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 § 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 2 and 9 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.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, the phrase "e.g." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) are 1, 6-8, 13-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190206084 A1-Noble et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Noble”), in view of US 20150332446 A1-Wang et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Wang”).
Regarding claim 1, Noble discloses a method for calibrating a current coordinate transform, CT, between a reference coordinate system and a camera coordinate system wherein the reference coordinate system relates to a vehicle interior in which the camera is mounted ([0096], mounted camera), comprising:
obtaining a 3D model of the vehicle interior ([0082] Three dimensional model of vehicle cabin), said 3D model containing geometric data of the vehicle interior ([0082], CAD model inherently discloses geometric data), expressed in the reference coordinate system ([0082], reference coordinate system), the geometric data including at least one physical structure which is identifiable in an image ([0082], wherein the known features may include individual vehicle dashboard instruments, definable cabin contours, edges, or objects or the entire vehicle cabin itself);
acquiring an image of the vehicle interior using the camera ([0084], wherein captured image);
identifying at least one feature in said image corresponding to one of said physical structures ([0084], wherein identifies the geometric appearance of known features), and selecting a set of pixel coordinates of said feature ([0085], wherein the identified features are stored as coordinates of pixels within the image), each pixel coordinate associated with a specific point in the 3D model ([0085], each feature illustrate the pixel regions within the image designated to correspond to those features);
forming 2D projections of the specific points onto the camera image plane by applying said coordinate transform and a model of camera optics ([0086], projecting the two dimensional positions of the reference features identified in the image into three dimensions to fit the model. Alternatively, two dimensional image may be rendered from the model and the comparison performed between the captured image and the rendered image); and
calibrating the current CT based on a relationship between said set of selected pixel coordinates and said 2D projections ([0088], calibration),
Noble fails to disclose wherein the coordinate transform is expressed as a series of nested transforms, such that the coordinate transform models a mechanical mounting of the camera.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wang discloses wherein the coordinate transform is expressed as a series of nested transforms, such that the coordinate transform models a mechanical mounting of the camera ([0029], wherein the equations show series of nested transform coordinates).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Noble to disclose wherein the coordinate transform is expressed as a series of nested transforms, such that the coordinate transform models a mechanical mounting of the camera as taught by Wang to provide calibration correction for cameras ([0011]).
Regarding claim 6, Noble discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the 3D model is a CAD model of the vehicle ([0082], , and wherein each feature to be identified is defined by specifying a 3D description of the corresponding structure in the CAD data ([0082]).
Regarding claim 7, Noble discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one physical structure includes at least one of a B-pillar, a C-pillar, a center console, a portion of the rear seat, and a door handle ([0082], wherein entire vehicle cabin includes at least one of a B-pillar, a C-pillar, a center console, a portion of the rear seat, and a door handle).
Regarding claim 8, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 8.
Regarding claim 13, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 6 and are applicable for claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 7 and are applicable for claim 14.
Claim(s) 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190206084 A1-Noble et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Noble”), in view of US 20150332446 A1-Wang et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Wang”), in view of US 202040104879 A1-Jiang et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Jiang”).
Regarding claim 2, Noble discloses the method according to claim 1 (See claim 1),
Noble and Wang fails to disclose wherein the step of calibrating includes: creating a set of equations, where each equation defines one element of an error vector as a difference between one of said pixel coordinates and an associated 2D projection, and minimizing said error vector, e.g. in the least square sense.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Jiang discloses wherein the step of calibrating includes: creating a set of equations, where each equation defines one element of an error vector as a difference between one of said pixel coordinates and an associated 2D projection, and minimizing said error vector, e.g. in the least square sense ([0037], least square method).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Noble and Wang to disclose wherein the step of calibrating includes: creating a set of equations, where each equation defines one element of an error vector as a difference between one of said pixel coordinates and an associated 2D projection, and minimizing said error vector, e.g. in the least square sense as taught by Jiang to improve performance ([0142]).
Regarding claim 9, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 2 and are applicable for claim 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, and 10-12 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 LERON BECK whose telephone number is (571)270-1175. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5pm.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571) 272-7327. 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.
LERON . BECK
Examiner
Art Unit 2487
/LERON BECK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights