execution unit).
The examiner notes KANG discloses recognition of the patterns used for camera calibration, however does not explicitly recite the selection of an algorithm corresponding to a pattern or preset calibration algorithm.
The examiner evidences Xu et al., US 2018/0367681 which discloses (Fig 1B) specifically comparing a pre-stored ideal checkerboard chart image with an image taken of an actual checkerboard calibration chart (para 6, Fig 1b) or dot array (Fib 2a-2c). Xu discloses the matching is one by coarse an fine tuning match (para 56-58) (preset calibration algorithm).
The motivation to modify KANG with XU provides the system the ability to use multiple known calibration patterns and perform camera calibration of such different patterns, allowing the device/user the ability to ensure proper calibration using one or more calibration patterns which may be combined (Fig 3), thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The examiner further evidences the conventional using different patterns by incorporating Chen et al., US 20220358679, Fig 6 which shows the checkerboard, dot and 2D code pattern that can be used to calibrate a camera, where based upon the pattern used determined the recognition performs (para 138, 139) which may be done via binarization and edge detection on the photo captured of the pattern.
The motivation to utilize the features of Chen, different boards allows the combination to calibrate a camera with conventional calibration patterns, which ensures the cameras are properly calibrated, thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In considering claim 5,
The claimed providing a performance result (as disclosed S440 and S45) includes the steps of selecting an algorithm corresponding to the pattern and performing camera calibration which provides a performance result.
Kang disclose camera calibration using a recognized calibration pattern.
Xu, As noted in claim 1 the selection of a pattern an algorithm (coarse/fine) is disclosed by Xu and wherein Xu discloses performing camera calibration after the selection/processing (coarse/fine) (paras 27, 29).
Additionally, Chen discloses performing camera calibration using an identified pattern and respective image processing.
Thus the combination disclose providing a calibration result (performance result) based upon the noted features above, thus being an obvious combination to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to ensure proper (performance) calibration of cameras using identified/selected calibration patterns/algorithms.
In considering claim 8,
Refer to claim 1.
Regarding the plurality of pre-stored calibration patterns, as noted in claim 1,
XU discloses which discloses (Fig 1B) specifically comparing a pre-stored ideal checkerboard chart image with an image taken of an actual checkerboard calibration chart (para 6, Fig 1b) or dot array (Fib 2a-2c). Xu discloses the matching is one by coarse an fine tuning match (para 56-58) (preset calibration algorithm).
Chen et al., US 20220358679, Fig 6 which shows the checkerboard, dot and 2D code pattern that can be used to calibrate a camera, where based upon the pattern used determined the recognition performs (para 138, 139) which may be done via binarization and edge detection on the photo captured of the pattern.
The motivation to utilize the features of Xu/Chen using a plurality of pre-stored patterns, with Kang allows the combination to calibrate a camera with conventional calibration patterns which can be captured via the camera and compared to what that pattern is which is stored in memory, which ensures the cameras are properly calibrated, thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 9-11 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.
It is noted that claims 6-7 and 12 have no “Prior Art” rejection.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The examiner notes the prior art discloses storing pre-stored calibration patterns which are used to identify a captured pattern, but the prior art does not include the additional features of the claims noted above, regarding how a selection for an algorithm including whether or not there is a corresponding calibration pattern.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure—see newly cited references on attached form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian Yenke whose telephone number is (571)272-7359. The examiner work schedule is Monday-Thursday, 0730-1830 hrs.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s Supervisor, John Miller, can be reached at (571)272-7353.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to:
(571)-273-8300
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Technology Center 2600 Customer Service Office whose telephone number is
(703)305-HELP.
General information about patents, trademarks, products and services offered by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and other related information is available by contacting the USPTO’s General Information Services Division at:
800-PTO-9199 or 703-308-HELP
(FAX) 703-305-7786
(TDD) 703-305-7785
An automated message system is available 7 days a week, 24 hours a day providing informational responses to frequently asked questions and the ability to order certain documents. Customer service representatives are available to answer questions, send materials or connect customers with other offices of the USPTO from 8:30 a.m. - 8:00p.m. EST/EDT, Monday-Friday excluding federal holidays.
For other technical patent information needs, the Patent Assistance Center can be reached through customer service representatives at the above numbers, Monday through Friday (except federal holidays) from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST/EDT.
The Patent Electronic Business Center (EBC) allows USPTO customers to retrieve data, check the status of pending actions, and submit information and applications. The tools currently available in the Patent EBC are Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) and the Electronic Filing System (EFS). PAIR (http://pair.uspto.gov) provides customers direct secure access to their own patent application status information, as well as to general patent information publicly available. EFS allows customers to electronically file patent application documents securely via the Internet. EFS is a system for submitting new utility patent applications and pre-grant publication submissions in electronic publication-ready form. EFS includes software to help customers prepare submissions in extensible Markup Language (XML) format and to assemble the various parts of the application as an electronic submission package. EFS also allows the submission of Computer Readable Format (CRF) sequence listings for pending biotechnology patent applications, which were filed in paper form.
/BRIAN P YENKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422