DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Application # 19/130,721 filed on May 16, 2025 in which claims 1-20 were presented for examination.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending, of which claims 6, 8, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b); claims 1, 2, and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2); and claims 3-8 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed May 16, 2025 complies with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 2 and 14 include the limitation “said method comprising the step of processing said at least one target image of said at least one positioning target by means of said electronic processing device to determine at least a first value indicative of the tilt of the calibration panel with respect to said vertical reference plane,” or similar. (Emphasis added). This appears to recite the intended use of the processing the target images and does not appear to require the determination to occur. “An intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although “[s]uch statements often . . . appear in the claim’s preamble,” In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987), a statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. Id; Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150, 157 (1875) (‘The inventor of a machine is entitled to the benefit of all the uses to which it can be put, no matter whether he had conceived the idea of the use or not.’). Thus, it is usually improper to construe non-functional claim terms in system claims in a way that makes infringement or validity turn on their function. Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Claims 4 and 16 include the limitation “the target images of said positioning target captured during the rotation of the calibration panel around said reference axis horizontal in order to determine on the basis of the captured target-images said first values indicative of respective tilts of the calibration panel during the said rotation,” or similar. (Emphasis added). This appears to recite the intended use of the target images and does not appear to require the determination to occur. “An intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although “[s]uch statements often . . . appear in the claim’s preamble,” In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987), a statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. Id; Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150, 157 (1875) (‘The inventor of a machine is entitled to the benefit of all the uses to which it can be put, no matter whether he had conceived the idea of the use or not.’). Thus, it is usually improper to construe non-functional claim terms in system claims in a way that makes infringement or validity turn on their function. Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Claim 6 recites a method including the limitation “said method comprises the step of controlling said actuator/motorized electric means by means of said electronic processing device to automatically rotate said calibration panel around said horizontal reference axis on the basis of said first values determined during the rotation and of said second pre-established value.” (Emphasis added). As discussed above, the first values are not required to be detected. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation does not require the controlling of the actuator to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, 2013-007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential) where the board held that when method steps are to be carried out only upon the occurrence of a condition precedent, the broadest reasonable interpretation holds that those steps are not required to be performed. (id. at *7). See, e.g., Ex parte Sabin (PTAB 2023) (App. S.N. 16/723,088), at 2-3; Ex parte Baltar (PTAB 2023) (App. S.N. 15/714,480) at *5; Ex parte Silvestre (PTAB 2023) (App. S.N. 15/532,953) at *11; and Ex parte Banescu (PTAB 2021) (App. S.N. 14/898,856) at *12 Ex parte Mehta, PTAB Appeal No. 2017-011252 at *20–22 (Application No. 13/422,647, Aug. 23, 2019) (“identifying, by the insurance computer system, the online group for an insurance offering update based on a size of the online group changing beyond a threshold amount”), Ex parte Carasso, PTAB Appeal No. 2018-005963 at *17–20 (Application No. 14/611,093) (Jan. 24, 2019) (“based on user input indicating that development of a text extraction rule is complete”), Ex parte Xiu, PTAB Appeal 2025-000743 at *5, ft. 3 (Application 17/211,498) (Aug. 29, 2025) (in the footnote, the Board recommends that the Examiner treat, as conditional language, the limitation of “based on the adaptive color space transform enablement indication indicating that the adaptive color space transform is disabled”) (supporting the interpretation that “based on” limitations are conditional).
