DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Note: Preliminary amendment filed 06/05/2025 has been received and considered.
Claims 1-15 have been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9-10, 12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rathi (US 2021/0001775).
Regarding claim 1, Rathi discloses a control device for controlling a vehicle, comprising:
one or more processors (processor 18; see at least paragraph 0022) configured to:
receive, from a longitudinal camera of a vehicle, a first longitudinal image showing a surrounding in front of the vehicle or behind the vehicle at a first point in time (as the vehicle approaches closer to the mailbox, the mailbox is viewed and imaged by both the forward facing camera and the side mounted camera; see at least paragraph 0031);
receive, from a lateral camera of the vehicle, a first lateral image showing a surrounding in a lateral direction next to the vehicle at the first point in time (as the vehicle approaches closer to the mailbox, the mailbox is viewed and imaged by both the forward facing camera and the side mounted camera; see at least paragraph 0031);
receive, from the lateral camera, a second lateral image showing the surrounding in the lateral direction next to the vehicle at a second point in time different from the first point in time, wherein a portion of the second lateral image shows a scene which is, at the first point in time, shown in the first longitudinal image and the first lateral image (as the mailbox display image moves or transitions from the front camera image to the overlapping region and to the side camera image, the side camera image can therefore, be considered as the second lateral image; see at least paragraph 0032. Wherein the mailbox is a scene and as the vehicle approaches closes to the mailbox, it is located at a region or area where the fields of view of both cameras overlap and encompass the mailbox; see at least paragraphs 0031-0032);
generate, using the first longitudinal image and the first lateral image, a first image showing a top view on the scene at the first point in time (image portions 14a, 14b, 14c and 14d taken by the respective cameras 14a, 14b, 14c and 14d and are used to create a stitched virtual top view image; see at least paragraph 0035);
generate, using the second lateral image, a second image showing a top view on the scene at the second point in time (the ground level calibration may be checked permanently". In other words, the subsequent processing including combining the respective camera views to create a stitched view is performed for each captured image; see at least paragraphs 0031-0032 and 0035); and
determine, whether the longitudinal camera and the lateral camera are calibrated correctly by comparing the first image with the second image (When an object is entering the viewing area (14d' or 14c') of a side camera (14d or 14c), with the object being earlier tracked by the front camera 14b (while passing), the entering point (32 in FIG. 10) and passing way of the object through the side camera image is expectable or predictable. When there is an offset or a different angle, the side camera will be off by a different angle which points to mis-calibration of the cameras relative to each other; see at least paragraph 0036).
Regarding claim 3, Rathi discloses the control device according to claim 1,
wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
generate, using the first longitudinal image and the first lateral image a first top-view image showing a top view of at least the surrounding in the lateral direction next to the vehicle and the surrounding in front or behind the vehicle at the first point in time, and generate the first image by extracting a portion of the first top-view image; and/or
generate, using the second lateral image, a second top-view image showing a top view of at least the surrounding in the lateral direction next to the vehicle at the first point in time, and generate the second image by extracting a portion of the second top-view image (see at least paragraphs 0035-0037).
Regarding claim 4, Rathi discloses the control device according to claim 1, wherein the first image and the second image have a same image size (same object being tracked in both images; see at least paragraphs 0030-0033 and 0035-0037).
Regarding claim 5, Rathi discloses the control device according to claim 1,
wherein the longitudinal camera is configured to capture consecutive longitudinal images with a predefined frame rate (see at least paragraph 0035);
wherein the first image and/or the second image have a longitudinal image size in a longitudinal direction perpendicular to the lateral direction substantially equal to a number of pixels moved in two consecutive longitudinal images (see at least paragraph 0035).
Regarding claim 6, Rathi discloses the control device according to claim 1,
wherein the longitudinal camera is a front camera configured to capture a front image as the longitudinal image showing the surrounding in front of the vehicle;
wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
receive, from a rear camera of the vehicle, a first rear image showing a surrounding behind the vehicle at a third point in time, wherein the second point in time is temporally between the first point in time and the second point in time;
receive, from the lateral camera, a third lateral image showing the surrounding in the lateral direction next to the vehicle at the third point in time, wherein the scene is, at the third point in time, shown in the first rear image and the third lateral image;
generate, using the rear image and the third lateral image, a third image showing a top view on the scene at the third point in time;
determine, whether the rear camera and the lateral camera are calibrated correctly by comparing the third image with the second image (the same processing can be carried out for the front camera to side cameras as in the rejection of claim 1; see at least paragraphs 0030-0033 and 0035-0037).
