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 .
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 8 is 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.
Claim 8 contains the trademark/trade name Mylar. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe biaxially oriented polyethylene terephthalate (BOPET) and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0104879 A1), hereinafter Jiang.
Jiang teaches (note: what Jiang does not teach is struck through),
A method for calibrating an in-cabin vehicle RADAR sensor (para. 0002, “Systems and methods are disclosed that provide for calibrating one or more interior monitoring depth sensors to one or more interior monitoring image sensors such that subjects observed within a shared field of view of these sensors may be analyzed with respect to a shared coordinate space.” The Examiner notes that para. 0024 indicates that the depth sensor can be an in-cabin RADAR sensor), the method comprising the steps of:
(paras. 0058-59, “For example, FIG. 2B illustrates an example placement of a plurality of hybrid calibration targets 200 within the interior space 250 of a vehicle such as vehicle 1000…For a non-limiting example, in a typical vehicle cabin of a consumer automobile, five hybrid calibration targets 200 may be used, with a hybrid calibration target 200 positioned on the driver's seat cushion (shown at 252), a hybrid calibration target 200 positioned on the driver's seat back cushion (shown at 254), a hybrid calibration target 200 positioned on the front passenger's seat cushion (shown at 256), a hybrid calibration target 200 positioned on the front passenger's seat back cushion (shown at 258), and a hybrid calibration target 200 positioned on the center console between the driver's seat and the front passengers seat (shown at 260). The two hybrid calibration targets 200 positioned on the seat cushions 252, 256 and on the center console 260 would thus be aligned to an approximately horizontal plane, and the hybrid calibration targets positioned on the seat back cushions 254, 258 aligned to an approximately vertical plane”);
promoting movement of the calibration target (para. 0036, “In some embodiments, the motion target(s) of the hybrid calibration targets is activated (e.g., set in motion). With the motion targets activated, depth sensor data from the motion targets is collected by the depth sensor. The depth sensor data may include 3D position data for the one or more motion targets detected within the field of view or sensory field of the depth sensor.”);
detecting the calibration target using an in-cabin vehicle RADAR sensor (para. 0036, “With the motion targets activated, depth sensor data from the motion targets is collected by the depth sensor. The depth sensor data may include 3D position data for the one or more motion targets detected within the field of view or sensory field of the depth sensor.”); and
calibrating the in-cabin vehicle RADAR sensor using the calibration target (para. 0037, “The computed H1 transform may be saved to memory as an extrinsic calibration parameter corresponding to the depth-perception sensor.”).
Although Jiang does not explicitly teach that the calibration targets are temporarily placed inside the cabin of the vehicle, this limitation is obvious over the teachings of Jiang. Fig. 2B of Jiang shows the calibration targets placed on the car seats and propped up on a box placed near the back of the car seat. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to understand the setup of Jiang as being for temporary target placement because car seats with calibration targets placed on them in the manner of Jiang are not useable as car seats. Permanent calibration targets in the shown positions would render the car seats unusable for their common purpose, indicating that the calibration targets are only temporarily placed in the vehicle.
Claims 2 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view of Nelapati et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0001906 A1), hereinafter Nelapati.
Regarding claim 2, Jiang teaches (note: what Jiang does not teach is struck through),
The method of claim 1, wherein the step of calibrating the in-cabin vehicle RADAR sensor using the calibration target comprises: measuring one or more locational parameters of the calibration target relative to the in-cabin vehicle RADAR sensor (para. 0037, “In embodiments, a set of pairwise 3D data may be generated from the depth sensor data. For each of the detected motion targets, a 3D data pair may include: the motion target's 3D coordinates in the point cloud coordinate system of the depth-perception sensor; and the motion target's 3D coordinates in the 3D intermediary coordinate system.”); and calibrating the in-cabin vehicle RADAR sensor using (para. 0037, “The computed H1 transform may be saved to memory as an extrinsic calibration parameter corresponding to the depth-perception sensor.”)
Nelapati teaches,
…measuring one or more locational parameters of the calibration target relative to the in-cabin vehicle RADAR sensor; and calibrating the in-cabin vehicle RADAR sensor using predetermined locational data of the calibration target within the vehicle (para. 0035, “In response to identifying the observed radar signature within the reflected electromagnetic signals corresponding to the audio speaker 404, the vehicle control module 106 and/or the radar control module 206 obtains the expected reference position for the audio speaker 404 that defines an expected orientation for an axis 406 aligned between the radar 402 and the audio speaker 404. The vehicle control module 106 and/or the radar control module 206 calculates or otherwise determines a measured position 414 for the audio speaker 404 that defines an observed orientation for an axis 416 aligned between the radar 402 and the audio speaker 404.” The Examiner notes that para. 0037 indicates that the same calibration process 300 can use an actuatable seat as a radar calibration target).
Jiang and Nelapati are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the calibration method of Jiang with the predetermined locational data of Nelapati. The predetermined locational data of Nelapati necessitates only knowing the location of permanent vehicle component used as a calibration target. Nelapati suggests that a car seat can be this calibration target. Jiang teaches placing the temporary calibration targets on the car seats, indicating that the position of the car seats could be used as the predetermined locational data of the calibration targets within the vehicle. The use of predetermined locational data in the method of Nelapati has the advantageous effect of identifying RADAR misalignment. Including this data in the method of Jiang would have the same effect, thus improving the accuracy of the H1 transform.
Regarding claim 11, Jiang teaches (note: what Jiang does not teach is struck through),
A method for calibrating an in-cabin vehicle sensor (para. 0002, “Systems and methods are disclosed that provide for calibrating one or more interior monitoring depth sensors to one or more interior monitoring image sensors such that subjects observed within a shared field of view of these sensors may be analyzed with respect to a shared coordinate space.”), the method comprising the steps of:
placing a calibration target within the cabin of a vehicle (para. 0058, “To build the 3D intermediary coordinate system for this vehicle interior space 250, a plurality of the hybrid calibration targets 200 may be positioned across the volume of space for which vehicle interior monitoring may be implemented.”);
initiating a calibration mode of an in-cabin vehicle sensor (para. 0034-36, “With the system of hybrid calibration targets in place, the 3D intermediary coordinate system may be generated using 3D reconstruction algorithms that generate 3D models of a space from a set of images….In some embodiments, the motion target(s) of the hybrid calibration targets is activated (e.g., set in motion). With the motion targets activated, depth sensor data from the motion targets is collected by the depth sensor. The depth sensor data may include 3D position data for the one or more motion targets detected within the field of view or sensory field of the depth sensor.”);
detecting the calibration target (para. 0036, “In some embodiments, the motion target(s) of the hybrid calibration targets is activated (e.g., set in motion). With the motion targets activated, depth sensor data from the motion targets is collected by the depth sensor. The depth sensor data may include 3D position data for the one or more motion targets detected within the field of view or sensory field of the depth sensor.”);
calibrating the in-cabin vehicle sensor (para. 0037, “The computed H1 transform may be saved to memory as an extrinsic calibration parameter corresponding to the depth-perception sensor.”).
Nelapati teaches (note: what Nelapati does not teach is struck through),
A method for calibrating an in-cabin vehicle sensor (abs., “Vehicles and related systems and methods are provided for calibrating a sensing arrangement within an interior compartment of the vehicle.”), the method comprising the steps of:
initiating a calibration mode of an in-cabin vehicle sensor (para. 0035, “The vehicle control module 106 and/or the radar control module 206 initiates operation of the speaker 404 within the interior passenger compartment of the vehicle concurrently to operating the radar 402 to emit calibration reference electromagnetic signals within the interior passenger compartment 401.” The Examiner notes that para. 0037 indicates that the calibration process 300 can be performed by activating power seating components to move instead or in addition to the speaker of para. 0035);
detecting the calibration target (para. 0035, “In response to identifying the observed radar signature within the reflected electromagnetic signals corresponding to the audio speaker 404, the vehicle control module 106 and/or the radar control module 206 obtains the expected reference position for the audio speaker 404 that defines an expected orientation for an axis 406 aligned between the radar 402 and the audio speaker 404. The vehicle control module 106 and/or the radar control module 206 calculates or otherwise determines a measured position 414 for the audio speaker 404 that defines an observed orientation for an axis 416 aligned between the radar 402 and the audio speaker 404.” The Examiner notes that para. 0037 indicates that the same calibration process 300 can use an actuatable seat as a radar calibration target);
calculating bias parameters associated with the calibration target (para. 0036-0037, “Based on the difference 410 between the observed orientation axis 416 and the expected orientation axis 406, the vehicle control module 106 and/or the radar control module 206 calculates or otherwise determines a calibration offset value to be applied to measured positions of subsequently detected objects to compensate for the calibrated or observed deviation in the antenna boresight axis from the expected orientation axis 406 to the measured orientation axis 416… In this regard, in implementations where additional and/or different types of actuatable interior components are present (e.g., power seating, haptic devices and/or the like), the respective calibration offset value for each of the interior components may be averaged or otherwise combined to improve the accuracy and/or reliability of the offset value”; and
calibrating the in-cabin vehicle sensor using the calculated bias parameters (para. 0036, “the vehicle control module 106 and/or the radar control module 206 calculates or otherwise determines a calibration offset value to be applied to measured positions of subsequently detected objects to compensate for the calibrated or observed deviation in the antenna boresight axis from the expected orientation axis 406 to the measured orientation axis 416”).
