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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claim 6 and 15 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.
Claims 6 and 15 recite “determining the error by comparing a distance between points of the pair of points or a position of the pair of points for the two-dimensional transformation information and the two-dimensional position estimate”. It is not readily apparent what Applicant is claiming. The metes and bounds of claim cannot be readily determined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because a “computer product” is a data structure merely comprising a set of instructions. Data structures not claimed as embodied in computer-readable media are descriptive material per se and are not statutory because they are not capable of causing functional change in the computer. See, e.g. Warmerdam, 33 F.3d at 1361, 31 USPQ2d at 1760 (claim to a data structure per se held non-statutory). Such claimed data structures do not define any structural and functional relationships between the data structure and other claimed aspects of the invention that permit the data structure’s functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed non-transitory computer-readable device encoded with a data structure defines structural and functional interrelationships between the data structure and the computer software and hardware components which permit the data structure’s functionality to be realized, and thus are statutory. Appropriate attention is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 (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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1 and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Crivella (US 2017/0294020).
Regarding claim 1, Crivella discloses a device for camera calibration, the device comprising: a memory configured to store code for the camera calibration; and a processor configured to execute the code for performing operations for the camera calibration, wherein the operations comprise: obtaining a two-dimensional position estimate for at least one pair of points of an object from an obtained image(¶3: The system may comprise a monocular camera configured to produce an image of the object, and a processing unit in operative communication with the monocular camera. The processing unit may be configured to: identify the unique feature of the object in
the image produced by the monocular camera, synthesize at least four points
along a contour of the object in the image using the identified unique feature as
a starting point,"); obtaining a three-dimensional position estimate for the pair of points (Fig.3, ¶19: "(...) synthesizing a same number of points as synthesized in the 2D
image on a contour of the object in the 3D reference model" which refers to a
model-based 3D reconstruction approach from 2D points); obtaining two-dimensional transformation information for the obtained three-dimensional position estimate (fig. 3; ¶8: "The processing unit may be further configured to generate a rough estimate of the pose of the monocular camera from correlation of the points from the reference model to the image using a perspective-n-point problem." where solving the perspective-n-point problem provides the spatial transformation between 3D and 2D and the
estimation of the pose as clarified in D1 par.0049: At block 98, a rough
estimate of the camera pose is obtained from the perspective-n-point problem"); determining an error between the two-dimensional transformation information and the two-dimensional position estimate (¶49:" At block 100, nonlinear optimization is performed on the rough estimate of the camera pose. The nonlinear optimization minimizes a total projection error from projection or re-projection between the CAD data points and the image points"); and based on the error, adjusting parameters for the camera calibration or deciding the parameters for the camera calibration as final parameters (¶51: "In bounded nonlinear optimization, parameters of the camera pose, such as a translation and a rotation, are continuously modified between the lower
optimization bound and the upper optimization bound').
Claim 11 rejected as applied to claim 1 above. The method steps as claimed would have been implied by the apparatus of Crivella.
Claim(s) 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Microsoft (EP 4168989B1).
Regarding claim 20, Microsoft discloses a non-transitory computer product storing code configured to be executed by a computer or processor performing operations for camera calibration, wherein the operations for camera calibration comprise: outputting a user interface for guiding a posture for a user on a display to obtain a user image (¶127: "Although not illustrated, method 2300 may include additional acts. For instance, subsequent to calibrating the camera, method 2300 may include an act of overlaying a visualization of the bounding box around the object in the image, as was shown in Figure 20". The usage of a user image is also disclosed in ¶116: "In some cases, the particular type of the object is a human"); obtaining at least one pair of points corresponding to the user from the obtained user image;( ¶114: "Initially, method 2300 includes an act (act 2305) of analyzing, examining, reviewing, or segmenting an image (e.g., perhaps image 500 of Figure 5) to identify an object (e.g., perhaps object 510) of a particular type (e.g., object type 520). This analyzing process may include identifying a first set of key points of the object"); determining parameters for the camera calibration based on the least one pair of points; (¶89: "determining the 2D virtual object that fits the original object enables the embodiments to determine the parameters of the camera, thereby effectively calibrating the camera"); and outputting three-dimensional position estimation results or two-dimensional transformation information based on the three-dimensional position estimation results, based on the pair of points and the determined parameters (¶120: "For instance, Figure 23B shows an act (act 2315A) of generating a 3D alignment of the second set of key points, as shown by the 3D alignment 1100 of Figure 11. This 3D alignment is generated in an attempt to fit, in the 2D space (e.g., potentially modeled using the flat earth camera model), the second set of key points with the first set of key points (e.g., after or subsequent to the second set of key points being reprojected into the 2D space). In this regard, the 3D alignment is an estimated alignment that is designed in an effort to have a minimal fitting error, as described earlier.").
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) 2 – 5, 7, 12 – 14 and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crivella in view of Hartley (Richard Hartley ET AL: "Multiple View Geometry in Computer Vision" In: "Multiple View Geometry in Computer Vision - Second Edition", 1 January 2004 (2004-01-01), Cambridge University Press, New York, XP055328738, ISBN: 978-0-511-18618-9 pages i-xvi,1-655).
Regarding claim 2, Crivella discloses the limitations of claim 1. Crivella fails to explicitly disclose wherein the three-dimensional position estimate is obtained based on the two-dimensional position estimate and the parameters for the camera calibration.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Crivella with the teachings of Hartley. Crivella discloses camera pose estimation system. Hartley teaches iterative methods to for estimating and calibrating parameter for a camera (p.110, section 4.5). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of using iterative methods, as taught by Hartley, with the invention of Crivella would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system with better parameter selection.
Regarding claim 3, Crivella in view of Hartley disclose the limitations of claim 2. Hartley also teaches wherein the parameters for the camera calibration that are adjusted or are decided as the final parameters comprise initial values for the camera calibration, and wherein the initial values comprise each of: a focal point value corresponding to a product of a width of the obtained image, and a predetermined value or a principal point corresponding to a center of the obtained image (p.184, section 7.3).
Regarding claim 4, Crivella disclose the limitations of claim 1. Crivella fails to explicitly disclose wherein the operations comprise adjusting the parameters for the camera calibration based on the error being greater than a threshold.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Crivella with the teachings of Hartley. Crivella discloses camera pose estimation system. Hartley teaches iterative methods to for estimating and calibrating parameter for a camera (p.110, section 4.5). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of using iterative methods, as taught by Hartley, with the invention of Crivella would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system with better parameter selection.
Regarding claim 5, Crivella disclose the limitations of claim 1. Crivella fails to explicitly disclose wherein the operations comprise deciding the parameters for the camera calibration as the final parameters based on the error being smaller than a threshold .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Crivella with the teachings of Hartley. Crivella discloses camera pose estimation system. Hartley teaches iterative methods to for estimating and calibrating parameter for a camera (p.110, section 4.5). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of using iterative methods, as taught by Hartley, with the invention of Crivella would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system with better parameter selection.
.
Regarding claim 7, Crivella discloses the limitations of claim 1. Crivella fails to explicitly disclose wherein the operations comprise outputting a user interface for guiding a posture for the object on a display based on inability or difficulty in obtaining the two-dimensional position estimate for the pair of points.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Crivella with the teachings of Hartley. Crivella discloses camera pose estimation system. Hartley teaches the possibility to select points on the initial image via a display so that there is no degeneracy in the geometry projections (p.92, section 4.1.3). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of using iterative methods, as taught by Hartley, with the invention of Crivella would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system with better parameter selection.
Claim 12 – 14, 16 rejected as applied to claims 2 – 5, and 7 above. The method steps as claimed would have been implied by the apparatus of Crivella in view of Hartley.
Claim(s) 8 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crivella in view of Macchia (US 2013/0141545).
Regarding claim 8, Crivella discloses the limitations of claim 1. Crivella fails to explicitly disclose where the operations comprise re-executing the code for the camera calibration based on detecting a connection with a new camera.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Crivella with the teachings of Macchia. Crivella discloses camera pose estimation system that calibrates intrinsic parameters. Macchia teaches camera calibration of intrinsic parameters wherein if a camera is replaced, the calibration will be performed again with the new camera (¶48-49). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of recalibrating newly connected cameras, as taught by Macchia, with the invention of Crivella would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system with automatic recalibration for replacement cameras, which increases ease of use and convenience for the user.
Claim 17 rejected as applied to claims 8 above. The method steps as claimed would have been implied by the apparatus of Crivella in view of Macchia.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crivella in view of Tuxen (US 2022/0284628).
Regarding claim 9, Crivella discloses the limitations of claim 1. Crivella fails to explicitly disclose where the operations comprise executing the code for the camera calibration at a plurality of discrete zoom levels within a zoom level range supported by a camera.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Crivella with the teachings of Tuxen. Crivella discloses camera pose estimation system that calibrates intrinsic parameters. Tuxen teaches camera calibration of intrinsic parameters for each zoom level used by the camera (¶189). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of calibrating for each zoom level of the camera, as taught by Tuxen, with the invention of Crivella would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system with capable of accurate parameter settings regardless of the zoom level.
Claim 18 rejected as applied to claim 9 above. The method steps as claimed would have been implied by the apparatus of Crivella in view of Tuxen.
Claim(s) 10 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crivella in view of Faras (US 2021/0118160).
Regarding claim 10, Crivella discloses the limitations of claim 1. Crivella fails to explicitly disclose where the operations comprise deciding the final parameters by executing the code for the camera calibration on a predetermined number of images.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Crivella with the teachings of Faras. Crivella discloses camera pose estimation system that calibrates intrinsic parameters. Faras teaches recursively calibrating intrinsic parameters associated with a camera used to capture the plurality of second 2D images based on recursively estimating intrinsic parameters based on both the plurality of first 2D images and the plurality of second 2D images that are in the first scan (¶8, 46). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of calibrating for each zoom level of the camera, as taught by Tuxen, with the invention of Crivella would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system with capable of accurate parameter settings.
Claim 19 rejected as applied to claim 10 above. The method steps as claimed would have been implied by the apparatus of Crivella in view of Faras.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTOINETTE SPINKS whose telephone number is (571)270-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 5pm EST.
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at 571-272-7406. 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.
/ANTOINETTE T SPINKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Prosecution Insights