Regarding claim 9, Rathi discloses the control device according to claim 1,
wherein the lateral camera is a left-lateral camera configured capture a left-lateral image as the lateral image showing the surrounding left to the vehicle;
wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
receive, from the right-lateral camera:
a first right-lateral image showing the surrounding right the vehicle
at the first point in time,
a second right-lateral image showing the surrounding right the vehicle
at the second point in time, and
a third right-lateral image showing the surrounding right the vehicle
at the third point in time,
wherein a portion of the second right-lateral image shows a further scene which is, at the first point in time, shown in the first longitudinal image and the first right-lateral image and which is, at the third point in time, shown in the first rear image and the third right-lateral image; and
generate, using the first longitudinal image and the first right-lateral image, a fourth image showing a top view on the further scene at the first point in time;
generate, using the second right-lateral image, a fifth image showing a top view on the further scene at the second point in time;
generate, using the first rear image and the third right-lateral image, a sixth image showing a top view on the further scene at the third point in time; and
determine, whether the front camera, the rear camera, and/or the right-lateral camera are calibrated correctly by comparing the fourth image with the fifth image and comparing the sixth image with the fifth image;
wherein the longitudinal camera is a front camera configured to capture a front image as
the longitudinal image showing the surrounding in front of the vehicle;
wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
receive, from a rear camera of the vehicle, a first rear image showing a surrounding behind the vehicle at a third point in time, wherein the second point in time is temporally between the first point in time and the second point in time;
receive, from the lateral camera, a third lateral image showing the surrounding in the lateral direction next to the vehicle at the third point in time, wherein the scene is, at the third point in time, shown in the first rear image and the third lateral image;
generate, using the rear image and the third lateral image, a third image showing a top view on the scene at the third point in time;
determine, whether the rear camera and the lateral camera are calibrated correctly by comparing the third image with the second image (the same processing can be carried out for the front camera to side cameras as in the rejection of claim 1; see at least paragraphs 0030-0033 and 0035-0037).
Regarding claim 10, Rathi discloses the control device according to claim 3,
wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
generate the first top-view image using the first longitudinal image, the first rear image, the first lateral image, and the first right-lateral image such that the first top-view image shows a top view of the surrounding completely around the vehicle (see at least Fig. 9 and paragraph 0035).
Regarding claim 12, Rathi discloses the control device according to claim 1,
wherein the one or more processors are configured to, when comparing two images with each other, generate a difference image representing a difference between the two images, and to provide control instruction to control a display device to display the difference image (see at least paragraphs 0032 and 0036-0037).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
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.
Claims 2, 7-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathi in view of Tanaka (US 2017/0309042).
Regarding claim 2, Rathi discloses the control device according to claim 1, and discloses most of the claim; as in the rejection of claim 1, but is not clear about comparing the difference between two images to a threshold.
Tanaka discloses similar invention and discloses the above missing limitation; determining whether there is a camera whose variation exceeds a predetermined threshold value; see at least paragraphs 0066 and 0083-0088.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Rathi by the teachings of Tanaka by having the above limitations so to be able to calibrate an in-vehicle camera; see at least the Abstract.
Regarding claim 7, Rathi discloses the control device according to claim 6,
and discloses most of the claim; as in the rejection of claim 1, but is not clear about comparing the difference between two images to a threshold.
Tanaka discloses similar invention and discloses the above missing limitation; determining whether there is a camera whose variation exceeds a predetermined threshold value; see at least paragraphs 0066 and 0083-0088.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Rathi by the teachings of Tanaka by having the above limitations so to be able to calibrate an in-vehicle camera; see at least the Abstract.
Regarding claim 8, Rathi in view of Tanaka disclose the control device according to claim 2,
wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
in the case that it is determined that the comparison value represents a difference between the first image and the second image greater than the predefined difference threshold value and that it is determined that the further comparison value represents a difference between the third image and the second image equal to or less than the further predefined difference threshold value, determine that the front camera is not calibrated correctly; and/or
in the case that it is determined that the comparison value represents a difference between the first image and the second image equal to or less than the predefined difference threshold value and that it is determined that the further comparison value represents a difference between the third image and the second image greater than the further predefined difference threshold value, determine that the rear camera is not calibrated correctly (the combination of Rathi; see at least the rejection of claim 1 and the calibration of Tanaka; see at least the rejection of claim 7).
Regarding claim 11, Rathi discloses the control device according to claim 9, and discloses most of the claim; as in the rejection of claims 1 and 9, but is not clear about comparing the difference between two images to a threshold.
Tanaka discloses similar invention and discloses the above missing limitation; determining whether there is a camera whose variation exceeds a predetermined threshold value; see at least paragraphs 0066 and 0083-0088.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Rathi by the teachings of Tanaka by having the above limitations so to be able to calibrate an in-vehicle camera; see at least the Abstract.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathi in view of (US 2020/0327343).
Regarding claim 13, Rathi discloses the control device according to claim 1, but is not clear about prior to comparing two images with each other, rotate and/or shift at least one of the two images.
Lund discloses the above missing limitation; rotate or warp a target vehicle image prior to comparison with a second image; see at least paragraph 0061.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Rathi by the teachings of Lund by having the above limitations so to be able to determine position information of a target vehicle relative to an ego vehicle; see at least the Abstract.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YASSIN ALATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5683. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7-4 ET.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at 571-272-4195. 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.
/YASSIN ALATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights