DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed 09/10/2026. Claims 1-11 were previously canceled. Claims 12-24 are currently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
The amendment filed 09/10/2026 has been entered and applicant’s arguments filed 09/10/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
Note that the claims are no longer interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) in light of the filed amendment.
Regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
Applicant has argued that the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are overcome by the filed amendment. The examiner agrees and has withdrawn these rejections accordingly.
Regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant’s arguments regarding the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection which are necessitated by the filed amendment.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informality: At the end of claim 20, it appears that “the at least one display means” should be changed to “the at least one display
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 12 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welpot et al. (DE 10 2021 100 792 A1), hereinafter referred to as Welpot, in view of Bandou (US 2012/0293659 A1).
Regarding claim 12:
Welpot discloses the following limitations:
“A system for calibrating vehicle surroundings sensors of a vehicle comprising: … at least one transceiver connected to at least one vehicle surroundings sensor and that is configured in a calibration mode to progressively transmit vehicle surroundings sensor data captured by the at least one vehicle surroundings sensor via a wireless communication interface to the calibration [device] when the vehicle is moved through a calibration area that includes a section of a production line.” (Welpot ¶¶ 28-29 and FIG. 1 disclose a vehicle 1 with a sensor system 2 that includes an environmental sensor 4 for measuring data, wherein “measurement data can be transmitted from the environmental sensor 4 to the control unit 3 and evaluated there accordingly. Furthermore, the sensor system 2 includes a receiver 7, by means of which data can be received wirelessly.” Additionally, Welpot ¶ 8: “The procedure is intended to calibrate the vehicle's environmental sensor. … Preferably, the procedure can be carried out after the vehicle has been manufactured or after the environmental sensor has been installed in the factory environment. … The calibration section can be a defined section of a path, in which at least one reference object is arranged within the area of the calibration section.”)
“at least one stationary surroundings sensor, which is configured to capture surroundings sensor data of a set of reference objects in the calibration area, through which the vehicle moves, and to transmit these data to the calibration [device].” (Welpot ¶ 15: “the reference object data are determined by means of at least one sensor device of the external detection device and transmitted to the vehicle. Based on the reference object data, the position of at least one reference object can be precisely determined, and thus the calibration can be carried out accurately.” Also, Welpot ¶ 22: “the detection device includes a computing unit for determining vehicle data that describes the position and/or movement of the vehicle during maneuvering on the calibration track, based on data from the sensor device. Furthermore, the detection device includes a transmitter for sending the vehicle data.”)
“and at least one stationary position sensor, which is configured, during the movement of the vehicle through the calibration area, to progressively capture a position of the vehicle and transmit associated vehicle position data to the calibration [device].” (Welpot ¶¶ 11-12: “The plan is to determine the vehicle data using an external recording device located outside the vehicle. Furthermore, the vehicle data is transferred from the external recording device to the vehicle. … The external detection device can be used to continuously determine, in particular, the position, speed and/or rotational movements of the vehicle around its axes.”)
“wherein the calibration [device] is configured to associate captured vehicle position data with the received vehicle surroundings sensor data that capture the set of reference objects” and “ascertain calibration parameters for the at least one vehicle surroundings sensor based on the … associated surroundings sensor data of the set of reference objects.” (Welpot ¶ 10: “Based on the known installation position of the environment sensor, the vehicle data and the known position of the reference object, the relative position between the environment sensor and the reference object, the relative velocity between the environment sensor and the reference object and/or the angle between the environment sensor and the reference object can be determined. These quantities can then be compared with the relative position, relative velocity and/or angle, which were determined using the uncalibrated measurement data from the environmental sensor. Based on the comparison or deviation of the quantities, the correction data can then be determined. The calibration of the environmental sensor can then be performed based on the correction data.”)
“and transmit the calibration parameters to the at least one transceiver.” (Welpot ¶ 20: “the sensor system includes a control unit for determining correction data based on the uncalibrated measurement data and the vehicle data, as well as for calibrating the environment sensor based on the correction data.”)
While the main embodiment of Welpot discloses a process that is performed by a control unit of the vehicle rather than a processor of a stationary server, Welpot additionally teaches “a stationary calibration server having at least one memory and one processor.” (Welpot ¶ 23: “Another aspect of the invention relates to a computer program comprising commands which, when the program is executed by a control unit of a sensor system of a vehicle and/or by a computing unit of an external detection device, cause it to execute a method according to the invention and its advantageous embodiments.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the main embodiment of Welpot by offloading the functions of the control unit to be performed by a computing unit of an external detection device as taught by Welpot ¶ 23, because this is a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., the computing unit of the external detection device) for another (i.e., the control unit) to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)). A person having ordinary skill in the art could have replaced the functionality of the control unit to be performed by an external device as taught by Welpot ¶ 23 to achieve the predictable result of providing a centralized server for performing the process, which would remove the need for each individual vehicle in the production line to be equipped with the functionality to perform the process.
Welpot does not specifically disclose to “perform a comparison of reference images recorded by the at least one stationary surroundings sensor to images recorded by the at least one vehicle surroundings sensor; and ascertain calibration parameters for the at least one vehicle surroundings sensor based on the comparison.” However, Bandou does teach these limitations. (Bandou ¶ 83 and FIG. 6 reproduced below: “the reference image acquiring device 2 first acquires a reference image (steps S1 and S2). Thereafter, the image display device 1 performs a calibration process (steps S11 to S16) and a calibration judgment (steps S16 to S22).” Also, Bandou ¶¶ 102-104: “if the difference squared error that becomes the result of comparison between the synthetic image CP and the reference image RP is smaller than a prescribed threshold value, it is judged that the calibration process has been accurately performed and the identified installation parameters are reasonable. By contrast, if the difference squared error is equal to or larger than the prescribed threshold value, it is judged that the calibration process has not been accurately performed and the identified installation parameters are not reasonable. If it is judged that the installation parameters are reasonable (‘Yes’ in step S20), it is confirmed that the installation parameters are to be used to generate the synthetic image thereafter, and the installation parameters are recorded in the nonvolatile memory 40 (step S21). On the other hand, if it is judged that the installation parameters are not reasonable (‘No’ in step S20), a message that indicates the re-execution of the calibration process is displayed on the display 33 (step S22). Then, the processing returns to step S12, the calibration process is re-executed, and the installation parameters are re-identified based on the user operation.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
800
517
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Welpot by determining calibration parameters for the vehicle surroundings sensor based on a comparison of reference images with images recorded by the sensor as taught by Bandou with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Bandou ¶¶ 5-8 teach that this allows for proper installation parameters to be generated to provide for more accurate sensor calibration.
Regarding claim 15:
The combination of Welpot and Bandou teaches “The system of claim 12,” and Welpot further teaches “wherein the set of reference objects comprises at least one stationary structure in the calibration area.” (Welpot ¶ 9: “During the maneuvering of the vehicle on the calibration track, measurement data is continuously provided or recorded by the environment sensor, which describes the reference object in the surroundings or in the vicinity of the calibration track. The reference object can be, in particular, a static object.”)
Regarding claim 16:
The combination of Welpot and Bandou teaches “The system of claim 12,” and Welpot also suggests “wherein a 3D surroundings map of at least the calibration area having information at least on the one or the multiple reference objects is stored in the memory of the calibration server.” (Welpot ¶ 9: “The reference object can be, in particular, a static object. The position of the reference object can be known. In principle, multiple reference objects can be detected and used to calibrate the environmental sensor.” Additionally, Welpot ¶ 14 describes the use of stored “three-dimensional models” representing vehicle reference points, which suggests that three-dimensional models could also be used to store the known position of the reference objects.)
Regarding claim 17:
The combination of Welpot and Bandou teaches “The system of claim 12,” and Welpot further teaches “wherein the at least one stationary position sensor comprises a lidar sensor.” (Welpot ¶ 13: “Preferably, a sensor device of the external detection device continuously detects an area of the outer shell of the vehicle, and the vehicle data is determined based on the detected area using a computing device of the external detection device. The external detection device may have one or more sensor devices with which the vehicle or respective areas of the vehicle's outer shell can be detected during maneuvering along the test track. The sensor device can be, in particular, an optical sensor, such as a camera, a lidar sensor, or the like.”)
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welpot in view of Bandou as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Vianello et al. (US 2022/0268885 A1), hereinafter referred to as Vianello.
Regarding claim 13:
The combination of Welpot and Bandou teaches “The system of claim 12,” but does not specifically teach “wherein the set of reference objects comprises at least one display for displaying various calibration images.” However, Vianello does teach this limitation. (Vianello ¶ 45: “the calibration devices 6 comprise a target panel 6a suited for the calibration of optical ADAS sensors 3, preferably the cameras of the vehicle 4. According to an embodiment, the target panel 6a can comprise a monitor/display (flat-panel, LCD or OLED or the like) designed, in use, to display, on command, a digital image of a calibration target, which depends on the optical ADAS sensor 3 to be calibrated.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system that is disclosed by the combination of Welpot and Bandou by using a display panel to display various calibration images as taught by Vianello with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Vianello ¶ 12 teaches that this provides for a calibration system that is “versatile, simple, ensures high performances and is capable of determining, with utmost precision, the position of the ADAS calibration apparatus and/or of the target panel with respect to the vehicle.” A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the use of a display panel would allow for calibration images to be changed quickly and easily.
Regarding claim 14:
The combination of Welpot, Bandou, and Vianello teaches “The system of claim 13,” and Vianello also teaches “wherein the calibration server is configured to dynamically control the display of the various calibration images by the at least one display.” (Vianello ¶ 45: “the target panel 6a can comprise a monitor/display (flat-panel, LCD or OLED or the like) designed, in use, to display, on command, a digital image of a calibration target, which depends on the optical ADAS sensor 3 to be calibrated. The flat ADAS calibration surface of the target panel 6a (shown in FIG. 1) corresponds to the active surface of the monitor/display, which displays the pre-established image of the camera calibration target.” The panel having an “active surface” and being controlled to display digital images “on command” implies that it can be dynamically controlled to display the various calibration images by the calibration system.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system that is disclosed by the combination of Welpot and Bandou by allowing the calibration system to dynamically control the display to display the calibration images as taught by Vianello with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Vianello ¶ 12 teaches that this can help provide a calibration system that is “versatile, simple, ensures high performances and is capable of determining, with utmost precision, the position of the ADAS calibration apparatus and/or of the target panel with respect to the vehicle.” A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that allowing the calibration system to control the display would allow for calibration images to be changed quickly and easily.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welpot in view of Bandou as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Nishimura et al. (US 2019/0043209 A1), hereinafter referred to as Nishimura.
Regarding claim 18:
The combination of Welpot and Bandou teaches “The system of claim 12,” but does not explicitly teach “wherein the calibration server is configured to carry out image signal processing (ISP) tuning based on the comparison.” However, Nishimura does teach this limitation. (Nishimura ¶¶ 67-68: “camera module characterization may include performing camera module-specific calibration of ISP, such as black level, lens shading table, linearization, color correction calibration, etc., as facilitated by characterization and calculation logic 207. Similarly, characterization and calculation logic 207 may be used to facilitate fitness calculation to, for example, measure how similar an ISP block output is in comparison with a reference image. Further, in one embodiment, reference-based tuning engine 211 may be employed to work with all other components, such as the ones described above, to facilitate the automatic reference-based tuning of ISP. For example, ISPs or ISP pipelines may be optimized by offering ideal reference images for each functionality of an ISP for facilitating automatic ISP tuning using ISP references as facilitated by reference-based tuning engine 211.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system that is disclosed by the combination of Welpot and Bandou by allowing the calibration system to compare reference images with recorded images to carry out image signal processing tuning as taught by Nishimura with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Nishimura ¶ 20 teaches that this can be useful for setting initial tuning starting points for users with strong image quality preferences. Further, Nishimura ¶ 3 teaches that allowing the system to automatically perform the ISP tuning is much faster and requires much less effort when compared to human engineers performing the tuning manually.
Claims 19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welpot et al. (DE 10 2021 100 792 A1), hereinafter referred to as Welpot, in view of Bandou (US 2012/0293659 A1) and Gao et al. (CN 112816222 A), hereinafter referred to as Gao.
Regarding claim 19:
The combination of Welpot and Bandou does not specifically teach “detecting an entry of a vehicle moved through a production line into a calibration area of the production line” and “activating a calibration mode of at least one transceiver, which is connected to at least one vehicle surroundings sensor, on board the vehicle.” However, Gao does teach these limitations. (Gao ¶ n0035: “During automobile assembly, when a vehicle enters the calibration station and calibration is required, the equipment server obtains calibration parameters based on the vehicle's model code and controls the calibration equipment to move to a designated position. Once the calibration equipment reaches the designated position, the equipment server generates an equipment arrival signal and sends this signal along with the calibration parameters to the TBOX server. The TBOX server generates a calibration diagnostic command based on the equipment arrival signal and calibration parameters, sends it to the target ECU via the vehicle's TBOX, and forwards the calibration result command returned by the target ECU to the TBOX server.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method that is disclosed by the combination of Welpot and Bandou by starting the calibration process when the vehicle reaches a designated starting position as taught by Gao with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Gao ¶ n0035 teaches that the designated position serves as a suitable trigger for starting the process; a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that for the process to be performed automatically, there would need to be some trigger like the designated position for initiating the start of the process.
The remaining limitations of claim 19 are taught by the combination of Welpot and Bandou using the same rationale applied to claim 12 above, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claims 21-23:
Claims 21-23 are rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, applied to claims 15-17 above, respectively.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welpot in view of Bandou and Gao as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Vianello et al. (US 2022/0268885 A1).
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 is rejected based on the same rationale applied to claims 13-14 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welpot in view of Bandou and Gao as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Nishimura et al. (US 2019/0043209 A1).
Regarding claim 24:
Claim 24 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 18 above, mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Davis (US 2024/0344850 A1) ¶ 57 discloses a vehicle camera calibration system and method in which “a location and/or orientation of the subject camera may already have been retrievably stored, wherein expected image parameters associated with the persistent external references may be generated based on the stored information. … If actual image parameters do not match the expected image parameters, this may indicate that the stored location and/or orientation for the subject camera require adjustment, or that other calibration parameters for the subject camera require adjustment if the stored location and/or orientation are deemed to be correct, either of which may be provided for example via fusion of the various camera inputs and data analysis to calculate calibration parameters as needed to arrive at the expected image parameters, or in other words to align the actual output values from the subject camera with expected output values from the subject camera based on the persistent external references within the coordinate frame independent of the work vehicle.”
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Madison R Inserra whose telephone number is (571)272-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM 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, Aniss Chad can be reached at 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.
/Madison R. Inserra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
