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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1–8 are pending and have been examined. Claims 1–8 are rejected. Claims 1 and 5 are independent. No claim is currently allowed.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“atmosphere calibration unit … configured to …,”
“digital number extraction unit … configured to …,”
“temperature conversion unit … configured to …,” and
“calibration value calculation unit … configured to …” (claim 7).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 2-8 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the perforation” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Parent claim 1 recites that the upper plate part has “a plurality of cells … formed” but does not recite any perforation in the cells; it is therefore unclear to what “the perforation” refers. Claims 3 and 4 depend from claim 2 and recite “the diameter of the perforation,” and are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the ground reference target” in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 earlier recites “one or more ground reference targets” (plural); it is therefore unclear whether the singular “the ground reference target” refers to each of, a particular one of, or a single one of those targets. Claims 6–8 depend from claim 5 and are rejected for the same reason.
Claims 7 and 8 are indefinite because the “…unit configured to…” limitations of claim 7, identified in the Claim Interpretation section as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f), lack adequate corresponding structure. For a computer-implemented function, the corresponding structure must be a processor together with the algorithm that performs the claimed function (MPEP 2181(II)–(III)). To the extent the specification discloses these “units” only as functional blocks without a specific algorithm for the recited atmosphere-calibration, DN-extraction, temperature-conversion, and calibration-value-calculation functions, the limitations are indefinite. The examiner further notes that the claimed “units” include the scope of mere software modules, leading to confusion over the disclosed structure and scope of the claims. Claim 8 depends from claim 7 and is rejected for the same reason.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GIORGI (US 3986384) in view of CHEN et al. (US 5324937) and BARSI et al.1
Regarding claim 1, GIORGI discloses a ground reference target (a passive infrared target installable on the ground in a field configuration) comprising an upper plate part having a plurality of cells defined by a perforation pattern, wherein the average emissivity, and thus the radiance, of the cells is established by the perforations, and wherein the target is scalable to a field configuration (FIGS. 1–3; col. 1, ll. 55–67, “providing a target unit which is comprised of a sandwich of three plane members, the second or center member being incrementally slidable between the front and rear members … the center member has a pattern of openings in the area exposed by the cut-out which openings expose the rear member”; col. 4, ll. 1–4, “[t]he disclosed target technique can be readily applied to a field configuration by scaling up the dimensions to suit the field test requirements”).
PNG
media_image1.png
833
836
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG. 2 of GIORGI — 3-plate sandwich with a perforated center plate and controllable average emissivity.
GIORGI does not disclose that the upper plate part is made of a metal material. In the same field of endeavor, CHEN discloses an infrared calibration target having a metal upper structure with a low-emissivity metal region and a high-emissivity aperture/perforation region (FIG. 2; col. 3, ll. 40–52, “[a] first layer 14 of high emissivity material is deposited on the front surface of the substrate 12 … [a] second layer 16 of low emissivity material is deposited on the first layer 14”; col. 3, l. 65–col. 4, l. 3, “[a] small aperture is drilled through the metal substrate 12”), with the benefit of providing good temperature uniformity. In light of the teachings of CHEN, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine with the teachings of GIORGI. GIORGI does not disclose that the body part has an internal space in which water is accommodated. In the same field of endeavor, BARSI discloses that water is used as the primary medium for vicarious radiometric calibration (Barsi, p. 11612, “water … is uniform in composition, has a high and known emissivity and often exhibits low surface temperature variation … over large areas”), with the benefit of providing a high, known, and spatially uniform emissivity reference. In light of the teachings of BARSI, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine with the teachings of GIORGI. The recited dimensions and opened upper part are obvious matters of design and scaling, GIORGI expressly teaching scaling to a field configuration.
Regarding claim 2, the combination renders obvious that the reflectance or emissivity of each cell is determined by a diameter of the perforation, because GIORGI provides the average emissivity of each region through the perforation pattern (col. 2, ll. 40–47, “[b]y physically introducing an average emissivity change through a sliding perforated plate, a specific total range and incremental change in radiance can be produced … the area relationship between the perforations and the un-perforated portion of the sliding plate”). Furthermore, CHEN establishes emissivity through the etched microfeatures (col. 3, ll. 54–58, “[t]he average emissivity of target bars can be set to a value between the emissivity of chrome and chromium-oxide through proper design of microfeatures”). Finally, selecting the perforation diameter to set the average per-cell emissivity is a predictable result based on the known relationship of emissivity and size.
Regarding claim 3, the combination renders obvious that a surface of the upper plate part is processed by sanding or another diffusion-reflection method so that the reflectance or emissivity is regular, because providing a diffusely reflecting (matte) surface for a uniform, angle-independent emissivity is a well-known surface-finishing technique for calibration targets (CHEN, col. 3, ll. 50–54, “[t]he second layer 16 is selectively etched to expose the first layer using a suitable technique such as electron beam lithography”); applying such surface processing to the metal plate of the combination would predictably yield a regular reflectance/emissivity. Furthermore see MPEP 2111.02, which explains that product-by-process claims are defined by their structure.
Regarding claim 4, the combination renders obvious that the reflectance is a number between 0 and 1 depending on the perforation diameter or surface material and that the sum of the reflectance and the emissivity is 1, because for an opaque surface in thermal equilibrium reflectance equals one minus emissivity (Kirchhoff’s law / conservation of energy), so their sum is unity; reciting this known physical relationship does not patentably distinguish the claim (see CHEN, col. 3, ll. 44–48, “[a] first layer 14 of high emissivity material … [a] second layer 16 of low emissivity material”).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BARSI et al. in view of GIORGI (US 3986384) and CHEN et al. (US 5324937).
Regarding claim 5, BARSI discloses a vicarious radiometric calibration system in which a sensor mounted on an airborne/spaceborne platform flying at a predetermined altitude above the Earth’s surface photographs a ground reference target and obtains an image, and a calibration apparatus performs vicarious radiometric calibration relating the observed radiance of the ground reference target to the sensor’s digital number (Barsi, p. 11612, “[w]ater has long been used as the primary target for vicarious calibration of the … thermal bands”; describing vicarious radiometric calibration of the Landsat-8 TIRS against large water bodies). BARSI employs a natural water target rather than an engineered target having “at least one metal region and perforation region” with “a plurality of cells each having predetermined reflectance or emissivity”, and thus does not disclose a ground target whose cells have a controllable predetermined emissivity established by a perforation pattern. GIORGI discloses an engineered ground target whose cells have a controllable predetermined emissivity established by a perforation pattern (GIORGI, FIG. 2; col. 2, ll. 40-47, “[b]y physically introducing an average emissivity change through a sliding perforated plate, a specific total range and incremental change in radiance can be produced”), with the benefit of providing multiple regions of known, verifiable emissivity within a single field of view. In light of the teachings of GIORGI, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine with the teachings of BARSI. GIORGI does not disclose that the cell regions are formed as metal and perforation regions. CHEN discloses a metal substrate having a low-emissivity metal region and a high-emissivity aperture region (FIG. 2; col. 3, ll. 40-52, “[a] first layer 14 of high emissivity material is deposited on the front surface of the substrate 12”; col. 3, l. 65–col. 4, l. 3, “[a] small aperture is drilled through the metal substrate 12”), with the benefit of providing a durable target with well-defined high- and low-emissivity references. In light of the teachings of CHEN, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine with the teachings of BARSI and GIORGI.
Regarding claim 6, the combination renders obvious that the ground reference target comprises a body part having a width of M meters, a height of N meters, an opened upper part, and an internal space in which water is accommodated, and a metal upper plate part coupled to the top of the body part in which a plurality of cells is formed, for the reasons given for claim 1 above (GIORGI, FIG. 2 and col. 1, ll. 55–67; CHEN, col. 3, ll. 40–52, “[t]he target 10 includes a substrate 12 fabricated of copper”; BARSI, p. 11612, water as the high-emissivity medium).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BARSI et al. in view of GIORGI, CHEN et al., and RAMEGOWDA (US 20120069193 A1).
Regarding claim 7, BARSI discloses the vicarious-calibration processing chain corresponding to the recited units: an atmosphere calibration unit (atmospheric correction of the image using an atmospheric profile), a digital number extraction unit (removing sensor and atmospheric influence and converting DN to radiance), a temperature conversion unit (converting radiance to a radiation/brightness temperature), and a calibration value calculation unit (computing a calibration value by comparing the derived and reference radiation temperatures) (Barsi, pp. 11613–11617, describing atmospheric correction and radiance-to-temperature conversion in TIRS vicarious calibration). It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to implement these conventional processing units in the system of BARSI, with the predictable result of converting observed radiance into a calibrated digital number. To the degree that the per-cell, multi-emissivity handling is not disclosed by BARSI, in the same field of endeavor, RAMEGOWDA discloses a calibration target having a plurality of cells of differing predetermined emissivity arranged so that the pattern is resolved in the infrared image ([0002], “a checkerboard pattern with every other square having one emissivity and the remaining squares having a different emissivity … so that the … pattern appears in an infrared image”), with the benefit of providing distinguishable per-cell emissivity references within a single image. In light of the teachings of RAMEGOWDA, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine with the teachings of BARSI, GIORGI, and CHEN.
Regarding claim 8, the combination renders obvious that the atmospheric profile comprises one or more of a temperature, humidity, and pressure according to current atmosphere conditions, because temperature, humidity, and pressure profiles (e.g., from radiosonde or reanalysis data) are the conventional inputs to atmospheric correction in vicarious calibration (BARSI).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)270-7329. The examiner can normally be reached M-F // 7-3P EST.
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, UZMA ALAM can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
CASEY BRYANT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/CASEY BRYANT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
1 Barsi, “Landsat-8 Thermal Infrared Sensor (TIRS) Vicarious Radiometric Calibration,” Remote Sensing, 6(11):11607–11626 (2014).
Prosecution Insights