Claim 12 includes the limitation “said method comprising the step of processing said at least one target image of said at least one positioning target by means of said electronic processing device to determine the angular position of the calibration panel around said vertical reference axis with respect to a predetermined reference system.” (Emphasis added). This appears to recite the intended use of the processing the target images and does not appear to require the determination to occur. “An intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although “[s]uch statements often . . . appear in the claim’s preamble,” In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987), a statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. Id; Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150, 157 (1875) (‘The inventor of a machine is entitled to the benefit of all the uses to which it can be put, no matter whether he had conceived the idea of the use or not.’). Thus, it is usually improper to construe non-functional claim terms in system claims in a way that makes infringement or validity turn on their function. Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because they are generally narrative and confusing, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: These claims inconsistently alternate between the two reference-back terms “the” and “said.” Although “the” and “said” are synonyms, switching back and forth between the two terms reduces clarity and readability. See Robert C. Faber, Faber on Mechanics of Patent Claims § 3:14 (Practising Law Institute ed., 6th ed. 2010) (“If ‘saids’ or ‘thes’ are used [to refer back to a claim element], one should be consistent in the usage and not alternate between those words in repetitions of the same element or among different elements”); see also William Strunk Jr. & E.B. White, The Elements of Style, 26 (4th ed. 2000) (explaining that coordinate ideas should be expressed in similar or identical terms to “enable[] the reader to recognize more readily the likeness of content and function”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: these claims use the acronym “ADAS” without first defining the acronym. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1, 2, 13, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: these claims contain “and/or” language. While definite, the preferred verbiage for such language is “at least one of A and B,” See Ex parte Gross (PTAB 2014) (App. S.N. 11/565,411), at Page 4, Footnote 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: these claims refer to “memorizing” and “memorize,” respectively. Electronic devices are not generally thought of as being capable of “memorizing.” The examiner recommends replacing this with a term such as “storing” or “saving,” as these appear to better reflect the intended meaning. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “said axis horizontal” is grammatically incorrect and should be replaced with “said horizontal axis Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 4 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: these claims include the limitation “the target images of said positioning target captured during the rotation of the calibration panel around said reference axis horizontal in order to determine on the basis of the captured target-images said first values indicative of respective tilts of the calibration panel during the said rotation,” or similar. (Emphasis added). This phrase is grammatically awkward and confusing. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 6 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: these claims alternatively refer to “electric actuator/motorized means” and “actuator/motorized electric means.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “wherein said calibration panel comprises by choice” is awkward and confusing. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 6, 8, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 6 and 18, these claims include the limitation “electric actuator/motorized means1 configured to rotate said calibration panel about said axis horizontal reference plane in order to tilt the calibration panel with respect to said vertical reference plane” or similar. (Emphasis added).
The use of the slash (‘/’) creates ambiguity in the intended interpretation of this limitation, rendering it subject to multiple, mutually exclusive interpretations.
First, this may be interpreted as “an electric actuator or a motorized means,” with the means applying only to the term “motorized.”
Second, this may be interpreted as “an electric actuator means or a motorized means.”
Third, this may be interpret as “an electric actuator and motorized means,” with the means applying on to the term “motorized.”
Fourth, this may be interpreted as “an electric actuator means and motorized means.”
These distinctions are especially important for the application of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), due to the use of the words “means.”
“[I]f a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.” Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008) (precedential). See also Ex parte McAward, Appeal 2015-006416 (PTAB 2017) (precedential) (affirming the holding in Ex parte Miyazaki).
Therefore, these claims are indefinite.
Regarding claims 8 and 20, these claims refer to “a couple of positing targets” and “a couple of electronic image acquisition devices.” (Emphasis added). The use of “couple” is subject to two, mutually exclusive interpretations. First, this may be interpreted as indicating the specific number of positioning targets and electronic image acquisition devices; namely that there are two of each. If this is Applicant’s intended interpretation, the examiner recommends replacing this with “a plurality of positing targets” and “a plurality of electronic image acquisition devices.”
Second, because child claim 10 refers to “said coupled of positioning targets,” this may be interpreted as a typographical error and instead indicating positioning targets coupled together and electronic image acquisition devices coupled together. If this is Applicant’s intended interpretation, the examiner recommends replacing this with “a plurality of positing targets coupled together” and “a plurality of electronic image acquisition devices coupled together.”
“[I]f a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.” Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008) (precedential). See also Ex parte McAward, Appeal 2015-006416 (PTAB 2017) (precedential) (affirming the holding in Ex parte Miyazaki).
