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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Applicant is advised of possible benefits under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f), wherein an application for patent filed in the United States may be entitled to claim priority to an application filed in a foreign country.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/02/2022 and 10/17/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7, 15-21, and 29 under U.S.C. 102 and U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yoon, Howard W. and Raghu N. Kacker. “Guidelines for Radiometric Calibration of Electro-Optical Instruments for Remote Sensing.” (2015). (Year: 2015) and Taplin et. al. (United States Patent US 9,372,118 B1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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(s) 1, 3-4, 7, 15, 17, 21, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon, Howard W. and Raghu N. Kacker. “Guidelines for Radiometric Calibration of Electro-Optical Instruments for Remote Sensing.” (2015) in view of Taplin et. al. (United States Patent US 9,372,118 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Yoon et. al. discloses a method processing sensor signals that are representative of energy incident at a sensor or a system of sensors, the method comprising implementing across one or more processors, the steps of: receiving first output signal from a first sensor (Yoon et. al. section 4.1.6, p. 35-36: how to retrieve the radiance L from the DN counts on the sensor); determining based on the received first output signal, a first output value (Yoon et. al.: “DNi,j”); determining a second output value based on the first output value and first intensity response function associated with the first sensor (Yoon et. al.: “B*G/FNUC,k*Flin,k(DN)), determining a third output value based on the second output value and a first spectral response function associated with the first sensor (Yoon et. al.: “1/RL* B*G/FNUC,k*Flin,k(DN)), wherein the first spectral response function correlates a plurality of spectral wavelengths with spectral sensitivity of the first sensor at said spectral wavelengths; and implementing a processing step based on the determined third output value (Yoon et. al.: the data is used for scientific purposes).
However, Yoon et. al. fails to disclose wherein the first intensity response function correlates incident irradiance and irradiance sensitivity of the first sensor.
Taplin et. al. teaches wherein the first intensity response function correlates incident irradiance and irradiance sensitivity of the first sensor (Taplin et. al. Figure 1, col 4, lines 25-35: Optionally, auxiliary single (not shown) or multiband light sensors 16 and 18 can be used to collect additional information about average scene radiance and irradiance. Each of these sensors may have spectral response bands different from the image sensor array 10 and CFA 12. They can be used to automatically set parameters of a spectral detection algorithm, or perform scene white balancing for improved detection accuracy. Abstract, col 4, liens 15-20: The filter 6 spectrally narrows light 2 received from the scene 3 within at least two of the different spectral sensitivity bands corresponding to spectral absorption, reflection, or emission features that distinguish the illumination source of interest from other illumination sources in the scene 3.).
This element is important to the claimed invention because the incident irradiance and irradiance sensitivity of the first sensor corresponds to features that distinguish the illumination source of interest with different spectral sensitivity bands. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Yoon et. al. and Taplin et. al. so that the irradiance feature contribution to the first intensity response function is captured with the solution of Yoon et. al.
Regarding claim 15, which discloses a system for processing sensor signals that are representative of energy incident at a sensor or a system of sensors, the system corresponds to the method of claim 1, which the rejection analysis is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 29, which discloses a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon, computer code for implementing a method of processing sensor signals that are representative of energy incident at a sensor or a system of sensors, the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer usable medium having a computer readable program code embodied therein, the computer readable program code comprising instructions for implementing within a processor based computing system, which corresponds to the system of claim 15, which the rejection analysis is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 3 and 17, Yoon et. al. and Taplin et. al. disclose the method as claimed in claim 1 and the system as claimed in claim 15, and Yoon et. al. further discloses wherein the processing step based on the determined third output value comprises any of a data processing step, a data presentation step, a data display step, or a step of comparing, consolidating, reconciling or compositing the third output value with any one or more other output values that have determined based on output signal(s) received from the first sensor or from one or more other sensor(s) (Yoon et. al. 4.3.5, pg. 49: Real-Time Display and Monitoring, section 2.3, p. 11-16 describes multi-sensor data comparison, reconciling, etc. data presentation, display, etc. are implicit or at least obvious processing steps for data as presented.).
Regarding claim 4, Yoon et. al. and Taplin et. al. disclose the method as claimed in claim 1, and Yoon et. al. further discloses wherein: the first sensor is an image sensor; the determined first output value based on the output signal received from the image sensor comprises a pixel value P(i) corresponding to a pixel i within an output image received from the image sensor; the determined second output value is a PhotoQuantity value Q(i) corresponding to pixel i, wherein said PhotoQuantity value Q(i) is determined by applying an intensity response function F that is associated with the image sensor to the pixel value P(i); and the determined third output value is an EnergyQuantity value E(i) that represents energy incident at pixel i, wherein said EnergyQuantity value E(i) is determined by applying a spectral response function G that is associated with the image sensor to the PhotoQuantity value Q(i) (Yoon et. al. p. 36: Typical Calibration Equations and Parameters for Imaging Radiometers).
Regarding claim 7 and claim 21, Yoon et. al. discloses the method as claimed in claim 1 and the system as claimed in claim 15, further comprising implementing across the one or more processors, the steps of: receiving a second output signal from a second sensor (Yoon et. al. section 4.1.6, p. 35-36: how to retrieve the radiance L from the DN counts on the sensor); determining based on the received second output signal, a fourth output value (Yoon et. al.: “DNi,j”); determining a fifth output value based on the fourth output value and a second intensity response function associated with the second sensor, and determining a sixth output value based on the fifth output value and a second spectral response function associated with the second sensor (Yoon et. al.: “B*G/FNUC,k*Flin,k(DN)), wherein the second spectral response function correlates a plurality of spectral wavelengths with spectral sensitivity of the second sensor at said spectral wavelengths (Yoon et. al.: “1/RL* B*G/FNUC,k*Flin,k(DN)); wherein the processing step is implemented based on the determined third output value and the determined sixth output value (Yoon et. al.: the data is used for scientific purposes).
However, Yoon et. al. fails to disclose wherein the second intensity response function correlates incident irradiance and irradiance sensitivity of the second sensor.
Taplin et. al. teaches wherein the second intensity response function correlates incident irradiance and irradiance sensitivity of the second sensor (Taplin et. al. Figure 1, col 4, lines 25-35: Optionally, auxiliary single (not shown) or multiband light sensors 16 and 18 can be used to collect additional information about average scene radiance and irradiance. Each of these sensors may have spectral response bands different from the image sensor array 10 and CFA 12. They can be used to automatically set parameters of a spectral detection algorithm, or perform scene white balancing for improved detection accuracy. Abstract, col 4, liens 15-20: The filter 6 spectrally narrows light 2 received from the scene 3 within at least two of the different spectral sensitivity bands corresponding to spectral absorption, reflection, or emission features that distinguish the illumination source of interest from other illumination sources in the scene 3.).
This element is important to the claimed invention because the incident irradiance and irradiance sensitivity of the second sensor corresponds to features that distinguish the illumination source of interest with different spectral sensitivity bands. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Yoon et. al. and Taplin et. al. so that the irradiance feature contribution to the first intensity response function is captured with the solution of Yoon et. al.
Claim(s) 2, 5, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon, Howard W. and Raghu N. Kacker. “Guidelines for Radiometric Calibration of Electro-Optical Instruments for Remote Sensing.” (2015) in view of Taplin et. al. (United States Patent US 9,372,118 B1) as applied to claim 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Herrmann (WIPO/PCT 2013/093684 A2).
Regarding claim 2 and 16, Yoon et. al. and Taplin et. el. disclose the method as claimed in claim 1 and system as claimed in claim 15. However, Yoon et. al. and Taplin et. al. fail to disclose wherein: the determined second output value is representative of a quantum of discrete units of energy incident on the first sensor; or the determined third output value is representative of energy incident at the first sensor.
Herrmann teaches wherein: the determined second output value is representative of a quantum of discrete units of energy incident on the first sensor; or the determined third output value is representative of energy incident at the first sensor (page 9, lines 15-20, lines 30-33, Fig.2).
This feature is important to the claimed invention because the discrete energy units are quantified in quantum size. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Yoon et. al., Taplin et. al., and Hermann to output the value representative of the energy incident at the first sensor.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Yoon et. al., Taplin et. al. and Hermann disclose the method as claimed in claim 4, and Yoon et. al. further discloses wherein the processing step based on the determined third output value comprises representing the EnergyQuantity value E(i) on a display device (Yoon et. al. p. 49: this is an obvious processing step, 4.3.5: Real-Time Display and Monitoring).
Claim(s) 6 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon, Howard W. and Raghu N. Kacker. “Guidelines for Radiometric Calibration of Electro-Optical Instruments for Remote Sensing.” (2015), Taplin et. al. (United States Patent US 9,372,118 B1) and Herrmann (WIPO/PCT 2013/093684 A2) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Schiller (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0259135 A1).
Regarding claim 6 and 20, Yoon et. al., Taplin et. al., and Herrmann disclose the method as claimed in claim 5 and system as claimed in claim 18. However, Yoon et. al., Taplin et. al. and Hermann fail to disclose wherein representing the EnergyQuantity value E(i) on the display device comprises: identifying a bit depth associated with the display device; identifying a range of discrete color values capable of being represented through the identified bit depth; quantizing the EnergyQuantity value E(i) to generate a discrete color value within the range of discrete color values capable of being represented through the bit depth associated with the display; and rendering the generated discrete color value on the display device.
Schiller teaches wherein representing the EnergyQuantity value E(i) on the display device comprises: identifying a bit depth associated with the display device; identifying a range of discrete color values capable of being represented through the identified bit depth; quantizing the EnergyQuantity value E(i) to generate a discrete color value within the range of discrete color values capable of being represented through the bit depth associated with the display; and rendering the generated discrete color value on the display device (Schiller Abstract, Fig. 4, [0017]-[0018]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have combined the display device of Yoon et. al. to include the color filter mosaic optical system of Schiller. The motivation factor for incorporating the teaching of Schiller into the combination of Yoon et. al., Taplin et. al., and Herrmann is as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
144
728
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon, Howard W. and Raghu N. Kacker. “Guidelines for Radiometric Calibration of Electro-Optical Instruments for Remote Sensing.” (2015) in view of Taplin et. al. (United States Patent US 9,372,118 B1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Steffanson (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0073931 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Yoon et. al. and Taplin et. al. disclose the system as claimed in claim 15. However, Yoon et. al. and Taplin et. al. fail to disclose wherein: the first sensor is an image sensor; the determined first output value based on the output signal received from the image sensor comprises a pixel value P(i) corresponding to a pixel i within an output image received from the image sensor; the determined second output value is a PhotoQuantity value Q(i) corresponding to pixel i, wherein said PhotoQuantity value Q(i) is determined by applying an intensity response function F that is associated with the image sensor to the pixel value P(i); and the determined third output value is an EnergyQuantity value E(i) that represents energy incident at pixel i, wherein said EnergyQuantity value E(i) is determined by applying a spectral response function G that is associated with the image sensor to the PhotoQuantity value Q(i).
Steffanson teaches wherein: the first sensor is an image sensor; the determined first output value based on the output signal received from the image sensor comprises a pixel value P(i) corresponding to a pixel i within an output image received from the image sensor; the determined second output value is a PhotoQuantity value Q(i) corresponding to pixel i, wherein said PhotoQuantity value Q() is determined by applying an intensity response function F that is associated with the image sensor to the pixel value P(i); and the determined third output value is an EnergyQuantity value E(i) that represents energy incident at pixel i, wherein said EnergyQuantity value E(i) is determined by applying a spectral response function G that is associated with the image sensor to the PhotoQuantity value Q(i) (Steffanson [0032]: the sensor is part of a high pixel-density pixel sensor array; [0057]: the micromechanical pixel requires geometric proportions, [0063]: the light sensor captures the change of the reflected light rays and this signal is processed into a pixel bit value representing the incident radiation intensity). Incorporating the precise light intensity values in the form of a calculated pixel bit value taught by Steffanson with photon-based spectral CT systems of Herrmann for more accurate energy counting information will significantly improve the safety of human objects and devices applied for medical imaging purposes and more. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the sensor technology art at the time of the invention to modify the method processing sensor signals as disclosed by Yoon et. al. and Taplin et. al., with the PhotoQuantity value and EnergyQuantity value calculations as taught by Steffanson.
PNG
media_image2.png
326
432
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
364
436
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
424
449
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Yoon et. al., Taplin et. al. and Steffanson disclose the system as claimed in claim 18, and Yoon et. al. further discloses wherein the processing step based on the determined third output value comprises representing the EnergyQuantity value E(i) on a display device.
Yoon et. al. in the combination further teaches the system as claimed in claim 18, wherein the processing step based on the determined third output value comprises representing the EnergyQuantity value E(i) on a display device (Yoon et. al. p. 49: this is an obvious processing step, 4.3.5: Real-Time Display and Monitoring). Thus, the combined teachings of Yoon et. al., Taplin et. al. and Steffanson would have rendered obvious the method processing sensor signals and calculations on the display device as claimed.
Conclusion
Response to Amendment
Examiner has carefully considered the claims amended and performed an updated search. New prior arts were found after the updated search to provide new grounds of rejection.
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 JESSICA YIFANG LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6435. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-6:15pm, with optional day off.
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, Vu Le can be reached at 571-272-7332. 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.
/JESSICA YIFANG LIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2668 July 27, 2026
/VU LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Prosecution Insights