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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 01/15/2026. The submission are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
US Patent No. 12361593
Claim 1-20 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1- 23 of US Patent No. 12361593 (Application Number: 18/609224).
Regarding Claim 1:
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application generic to all that is recited in claim 1 of the US Patent No. 12361593. That is, claim 1 of the instant application is anticipated by claim 1 of US Patent No. 12361593.
Regarding Claims 11 and 20:
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all limitations of claims 11 and 20 of the instant application are recited in claim 12 & 23 of the US Patent No. 12361593.
Regarding Claims 2-10 and 12-19:
Independent claims 2-10 & 12-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2-11 & 13-22 of the US Patent No. 12361593 with the same reason as claim 1 detailed as above.
US Patent No. 11961259
Claim 1-20 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1- 23 of US Patent No. 11961259 (Application Number: 17/566396).
Regarding Claim 1:
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application generic to all that is recited in claim 1 of the US Patent No. 11961259. That is, claim 1 of the instant application is anticipated by claim 1 of US Patent No. 11961259.
Regarding Claims 11 and 20:
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all limitations of claims 11 and 20 of the instant application are recited in claim 12 & 23 of the US Patent No. 11961259.
Regarding Claims 2-10 and 12-19:
Independent claims 2-10 & 12-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2-11 & 13-22f the US Patent No. 11961259 with the same reason as claim 1 detailed as above.
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 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson et al. ( "Robust Accurate Extrinsic Calibration of Static Non-overlapping Cameras", 28-July-2017, hereinafter Robinson) in view of Wang et al. (US 20220375129 A1, hereinafter Wang).
Regarding Claim 1, Robinson discloses a method for calibration of a plurality of cameras on a farming machine (Section 2, Fig. 1), the method comprising:
for each camera of the plurality of cameras on the farming machine, receiving an image comprising visual information representing a view of a portion of an area surrounding the farming machine (Section 1, Introduction Fig. 1, Section 2, Fig. 1, performs extrinsic calibration with a long stick, with the ends visible in each of the two cameras using a temporarily placed additional camera to enable extrinsic calibration);
determining a relative pose between a first pair of cameras based on visual information in a first image received from a first camera in the first pair and a second image received from a second camera in the first pair (Section 2, Fig. 1; Section 3.1 , solving extrinsic camera configuration problem for N cameras as an acyclic, un-weighted and un-directed graph; Section 3.1 , Consider the extrinsic camera configuration problem for N cameras as an acyclic, un-weighted and un-directed graph. Each node corresponds to a camera pose and each edge to an observed relative pose; Section 3.2, Given the relative poses, any camera can be selected as origin and the poses of each other camera in relation to it are trivially computed by chaining the transformations and using unit quaternion-based poses to avoid compounding numerical errors);
Robinson does not explicitly disclose determining a calibration error for the first pair of cameras indicating that the first pair is in a swapped state by comparing the relative pose of the first pair to an expected pose of the first pair described in a virtual representation of the farming machine; and adjusting the first pair of cameras to remedy the swapped state.
Wang teaches determining a calibration error for the first pair of cameras indicating that the first pair is in a swapped state by comparing the relative pose of the first pair to an expected pose of the first pair described in a virtual representation of the farming machine; and adjusting the first pair of cameras to remedy the swapped state ([0020], The projection and the second image are compared to determine a reprojection error at some or all points of the projection. Parameters of the deep learning models or the camera, or both, are adjusted based on the reprojection error to reduce the error and calibrate the camera; [0101], FIG.6, The second image and the projection image are compared to determine a reprojection error at some or all points of the images (block 610)); [0085], FIG. 5, Once camera calibration system 500 determines that the camera parameters have been estimated within a threshold level of accuracy, the camera 504 is deemed to be calibrated and the parameters for the calibrated camera 504 can then be stored (e.g., in the database 506) and/or provided to one or more other vehicle systems or components, such as the perception system 508 for use in detecting and measuring objects).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of identifying and transmitting a calibration error and as taught by Wang ([0020]) into the calibration system of Robinson order to provide systems for a camera calibration process with more accurate calibration of the camera and allow for a camera to be calibrated with less constraints relative to certain calibration methods (Wang, [0020]).
Regarding Claim 2, Robinson in view of Wang discloses the method of claim 1,
Robinson discloses wherein determining the relative pose between the first pair of cameras based on the visual information in the first image received from the first camera in the first pair of cameras and the second image received from the second camera in the first pair of cameras comprises:
identifying one or more fiducial markers in view in the first image captured by the first camera and the second image captured by the second camera; extracting a pose of the first camera relative to the one or more fiducial markers and a pose of the second camera relative to the one or more fiducial markers; and determining the relative pose by comparing the pose of the first camera to the pose of the second camera (Section 3.2, Given the relative poses, any camera can be selected as origin and the poses of each other camera in relation to it are trivially computed by chaining the transformations and using unit quaternion based poses to avoid compounding numerical errors and metric relative transform between two overlapping cameras with known intrinsic can be estimated using a chessboard pattern of known proportions and a small number,(here N=5),of images).
Regarding Claim 3, Robinson in view of Wang discloses the method of claim 2,
Robinson discloses wherein extracting the pose of the first camera and the pose of the second camera comprises:
determining a height of the first camera relative to a ground plane based on positioning of the fiducial markers in the first image and a height of the second camera relative to the ground plane based on positioning of the fiducial markers in the second image; and determining a scale factor for relative pose determination based on the height of the first camera and a height of the second camera, wherein the relative pose of the first pair of cameras is determined based on the scale factor (Section 3.2, Given the relative poses, any camera can be selected as origin and the poses of each other camera in relation to it are trivially computed by chaining the transformations and using unit quaternion based poses to avoid compounding numerical errors and metric relative transform between two overlapping cameras with known intrinsic can be estimated using a chessboard pattern of known proportions and a small number,(here N=5),of images).
Regarding Claim 4, Robinson in view of Wang discloses the method of claim 3,
Robinson discloses wherein determining the relative pose between the first pair of cameras based on the scale factor comprises scaling distances captured in the first image based on the scale factor (Section 3.2, Given the relative poses, any camera can be selected as origin and the poses of each other camera in relation to it are trivially computed by chaining the transformations and using unit quaternion based poses to avoid compounding numerical errors and metric relative transform between two overlapping cameras with known intrinsic can be estimated using a chessboard pattern of known proportions and a small number,(here N=5),of images).
Regarding Claim 5, Robinson in view of Wang discloses the method of claim 1,
Robinson discloses wherein determining the calibration error for the first pair of cameras indicating that the first pair of cameras is in the swapped state comprises: accessing, from the virtual representation of the farming machine, a first position associated with a first processor operating the first camera using a first hardware address of the first camera; accessing, from the virtual representation of the farming machine, a second position associated with a second processor operating the second camera using a second hardware address of the second camera (Section 2, Fig. 1; Section 3.3; (Section 4.1, Camera and pattern setups with 22.5,45 and 90 degree rotations between cameras); and
determining the expected pose between the first pair of cameras by comparing first position associated with the first hardware address and the second position associated with the second hardware address (Section 2, Fig. 1; Section 3.3; (Section 4.1, Camera and pattern setups with 22.5, 45 and 90 degree rotations between cameras).
PNG
media_image1.png
338
673
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, Robinson in view of Wang discloses the method of claim 1,
Wang discloses wherein adjusting the first pair of cameras to remedy the swapped state comprises: determining instructions for re-wiring the first pair of cameras; and transmitting the instructions to a mobile device in use by an operator for presentation to the operator ([0020], The projection and the second image are compared to determine a reprojection error at some or all points of the projection. Parameters of the deep learning models or the camera, or both, are adjusted based on the reprojection error to reduce the error and calibrate the camera; [0101], FIG.6, The second image and the projection image are compared to determine a reprojection error at some or all points of the images (block 610)); [0085], FIG. 5, Once camera calibration system 500 determines that the camera parameters have been estimated within a threshold level of accuracy, the camera 504 is deemed to be calibrated and the parameters for the calibrated camera 504 can then be stored (e.g., in the database 506) and/or provided to one or more other vehicle systems or components, such as the perception system 508 for use in detecting and measuring objects). The same reason or rational of obviousness motivation applied as used above in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7, Robinson in view of Wang discloses the method of claim 1,
Wang discloses wherein adjusting the first pair of cameras to remedy the swapped state comprises: modifying the virtual representation of the farming machine to swap an ordering of the first camera and the second camera in the plurality of cameras ([0020], The projection and the second image are compared to determine a reprojection error at some or all points of the projection. Parameters of the deep learning models or the camera, or both, are adjusted based on the reprojection error to reduce the error and calibrate the camera; [0101], FIG.6, The second image and the projection image are compared to determine a reprojection error at some or all points of the images (block 610)); [0085], FIG. 5, Once camera calibration system 500 determines that the camera parameters have been estimated within a threshold level of accuracy, the camera 504 is deemed to be calibrated and the parameters for the calibrated camera 504 can then be stored (e.g., in the database 506) and/or provided to one or more other vehicle systems or components, such as the perception system 508 for use in detecting and measuring objects). The same reason or rational of obviousness motivation applied as used above in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8, Robinson in view of Wang discloses the method of claim 7,
Robinson discloses wherein modifying the virtual representation comprises: rearranging hardware addresses of the first and the second camera to reflect actual positions on the farming machine (Section 2, Fig. 1; Section 3.3; (Section 4.1, Camera and pattern setups with 22.5, 45 and 90 degree rotations between cameras).
Regarding Claim 9, Robinson in view of Wang discloses the method of claim 1,
While Robinson discloses determining that, for a second pair of cameras comprising the second camera and a third camera, the second camera and the third camera are non-adjacent based on the visual information of the second image captured by the second camera and a third image captured by the third camera (Section 3.2, Given the relative poses, any camera can be selected as origin and the poses of each other camera in relation to it are trivially computed by chaining the transformations and using unit quaternion based poses to avoid compounding numerical errors; Section 3.1); and Wang discloses wherein determining the calibration error for the first pair of cameras indicating that the first pair is in the swapped state is further based on determining the second camera and the third camera are non-adjacent ([0086], camera calibration system 500 receives at least a first image 518a and a second image 518b captured by the camera 504. Each of the images 518a, 518b (referred to collectively as images 518) can be captured at a different position or orientation ( which is referred to as a pose) of the camera 504). The same reason or rational of obviousness motivation applied as used above in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10, Robinson in view of Wang discloses the method of claim 9,
Wang discloses further comprising: determining that the first camera of the first pair and the third camera of the second pair are adjacent based on the visual information of the first image captured by the first camera and the third image captured by the third camera; wherein determining the calibration error for the first pair of cameras indicating that the first pair is in the swapped state is further based on determining the first camera and the third camera are adjacent ([0020], The projection and the second image are compared to determine a reprojection error at some or all points of the projection. Parameters of the deep learning models or the camera, or both, are adjusted based on the reprojection error to reduce the error and calibrate the camera; [0101], FIG.6, The second image and the projection image are compared to determine a reprojection error at some or all points of the images (block 610)); [0085], FIG. 5, Once camera calibration system 500 determines that the camera parameters have been estimated within a threshold level of accuracy, the camera 504 is deemed to be calibrated and the parameters for the calibrated camera 504 can then be stored (e.g., in the database 506) and/or provided to one or more other vehicle systems or components, such as the perception system 508 for use in detecting and measuring objects). The same reason or rational of obviousness motivation applied as used above in claim 1.
Regarding Claims 11-19, Method claims 11-19 of using the corresponding method claimed in claims 1-10, and the rejections of which are incorporated herein for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding Claim 20, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claims 20 of using the corresponding method claimed in claim 1 and the rejections of which are incorporated herein for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Samuel D Fereja whose telephone number is (469)295-9243. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM.
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, DAVID CZEKAJ can be reached on (571) 272-7327. 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.
/SAMUEL D FEREJA/Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights