Ex Parte ZENG et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 31, 2017

14259470 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/259,470 04/23/2014 SHUQING ZENG P025156-US-NP 3827 72823 7590 Quinn IP Law 21500 Haggerty Road Suite 300 Northville, MI 48167 09/05/2017 EXAMINER KHALID, OMER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2422 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/05/2017 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): amb@quinnlawgroup.com U S Docketing @ quinnlawgroup.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SHUQING ZENG and XIAOFENG F. SONG Appeal 2017-005211 Application 14/259,470 Technology Center 2400 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2017-005211 Application 14/259,470 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, and 10-14.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appellants’ application relates calibrating the vision sensors of a vehicle lane sensing system by autonomously detecting and correcting a misalignment of the vision sensors. Spec. ^ 1-3. Specifically, two different vision misalignment factors are calculated and are used to determine a probability that a state of health of the vision-based lane sensing system is within a specified misalignment threshold. See Spec. 32-35. If the state of health probability is higher than the threshold, this implies only minor alignment is required and a misalignment estimate is calculated and used to correct the misalignment. Spec. 36-37. If, however, the state of health probability is below the threshold, the vehicle alerts the driver of a faulty lane sensing system. Spec. ^ 36. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of diagnosing a state of health of a vision-based lane sensing system for a vehicle, the method comprising the steps of: calculating a first misalignment factor as a function of a vehicle lateral offset and a vehicle heading; calculating a second misalignment factor as a function of a vehicle speed, an estimated curvature of an expected path of travel of the vehicle, a lane curvature of a traveled road, and the vehicle heading; 1 The Examiner indicates claims 3,5, and 9 contain allowable subject matter (Ans. 7), and thus claims 3,5, and 9 are not before us on appeal. 2 Appeal 2017-005211 Application 14/259,470 generating a histogram for the first misalignment factor and a histogram for the second misalignment factor; determining a probability of a state of health based on the histogram of first misalignment factor and the histogram of the second misalignment factor; determining whether the probability of the state of health is within a predetermined threshold; and estimating an angle misalignment of the vision system; correcting the angle misalignment of the vision system in response to the determination that the probability of the state of health is within the predetermined threshold; otherwise actuating a warning of a faulty lane sensing system. REFERENCE The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Higgins-Luthman US 2006/0184297 A1 Aug. 17, 2006 REJECTION The Examiner made the following rejection: Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, and 10-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Higgins-Luthman. ANALYSIS Appellants contend Higgins fails to disclose “calculating a first misalignment factor” and “calculating a second misalignment factor” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 5-6. We agree with Appellants. 3 Appeal 2017-005211 Application 14/259,470 Higgins-Luthman describes “an imaging system for use as or in association with a side object detection system and/or lane departure warning system” that “may process zones or areas of interest in the captured images and may adjust processing to accommodate any misalignment of the camera that may occur during installation of the camera at the side of the vehicle.” Higgins-Luthman, ^ 12. In addition to camera calibration to correct camera installation misalignment, Higgins-Luthman discloses an optional adjustment procedure for use when the vehicle is turning where a “curve processing function may adjust the zone of interest based on the degree of turning of the steering wheel (or other characteristic indicative of the steering angle of the vehicle) so that areas or regions outside of a revised curve may not be processed or considered as much as the areas or regions within the revised curve.” Higgins-Luthman, ^ 33. Further regarding the adjustment procedure, Higgins-Luthman discloses “the wheel angle may be determined by the rotation or pivoting or turning of the front wheels of the vehicle about their generally vertical axis . . . and the curve may be adjusted as a function of the vehicle speed . . . and the wheel angle 0.” Id. The Examiner equates Higgins-Luthman’s degree of turning of the vehicle’s wheels to the claimed “first misalignment factor,” and equates the vehicle’s speed to the claimed “second misalignment factor.” Ans. 8. However, claim 1 recites “calculating a first misalignment factor as a function of a vehicle lateral offset and a vehicle heading''’ and “calculating a second misalignment factor as a function of a vehicle speed, an estimated curvature of an expected path of travel of the vehicle, a lane curvature of a traveled road, and the vehicle heading.'''’ That is, each of the two claimed misalignment factors are calculated based on two or more variables. Higgins-Luthman’s wheel angle and vehicle speed are each single variables, 4 Appeal 2017-005211 Application 14/259,470 and not factors calculated based on multiple specific variables, as required by claim 1. We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1, and dependent claims 2, 4, 6-8, and 10-14. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, and 10-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2). DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, and 10-14 is reversed. REVERSED 5