Jiang and Nelapati are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the calibration method of Jiang with the bias parameters of Nelapati. Jiang teaches determining a calibration parameter comparing the frame of reference of the depth sensor with that of an optical sensor. Although this calibration parameter is arguably a bias parameter, the bias parameter of Nelapati more clearly maps to the use of a bias parameter in the Applicant’s invention and thus has been added for completeness.
The bias parameter of Nelapati necessitates only comparing a measured location of a calibration target to its known location. Nelapati notes that a car seat can be this calibration target because it has a known location. Jiang teaches placing the temporary calibration targets on the car seats, indicating that the position of the car seats could be used as the known location of the calibration targets within the vehicle. The use of a bias parameter in the method of Nelapati has the advantageous effect of identifying RADAR misalignment. Including this data in the method of Jiang would have the same effect, thus improving the accuracy of the H1 transform.
Regarding claim 12, Jiang in view of Nelapati teaches the method of claim 11. Jiang further teaches,
…wherein the in-cabin vehicle sensor comprises an in-cabin vehicle RADAR sensor (para. 0024, “More specifically, the systems and methods presented in this disclosure provide for calibrating one or more interior monitoring system depth sensors (such as in-cabin RADAR, LIDAR, and/or ultrasonic sensors, for example)”).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view of Nelapati, and further in view of dmulk et al. (dmulk et al., “Advice Needed: A good, non-permanent, adhesive to stick something to the dash?” (11 Nov. 2019). Wrangler Forum. [forum post].), hereinafter dmulk.
Regarding claim 13, Jiang in view of Nelapati teaches the method of claim 12. Jiang in view of Nelapati does not teach,
…wherein the step of placing a calibration target within the cabin of a vehicle comprises adhering the calibration target to a portion of an interior of the cabin of the vehicle.
dmulk teaches,
…wherein the step of placing a calibration target within the cabin of a vehicle comprises adhering the calibration target to a portion of an interior of the cabin of the vehicle (comments 1, 4, and 5, dmulk: “I have one of those combo, multi-port, USB and Cigarette adapter port "PDU"s and have had a hard time getting even the strongest 3M VHB tape to secure it to the dash. I'm looking for a recommendation for some sort of adhesive that could be used (possibly in combination with the double sided tape) to help with this
bill61: Shoe Goo!! I call it liquid duct tape. It works for everything! I use it inside and outside. Peels right off after being on for years. I have yet to see it leave a mark, although I never stuck it on a dash. Have stuck it on paint with no problems
dmulk : Interesting... This seems to be the direction I'm thinking (in combination with some double sided tape as mentioned above... I'm mounting the unit vertically, near my right knee on the side of the dash....if you are looking at your steering wheel it's at the 4 o'clock position. It's perfect but as mentioned above....heat causes the tape to sag. ShoeGoo sounds like it might be a winner. :)”).
dmulk is analogous to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem solved by the invention, namely, how to ensure calibration targets stay properly positioned during the calibration process. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adhere the calibration targets of Jiang using the Shoe Goo of dmulk. dmulk teaches that Shoe Goo is good for mounting heavy objects vertically and having them stay in place, while enabling them to later be removed without damaging the vehicle. Jiang uses blocks placed on the seat to mount the calibration targets (see fig. 2B). However, the Shoe Goo of dmulk would further ensure the calibration targets stay in place during the calibration process, thus ensuring fidelity of measurements.
Regarding claim 14, Jiang in view of Nelapati and further in view of dmulk teaches the method of claim 13. Jiang further teaches,
…wherein the calibration target comprise a moveable calibration target configured to be moved during calibration (para. 0036, “In some embodiments, the motion target(s) of the hybrid calibration targets is activated (e.g., set in motion). With the motion targets activated, depth sensor data from the motion targets is collected by the depth sensor.”).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view of Nelapati, further in view of dmulk, and further in view of Nugent (Nugent, D., “Picking the best material for a target/tag” (29 Jun. 2019). Optitag).
Regarding claim 15, Jiang in view of Nelapati and further in view of dmulk teaches the method of claim 14. Jiang in view of Nelapati and further in view of dmulk does not teach,
…wherein the calibration target comprises a plurality of individual strands.
Nugent teaches,
…wherein the calibration target comprises a plurality of individual strands (p. 2, final para., “Ultra Rigid: Made of aluminum composite, this material is our most rigid and durable material. It is the most dent resistant and can handle outdoor conditions. This material is recommended for customers who want the highest accuracy fiducial. Printed in matte, this material can handle harsh lighting conditions.” The Examiner notes that an aluminum composite includes plastic, which consists of a plurality of individual strands).
Nugent is analogous to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem solved by the invention. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Jiang in view of Nelapati and further in view of dmulk to include the aluminum composite substrate of Nugent. Jiang teaches that the hybrid calibration target should be mounted on a substrate comprising fiducial markers such as AprilTag patterns but is silent as to the particular substrate that should be used. The aluminum composite of Nugent would be an obvious choice of substrate because it is designed for fiducial markers such as AprilTag patterns and is the recommended material for highly accurate calibration targets, as noted in the quoted section above.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view of Nelapati, and further in view of Muhassin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0252678 A1), hereinafter Muhassin.
Regarding claim 19, Jiang in view of Nelapati teaches the method of claim 11. Jiang in view of Nelapati does not teach,
…wherein the calibration target comprises a plurality of slots formed therein.
Muhassin teaches,
…wherein the calibration target comprises a plurality of slots formed therein (para. 0079, “A plurality of slots (e.g., slots 510, 512) can extend through the at least one calibration target element 506, 508. In some embodiments, the plurality of slots can have a width that exceeds a height (e.g., slots 510).”).
Muhassin is analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Jiang in view of Nelapati with the slots of Muhassin. The target design of Muhassin reduces the complexity of multi-sensor calibration and can measure optical performance of varying optical systems, thus reducing the need for additional data collection (see Muhassin, para. 0021)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7, 9-10, 16-18, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, the prior art made of record individually or in any combination fails to teach, render obvious, or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the combination of the claimed features of claim 3. Specifically, the prior art of record alone or in combination fails to render obvious the features below of claim 3 in combination with the other features of claim 3 and its intervening claims:
“…wherein the calibration target comprises a multi-stranded filament array.”
Claims 4-8 are allowable due to their dependency on allowable claim 3.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art made of record individually or in any combination fails to teach, render obvious, or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the combination of the claimed features of claim 9. Specifically, the prior art of record alone or in combination fails to render obvious the features below of claim 9 in combination with the other features of claim 9 and its intervening claims:
“…wherein the step of promoting movement of the calibration target comprises introducing a source of moving gas that causes the calibration target to move.”
Claim 10 is allowable due to its dependency on allowable claim 9.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art made of record individually or in any combination fails to teach, render obvious, or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the combination of the claimed features of claim 16. Specifically, the prior art of record alone or in combination fails to render obvious the features below of claim 16 in combination with the other features of claim 16 and its intervening claims:
“…wherein each of the plurality of individual strands is configured to be movable relative to each of the other individual strands of the plurality of individual strands.”
Claim 17 is allowable due to its dependency on allowable claim 16.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art made of record individually or in any combination fails to teach, render obvious, or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the combination of the claimed features of claim 18. Specifically, the prior art of record alone or in combination fails to render obvious the features below of claim 18 in combination with the other features of claim 18 and its intervening claims:
“…wherein the step of placing a calibration target within the cabin of a vehicle comprises placing the calibration target adjacent to a vent, and wherein the method further comprises introducing gas through the vent to move the calibration target during calibration.”
Regarding claim 20, the prior art made of record individually or in any combination fails to teach, render obvious, or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the combination of the claimed features of claim 20. Specifically, the prior art of record alone or in combination fails to render obvious the features below of claim 20 in combination with the other features of claim 20 and its intervening claims:
“…wherein the calibration target comprises a plurality of strands, and wherein each strand of the plurality of strands comprises a plurality of slots formed therein.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anna K Benjamin Gosling whose telephone number is (571)272-0401. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday, 7-3 Eastern; Friday 8-4 Eastern.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/Anna K. Benjamin Gosling/ Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/NAZRA NUR WAHEED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
