DETAILED ACTION
1. This is a first office action in response to application no. 19/136,544 filed on June 6th 2025 in which claims 1-20 are 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-2, 6-9, 11-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2019/0150357).
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses a computer implemented method for calibration of a camera (See Wu’s Abstract, [0005]) comprising: capturing, with the camera that is disposed on an implement, a sequence of images while the implement travels across terrain (See Wu’s Abstract, Fig. 6, and [0012] and [0049]); comparing a first image from an image sensor of the camera at a first time to a second image from the image sensor at a second time (See Wu [0052]); determining matching points corresponding to features in common in the first image and in the second image (See Wu [0045], [0131] “ In some embodiments, the operator's visual check is automated by the sensor units performing analysis of the pattern of the cut plant, whether the image matches a predicted image for a properly-cut plant or for an expected ground residue image”); and determining at least one of height, pitch, roll, and yaw for the camera based on the first image, the second image (See Wu [0012], [0088]), the matching points corresponding to features in common in the first image and in the second image (See Wu [0131] “ In some embodiments, the operator's visual check is automated by the sensor units performing analysis of the pattern of the cut plant, whether the image matches a predicted image for a properly-cut plant or for an expected ground residue image (or detecting if there are naked beans or loose pods on the ground in the captured image, or if the identified stalks are choppy and uneven in height),”) and a ground speed of the implement while capturing the first image at the first time and the second image at the second time (See Wu [0092]).
As per claim 8, Wu discloses a system comprising: an agricultural implement (See Wu’s Abstract, Fig. 2); a camera disposed on the agricultural implement (See Wu [0043], the camera is configured to capture a sequence of images while the agricultural implement travels through an agricultural field (See Wu Fig. 2, sensor 50, [0005]); and a processor that is configured to compare a first image from an image sensor of the camera at a first time to a second image from the image sensor at a second time (See Wu [0025]-[0026], [0045], and [0097]), determine matching points corresponding to features in common in the first image and in the second image (See Wu [0123]), and determine at least one of height, pitch, roll, and yaw for the camera based on the first image, the second image (See Wu [0012], [0088]), the matching points corresponding to features in common in the first image and in the second image (See Wu [0131] “ In some embodiments, the operator's visual check is automated by the sensor units performing analysis of the pattern of the cut plant, whether the image matches a predicted image for a properly-cut plant or for an expected ground residue image (or detecting if there are naked beans or loose pods on the ground in the captured image, or if the identified stalks are choppy and uneven in height),”, and a ground speed of the agricultural implement while capturing the first image at the first time and the second image at the second time (See Wu [0092]).
As per claims 2 and 9, Wu further discloses receiving the position of the camera with respect to a centerline of the implement (See Wu [0050], the centerline is taken into account as per the image sensors position as described).
As per claims 4 and 11, Wu further discloses determining a forward distance traveled by the implement between capturing the first image at the first time and second image at the second time (See Wu [0127]).
As per claims 6 and 12, Wu further discloses wherein the features in common in the first image and in the second image include a region of a plant or a weed in the agricultural field (See Wu [0044] and [0123]).
As per claims 7 and 14, Wu further discloses wherein the features in common in the first image and in the second image include a region of a plant or a weed in the agricultural field (See Wu [0093]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2019/0150357) in view of Bast et al. (US Patent Application no. 2022/0264861).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, it is noted that Wu is silent about receiving a steering angle from a steering sensor of the implement and receiving the ground speed of the implement while capturing the first image at the first time and the second image at the second time from a speed sensor.
However, Bast teaches receiving a steering angle from a steering sensor of the implement and receiving the ground speed of the implement while capturing the first image at the first time and the second image at the second time from a speed sensor (See Bast [0034]-[0035], and [0045]).
Therefore, it is considered obvious that one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of modifying Wu to incorporate Base’s teachings to receive a steering angle from a steering sensor of the implement and receiving the ground speed of the implement while capturing the first image at the first time and the second image at the second time from a speed sensor. The motivation for performing such a modification in Wu is to provide an improved system for controlling the ground speed and steering angle of the agricultural implement.
8. Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2019/0150357) in view of Jaehnisch et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2017/0061623).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, it is noted that Wu is silent about wherein the height, pitch, roll, and yaw for the camera are determined based on the first image and the second image.
However, Jaehnisch teaches wherein the height, pitch, roll, and yaw for the camera are determined based on the first image and the second image (See Jaehnisch [0013]).
Therefore, it is considered obvious that one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of modifying Wu to incorporate Jaehnisch’s teachings wherein the height, pitch, roll, and yaw for the camera are determined based on the first image and the second image. The motivation for performing such a modification in Wu is to calibrate a camera system of a motor vehicle (the agricultural vehicle) which permits a faster calibration of the camera system.
9. Claims 15-20 are allowed.
The Claims are allowable over the prior art of record since the references taken individually or in combination fail to teach or suggest a computer implemented method for aligning a second image sensor with a first image sensor of a camera, comprising: using a calculated height, pitch, roll, and yaw based on captured images in an agricultural field for the camera that is disposed on an implement to calculate a real world projection matrix for the first image sensor to allow features, image points, or pixels from an image space to be projected into real world ground projected coordinates; determining a value for each corner point for the real world ground projected coordinates from the first image sensor; calculating a nominal disparity based on each of the corner points for the real world ground projected coordinates and corner points in image space of the first image sensor; warping a first image from the first image sensor by the nominal disparity for each of those corner points; and determining a registration matrix to align a second raw image from the second image sensor with the disparity warped first image.
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892).
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIMS S PHILIPPE whose telephone number is (571)272-7336. The examiner can normally be reached Maxi Flex.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/GIMS S PHILIPPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights