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 .
Drawing Objection
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the system of claim 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
35 USC 112(a) Rejection
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
As to claims 1,10, there is explanation as either (1) what a (determined) “target energy action state” is, (2) how such is determined (What even defines such?), and (3) how such is employed to obtain a calibration coefficient. The specification refers to a “state”, and stops there. One of ordinary skill cannot calibrate a radiometer without such. There are no examples, not reference provides for such, and no manner of experimentation that is apparent.
As to claim 10, there is no structure that provides for 3 modules that are merely “configured”. The specification refers to modules, and provides nothing more. What different structural components are employed “to obtain” (line 2), screen (“screening”, line 4) and “obtain” (line 3 from last) a coefficient? One of ordinary skill cannot construct a system without knowing what the modules might be. There are no examples, not reference provides for such, and no manner of experimentation that is apparent.
35 USC 112(b) Rejection
Claims 1-10 are 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.
As to claim 1, a “method” (line 1) comprising 3 different processes (i.e. “process” (lines 2,5,10)) is confusing, as a method comprises a combination of steps, and nothing more. What does tagging each of the steps of lines 2-4,5-9,10-12 as a “process” (lines 2,5,10) add to the “method”? Is the term “process” (lines 2,5,10) intended to be a verb? Why is “a collection process,” (line 3, claim 1) not - - a collection step - - ? They are not the same; the former is not a step.
As to claim 5, “where in” (line 1) should read - - wherein - - ?
As to claim 5, are lines 1-3 limited such that the method includes the step of employing such formula, or is it limited such that the absorption term is merely expressed, and thus the claim is not limited to actively employing the formula? In what way, if at all, is the “method” (line 1) limited in relation to the “formula”?
As to claim 6, are lines 1-2 limited such that the method includes the step of somehow employing the expression of line 2, or is it limited such that the expression is merely expressed (and not necessarily employed)? In what way, if at all, is the “method” (line 1) limited in relation to expression? What is the expression doing in the claim?
As to claim 7, are lines 4-76 limited such that the method includes the step of somehow employing the expression of line 6, or is it limited such that the expression is merely expressed (and not necessarily employed)? In what way, if at all, is the “method” (line 1) limited in relation to expression? What is the expression doing in the claim?
As to claim 8, are lines 2-6 limited such that the method includes the step of somehow employing the expression of line 6, or is it limited such that the expression is merely expressed (and not necessarily employed)? In what way, if at all, is the “method” (line 1) limited in relation to expression? What is the expression doing in the claim?
As to claim 10, what exactly is a “module”? Specification employs terms such as system and device, so “module” may be something different. How is one of ordinary skill to know what the term “module” means?
Prior Art Cited (not applied)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ma et al CN 115855882 correlates satellite background noise from the top of the atmosphere with temperature, pressure, carbon dioxide and remote sensing sensitivity. However, does not suggest employing a value of top of atmosphere as a standard.
Lu et al CN 104614070 teach that solar radiation reaching the earth is reduced by air molecules, water vapor, carbon dioxide as it reaches the surface. However, does not suggest employing a value of top of atmosphere as a standard.
Jin et al CN 116858835 teach obtaining remote reflectance according to the atmospheric top image, involving radiation calibration, correction for cloud mist. However, does not suggest employing a value of top of atmosphere as a standard.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT R RAEVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2204. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon to Fri from 8am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina DeHerrera, can be reached at telephone number 303-297-4237. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/ROBERT R RAEVIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855