For purposes of examination, the examiner shall apply the first interpretation.
Therefore, these claims are indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lawrence et al., US Patent 11,624,608 (hereinafter Lawrence).
Regarding claim 1, Lawrence discloses a method for calibrating a driving assistance system of a vehicle mounted in a vehicle by means of a calibration apparatus, wherein the calibration apparatus comprises “a supporting frame” (Lawrence col. 4, ll. 43-59) in the form of target adjustment frame 24. Additionally, Lawrence discloses “a calibration panel which is mechanically coupled to said supporting frame in order to translate along an axis and/or rotate around an axis” (Lawrence col. 6, l. 63-col. 7, l. 16 and Fig. 5) where imager housings 40a and 40b are mounted to support 110, which is rotatable about a vertical axis. Imager housings 40a and 40b are used to calibrate a camera, making them calibration panels. (Lawrence col. 8, ll. 6-19). Further, Lawrence discloses “an electronic control system, which is configured in order to perform a calibration procedure of an ADAS electronic device of said driving assistance system of a vehicle by means of said calibration panel.” (Lawrence col. 12, l. 51-col. 13, l. 20). Moreover, Lawrence discloses “said method comprises the steps of: associating at least one positioning target to said calibration panel” (Lawrence col. 9, l. 53-col. 10, l. 7 and Fig. 8) where cross pattern 71 and dots A1, A2, B1, and B2 are a positioning target and located in imager housings 40a and 40b. Likewise, Lawrence discloses “arranging at least one electronic image acquisition device on said supporting frame” (Lawrence col. 7, l. 53-col. 8, l. 3) where camera 38 is mounted to housing 40, which mounted to the supporting frame, as discussed above. Lawrence also discloses “capturing by said at least one electronic image acquisition device at least one target image of said positioning target of said calibration panel” (Lawrence col. 10, ll. 7-29) where the cameras 38 image the back surface including the electronic image. Finally, Lawrence discloses “processing, by means of an electronic processing device, said at least one target image of said at least one positioning target in order to determine the axial position of said calibration panel along said axis and/or the angular position of said calibration panel around said axis” (Lawrence col. 6, l. 63-col. 7, l. 16; col. 10, ll. 7-29) by determining the location of the points relative to the Z-axis (Lawrence col. 10, ll. 7-29) and having indicated that the panel is rotated around the Z-axis. (Lawrence col. 6, l. 63-col. 7, l. 16).
Regarding claim 13, Lawrence discloses a calibration apparatus for calibrating a driving assistance system of a vehicle mounted in a vehicle, the calibration apparatus comprises “a supporting frame” (Lawrence col. 4, ll. 43-59) in the form of target adjustment frame 24. Additionally, Lawrence discloses “a calibration panel which is mechanically coupled to said supporting frame in order to translate along an axis and/or rotate around an axis” (Lawrence col. 6, l. 63-col. 7, l. 16 and Fig. 5) where imager housings 40a and 40b are mounted to support 110, which is rotatable about a vertical axis. Imager housings 40a and 40b are used to calibrate a camera, making them calibration panels. (Lawrence col. 8, ll. 6-19). Further, Lawrence discloses “an electronic control system, which is configured in order to perform a calibration procedure of an ADAS electronic device of said driving assistance system of a vehicle by means of said calibration panel.” (Lawrence col. 12, l. 51-col. 13, l. 20). Moreover, Lawrence discloses “said calibration apparatus comprises: at least one positioning target associated with said calibration panel” (Lawrence col. 9, l. 53-col. 10, l. 7 and Fig. 8) where cross pattern 71 and dots A1, A2, B1, and B2 are a positioning target and located in imager housings 40a and 40b. Likewise, Lawrence discloses “at least an electronic image acquisition device which is coupled to said supporting frame and is configured in order to capture at least one target image of said positioning target of said panel calibration” (Lawrence col. 7, l. 53-col. 8, l. 3, col. 10, ll. 7-29) where camera 38 is mounted to housing 40, which mounted to the supporting frame, as discussed above, and where the cameras 38 image the back surface including the electronic image. Finally, Lawrence discloses “a processing electronic device configured to process said at least one target image of said at least one positioning target to determine the axial position of the calibration panel along said axis and/or the angular position of the calibration panel around said axis” (Lawrence col. 6, l. 63-col. 7, l. 16; col. 10, ll. 7-29) by determining the location of the points relative to the Z-axis (Lawrence col. 10, ll. 7-29) and having indicated that the panel is rotated around the Z-axis. (Lawrence col. 6, l. 63-col. 7, l. 16).
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Lawrence discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 13 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Lawrence discloses “wherein said calibration panel is mechanically coupled to said supporting frame in order to be able to rotate around a horizontal reference axis so as to tilt with respect to a vertical reference plane parallel to said horizontal reference axis” (Lawrence col. 6, l. 63-col. 7, l. 16, see also col. 8, ll. 4-6) where the mounting base 102, to which housings 40a and 40b are mounted, may be pivoted (i.e., tilted). Further, Lawrence discloses “said method comprising the step of processing said at least one target image of said at least one positioning target by means of said electronic processing device to determine at least a first value indicative of the tilt of the calibration panel with respect to said vertical reference plane” (Lawrence col. 8, ll. 4-19) where the calibration occurs based on the position of housing 40, which would include values for tilt.
Regarding claim 9, Lawrence discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Lawrence discloses “wherein said supporting frame comprises a support bar, which extends along a horizontal axis parallel to said horizontal axis of rotation, and supports said calibration panel and at least one electronic image acquisition device” (Lawrence col. 6, l. 63-col. 7, l. 16 and Fig. 6) where support 110 performs this function.
Regarding claim 10, Lawrence discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 9 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Lawrence discloses “wherein said support bar supports on the two opposite ends two electronic image acquisition devices oriented to capture the target images of said coupled of positioning targets of said calibration panel” ” (Lawrence col. 6, l. 63-col. 7, l. 16 and Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 11, Lawrence discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Lawrence discloses “wherein said calibration panel comprises by choice: a calibration panel designed to calibrate a radar sensor, a calibration panel designed to calibrate an ADAS camera, a calibration panel designed to calibrate an ADAS infrared device” (Lawrence col. 4, ll. 21-42; col. 8, ll. 4-19) where the calibration panels may be used to calibrate sensors 30 of vehicle 22 (Lawrence col. 8, ll. 4-19), which may be a radar sensor, an ADAS camera, or an ADAS infrared device. (Lawrence col. 4, ll. 21-42).
Regarding claim 12, Lawrence discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Lawrence discloses “wherein said calibration panel is mechanically coupled to said supporting frame in order to rotate around a vertical reference axis.” (Lawrence col. 6, l. 63-col. 7, l. 16). Further, Lawrence discloses “said method comprising the step of processing said at least one target image of said at least one positioning target by means of said electronic processing device to determine the angular position of the calibration panel around said vertical reference axis with respect to a predetermined reference system” (Lawrence col. 8, ll. 4-19) where the calibration occurs based on the position of housing 40, which would include values around the vertical reference axis.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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 3-5, 7, 8, 15-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lawrence in view of Cox, US Publication 2022/0270358 (hereinafter Cox).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Lawrence discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 2 and 14 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Lawrence disclose does not appear to explicitly disclose “memorizing by said electronic processing device a second value indicative of a pre-established tilt of the calibration panel with respect to said vertical reference plane in a correct condition execution of the calibration procedure of said ADAS electronic device, controlling by means of said electronic processing device whether the first determined value and the second predetermined value mutually satisfy a predetermined tilt condition of said calibration pane, performing and/or inhibiting through said processing electronic device the execution of the calibration procedure of said ADAS electronic device based on the result of said control.”
However, Cox discloses a method for calibrating an ADAS camera including the step of “memorizing by said electronic processing device a second value indicative of a pre-established tilt of the calibration panel with respect to said vertical reference plane in a correct condition execution of the calibration procedure of said ADAS electronic device” (Cox ¶¶ 40, 115) by disclosing that the parameters are stored and indicating that the parameters include a yaw angle. Additionally, Cox discloses “controlling by means of said electronic processing device whether the first determined value and the second predetermined value mutually satisfy a predetermined tilt condition of said calibration pane” (Cox ¶ 115) by determining that the yaw angle parameter is incorrect. This is determining that the first and second predetermined values mutually satisfy the predetermined condition of being equal. Finally, Cox discloses “performing and/or inhibiting through said processing electronic device the execution of the calibration procedure of said ADAS electronic device based on the result of said control” (Cox ¶ 120) by refining the calibration parameters.
Lawrence and Cox are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of calibrating ADAS cameras.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lawrence and Cox before him or her to modify the ADAS camera calibration of Lawrence to include the specific tilt detection of Cox.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve localization accuracy. (Cox ¶ 4).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, the combination of Lawrence and Cox discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 3 and 15 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Cox discloses “further comprising the steps of processing through said electronic processing device, the target images of said positioning target captured during the rotation of the calibration panel around said reference axis horizontal in order to determine on the basis of the captured target-images said first values indicative of respective tilts of the calibration panel during the said rotation” (Cox ¶¶ 114-115) where the incorrect yaw angle is determined based on detections from multiple images. Further, the combination of Lawrence and Cox discloses “providing the operator by a user interface device, assistance information indicative of the rotation that the operator should manually impart on the calibration panel around the horizontal reference axis to reach the pre-established tilt of the calibration panel, based on the first determined values and the second preset value” (Cox ¶ 111) where text boxes indicate an error for which manual calibration may be performed.
Regarding claims 5 and 17, the combination of Lawrence and Cox discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 3 and 15 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Cox discloses “processing said target image to determine the first value and determining a condition of incorrect tilt of said calibration panel, when the first determined value is different from the second pre-established value” (Cox ¶ 115) by determining that the yaw angle is incorrect.
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Lawrence discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 13 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Lawrence discloses “wherein said calibration panel is further designed to translate along an axis parallel to said horizontal reference axis” (Lawrence col. 6, l. 63-col. 7, l. 16) where the imager housings may be translated longitudinally.
Lawrence disclose does not appear to explicitly disclose “said method comprises the step of determining by means of said electronic processing device a third value indicative of an axial position of the calibration panel on the basis of said at least one target image of said at least a positioning target.”
However, Cox discloses “said method comprises the step of determining by means of said electronic processing device a third value indicative of an axial position of the calibration panel on the basis of said at least one target image of said at least a positioning target” (Cox ¶ 34) by determining the roll angle.
Lawrence and Cox are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of calibrating ADAS cameras.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lawrence and Cox before him or her to modify the ADAS camera calibration of Lawrence to include the specific roll detection of Cox.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve localization accuracy. (Cox ¶ 4).
Regarding claims 8 and 20, Lawrence discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 13 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Lawrence discloses “a couple of positioning targets, which are stably fixed on two respective opposite vertical faces of said calibration panel” (Lawrence col. 4, l. 43-col. 5, l. 4 and Fig. 1) where aperture plate clamps 36a and 36b are shown to be opposite vertical faces to the calibration panels. Further, Lawrence discloses “a couple of electronic image acquisition devices, which are coupled to said supporting frame in mutually symmetrical positions with respect to a vertical axis of the calibration apparatus and are oriented and configured in order to capture the target images of the respective positioning targets of said calibration panel” (Lawrence col. 7, l. 53-col. 8, l. 3, col. 10, ll. 7-29) where camera 38 is mounted to housing 40, which mounted to the supporting frame, as discussed above, and where the cameras 38 image the back surface including the electronic image.
Lawrence disclose does not appear to explicitly disclose “said method comprises the steps of determining first values indicative of the tilt of the calibration panel with respect to said vertical reference plane based on said target-images of the couple of said positioning targets.
However, Cox discloses “said method comprises the steps of determining first values indicative of the tilt of the calibration panel with respect to said vertical reference plane based on said target-images of the couple of said positioning targets” (Cox ¶ 46) by determining the rotational angle, which includes the yaw angle.
Lawrence and Cox are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of calibrating ADAS cameras.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lawrence and Cox before him or her to modify the ADAS camera calibration of Lawrence to include the specific yaw detection of Cox.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve localization accuracy. (Cox ¶ 4).
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lawrence in view of Cejka et al., US Publication 2022/0012912 (hereinafter Cejka).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Lawrence discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 2 and 14 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Lawrence discloses “wherein said calibration apparatus comprises electric actuator/motorized means configured to rotate said calibration panel about said axis horizontal reference plane in order to tilt the calibration panel with respect to said vertical reference plane” (Lawrence col. 9, ll. 31-53 and Fig. 10) where actuator 112 causes the imager housings 40a and 40b to rotate.
Lawrence disclose does not appear to explicitly disclose “said method comprises the step of controlling said actuator/motorized electric means by means of said electronic processing device to automatically rotate said calibration panel around said horizontal reference axis on the basis of said first values determined during the rotation and of said second pre-established value.”
However, Cejka discloses a method for calculating an ADAS camera, “said method comprises the step of controlling said actuator/motorized electric means by means of said electronic processing device to automatically rotate said calibration panel around said horizontal reference axis on the basis of said first values determined during the rotation and of said second pre-established value” (Cejka ¶ 32) by automatically rotating the camera, which requires knowing the values to be rotated.
Lawrence and Cejka are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of calibrating ADAS cameras.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lawrence and Cejka before him or her to modify the calibration apparatus of Lawrence to include the automatic control of Cejka.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Lawrence teaches the “base device” for calibrating the cameras of an ADAS calibration system. Further, Cejka teaches the “known technique” of automatically rotating the cameras that is applicable to the base device of Lawrence. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Lai, US Publication 2022/0049954, System and method for calibrating ADAS sensors.
Vianello et al., US Publication 2022/0189067, System and method for calibrating ADAS sensors.
Corchi, US Publication 2022/0194399, System and method for calibrating ADAS sensors.
Jefferies et al., US Publication 2022/0234596, System and method for calibrating ADAS sensors.
Vianello et al., US Publication 2022/0268885, System and method for calibrating ADAS sensors.
Lee, US Publication 2022/0343697, System and method for calibrating ADAS sensors.
Liu et al., US Publication 2023/0010071, System and method for calibrating ADAS sensors.
Luo et al., US Publication 2023/0124731, System and method for calibrating ADAS sensors.
Naikal et al., US Publication 2023/0145082, System and method for calibrating ADAS sensors.
Myer et al., US Publication 2023/0166745, System and method for calibrating ADAS sensors.
Myers et al., US publication 2023/0168113, System and method for calibrating ADAS sensors.
Cantadori, US Publication 2023/0365148, System and method for calibrating ADAS sensors.
Wu et al., US Publication 2024/0248186, System and method for calibrating ADAS sensors.
Zheng et al., US Publication 2024/0312264, System and method for calibrating ADAS sensors.
Kobach, US Publication 2024/0362803, System and method for calibrating ADAS sensors.
Ferret et al., US Publication 2024/0416926, System and method for calibrating ADAS sensors.
Corghi, US Patent 11, 390, 289, System and method for calibrating ADAS sensors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
1 As discussed above, these claims also refer to “actuator/motorized electric means.” For purposes of this rejection, it shall be assumed that this is the same as the claimed “electric actuator/motorized means.”
Prosecution Insights