Ex Parte Pavlov et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 16, 2016

12703909 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121703,909 02/11/2010
24972 7590 06/20/2016
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
666 FIFTH A VE
NEW YORK, NY 10103-3198
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Pavel PAVLOV
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
1019116156 5092
EXAMINER
MCLEOD, MARSHALL M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2454
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/20/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
nyipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAVEL PAVLOV
and
STEP AN MARKUS KAEFER
Appeal2015-000475
Application 12/703,909
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2015-000475
Application 12/703,909
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to a method and device "for
determining the position and alignment of a camera of a driver-assistance
system of a vehicle relative to the vehicle" (Title (capitalization altered)).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A method for determining a position and an alignment
of a camera of a driver-assistance system of a vehicle relative to
the vehicle, the method comprising:
recording at least one mark of a measuring target
mounted on a left wheel of a rear axle, and at least one mark of
a measuring target mounted on an opposite, right wheel of the
rear axle, using two measuring cameras, in at least two vehicle
positions, the at least one mark being situated on a surface of
the measuring target;
determining a geometrical axis of a motion of the vehicle
relative to the two measuring cameras therefrom;
recording a calibration target of a driver-assistance
system, using the two measuring cameras;
determining the position of the calibration target of the
driver-assistance system relative to the two measuring cameras
therefrom;
determining the position and the alignment of the
calibration target of the driver-assistance system relative to the
geometrical axis of motion of the vehicle;
recording the calibration target of the driver-assistance
system by the camera of the driver-assistance system;
determining the position of the camera of the driver-
assistance system relative to the calibration target of the driver-
assistance system therefrom; and
determining the position and alignment of the camera of
the driver-assistance system relative to the geometrical axis of
motion of the vehicle,
wherein the two measuring cameras are one of
configured and adjustable so that the at least one mark and the
2
Appeal2015-000475
Application 12/703,909
calibration target are completely within view of the two
measurmg cameras.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 6---7, and 9-12 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings ofUffenkamp (US
2004/0133376 Al; July 8, 2004) and Jackson (US 5,535,522; July 16, 1996).
The Examiner rejected claims 4, 5, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings ofUffenkamp and Pryor (US 7,489,303 Bl; Feb.
10, 2009).
ANALYSIS
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds Uffenkamp's marking
points teach at least one mark, Uffenkamp's projection plane teaches a
calibration target, and Uffenkamp's two or more image sensor systems or
stereo cameras teach t\~10 measuring cameras vie\~1ing the marks and
calibration target (Ans. 9-10 (citing Uffenkamp i-fi-160, 62); Final Act. 2-3
(citing Uffenkamp i133)). The Examiner further finds Uffenkamp does not
disclose at least one mark being situated on a surface of the measuring
target, but Jackson discloses this feature (Final Act. 3--4 (citing Jackson col.
8, 11. 9-10)).
Appellants contend Uffenkamp does not teach or suggest at least one
mark and the calibration target are completely within view of two measuring
cameras that are configured or adjustable, as required in claim 1; rather,
Uffenkamp's sensor systems record a scene to reconstruct a three-
dimensional image (Reply Br. 2; App. Br. 4--5). Appellants, however, have
not rebutted the Examiner's finding that Uffenkamp's scene includes the
3
Appeal2015-000475
Application 12/703,909
marks and calibration target within view of the sensor systems (Ans. 9--10).
We agree with the Examiner's reasonable findings, as paragraph 33 of
Uffenkamp teaches marks on the projection plane/calibration target "lie in
the visual range" of the sensor system that "records image data of projection
plane," and paragraphs 60 and 62 teach multiple marks on the calibration
target are viewed by two or more sensor systems performing joint alignment
(Ans. 10).
Appellants further contend their invention has two measuring cameras
providing a combination of recordings that align a third camera of the
driver-assistance system (Reply Br. 2). In contrast, Uffenkamp discloses a
single type of image sensor system "which may correspond to the camera of
the driver-assistance system" but not to the claimed two measuring cameras
(Reply Br. 2). Appellants have not persuasively rebutted the Examiner's
finding that two or more cameras in Uffenkamp jointly determine their
alignment and mutual allocation. We agree with the Examiner's findings
that Uffenkamp discloses two cameras help determine a third camera's
alignment and position as required in claim 1 (Ans. 9--10 (citing Uffenkamp
i-f 60 ("the determination of the mutual allocation of the image sensor
systems and the alignment of the stereo camera with respect to the geometric
travel axis of the motor vehicle is performed jointly in one evaluation step"
(emphases added))); Final Act. 3).
Appellants' additional argument that Uffenkamp does not disclose
Appellants' "two measuring cameras [that] record the marks ... while the
camera of the driver-assistance system ... does not record the marks" is not
commensurate with the scope of claim 1 (Reply Br. 2). Claim 1 recites two
measuring cameras record the marks, but does not recite the driver-
4
Appeal2015-000475
Application 12/703,909
assistance camera does not record the marks. Thus, claim 1 does not
preclude the camera of the driver-assistance system from recording the
marks.
Appellants further contend Uffenkamp does not disclose or suggest
the at least one mark and the calibration target are photographed; rather,
Uffenkamp describes recording objects, not recording the marks and
calibration target (App. Br. 5). However, as noted above, Jackson was cited
for disclosing at least one mark on the surface of a measuring target (which
Appellants have not rebutted), and paragraph 33 in Uffenkamp discloses the
sensor system records the calibration target (projection plane) including the
marks (marking points) (Final Act. 2 (citing Uffenkamp i-f 33 ("marking
point 40 ... on projection plane 36 .... marking point 42 ... on projection
plane 36 .... points 40, 42 lie in the visual range (recording range 48) of
image sensor system 38 .... [and] image sensor system 38 records image
data of projection plane 36" (emphases added))).
In light of the above, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1, independent claims 6 and 7 for which Appellants
provide substantially the same arguments (App. Br. 4, 5), and dependent
claims 2, 3, 11, 12, 9, and 10 argued for their dependency on claims 1 and 7,
respectively (App. Br. 5).
With regard to dependent claims 4, 5, and 8 rejected based on a
combination ofUffenkamp and Pryor, Appellants provide substantially the
same arguments as for claims 1 and 7 (App. Br. 5, 6). Appellants provide no
substantive arguments regarding Pryor other than to state Pryor does not
5
Appeal2015-000475
Application 12/703,909
cure the deficiencies of Uffonkamp (App. Br. 6). Thus, for the same reasons
as claims 1 and 7, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 4, 5, and 8. 1
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-12 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
1 We note claims 4 and 5 depend from independent claim 1, and claim 8
depends from independent claim 7, argued together with claim 1. The
Examiner's summary of the rejection of claims 4, 5, and 8 does not include
Jackson. However, we find this oversight on the Examiner's part is
harmless error and interpret the rejection of these claims to include the
Jackson reference relied on in rejecting the claims from which claims 4, 5,
and 8 depend.
6