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 .
Response to Amendment
1. Claim 1-20 are currently pending.
2. Claims 1, 11, and 19 are currently amended.
3. The 112(a) and 112(b) rejection to Claims 1, 11, and 19 have been overcome.
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.
4. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
5. 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 limitations in Claims 12-13 and 16-17 are:
A visual odometry module
A map matching module
An orbit estimating module
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
6. Claims 12-13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) 11-18 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The disclosure does not describe the claimed functions of “the orbit estimating module is configured to use a batch estimation algorithm to estimate the orbit of the satellite,” “the map matching module is further configured to perform a consistency check of image matches by clustering and comparing image matches of images in the third set of one or more images,” “the visual odometry module is configured to determine relative motion using consecutives images of the first set of one or more images to determine at least a portion of a trajectory of the satellite,” and “the map matching module is configured to map match features on the third set of one or more images with features on previously geo- registered images stored on an onboard database of the satellite.” The claimed functions that are not described in the disclosure are critical or essential to the practice of the invention. The omitted subject matter is critical for one of ordinary skill in the art to know what specific computer components may accomplish the claimed functionality.
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.
7. Claim 12 recites the limitation " the orbit estimating module" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
8. Claim 13 recites the limitation " the map matching module" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
8. Claim 16 recites the limitation " the visual odometry module" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
9. Claim 17 recites the limitation " the map matching module" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
10. Claims 12-13 and 16-17 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.
11. Claims 12-13 and 16-17 limitation includes “the orbit estimating module is configured to use a batch estimation algorithm to estimate the orbit of the satellite,” “the map matching module is further configured to perform a consistency check of image matches by clustering and comparing image matches of images in the third set of one or more images,” “the visual odometry module is configured to determine relative motion using consecutives images of the first set of one or more images to determine at least a portion of a trajectory of the satellite,” and “the map matching module is configured to map match features on the third set of one or more images with features on previously geo- registered images stored on an onboard database of the satellite” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The map matching module, visual odometry module, and orbit estimating module are being interpreted, under broadest reasonable interpretation, as a processor for estimating the orbit of a satellite.
12. The disclosure does not explicitly define the structure of the visual odometry module, orbital revisit module, map matching module, and orbit estimating module. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. Claims 1-8, 11, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamel (US 4688092 A), in view of Janschek (DE 10127399 A1), and in further view of Sun (CN 104574347 A).
17. Regarding Claim 1, Kamel teaches a method for estimating an orbit of a satellite, the method comprising (Kamel: [Column 1, Lines 47-51]):
Capturing a plurality of images from a camera on the satellite (Kamel: [Column 1, Lines 43-45]);
Determining a relative motion of the satellite by performing visual odometry on a first set of one or more images from the plurality of captured images… (Kamel: [Column 3, Lines 42-46] and [Column 4, Lines 3-9] Note that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that relative motion is determined from longitude and latitude over a period of time.);
Generating loop closure measurements by comparing a second set of images from the plurality of captured images, wherein the loop closure measurements indicate an orbital revisit event when the satellite passes over a previously imaged geographic region (Kamel: [Column 3, Lines 42-46] and [Column 4, Lines 3-9] Note that a loop closure determination uses the longitude, latitude, and altitude measurements over the period of time to determine the full cycle of the orbit. Returning to an original position in an orbit is inferred based on determining the same longitude, latitude, and altitude measurements at different periods of time. Returning to the original position in an orbit is equivalent to an orbital revisit event.);
Determining a relative geographic position of the satellite by detecting geographic anchor points of a third set of one or more images from the plurality of captured images,…wherein detecting the geographic anchor points comprises matching features extracted from the captured images with features of geo-registered reference images stored onboard (Kamel: [Column 5, Lines 57-61], [Column 7, Lines 58-63], and [Column 8, Lines 40-47] Note that the use of landmark identification over a period of time is equivalent to geographic anchor points in order to determine a relative geographic position of the satellite. The use of landmark identification uses the images to estimate relative motion/position.);
And estimating, using an estimator, the orbit of the satellite based at least on one or more the determined relative motion, orbital period, and the relative geographic position of the satellite (Kamel: [Column 7, Lines 50-54] and [Column 8, Lines 40-41]).
Kamel fails to explicitly teach wherein the visual odometry comprises performing structure-from-motion analysis on consecutive images to determine a trajectory of the satellite; and the geographic anchor points comprising points that map to features on the ground used to track how the images change across time to estimate relative motion.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Janschek teaches determining a relative motion of the satellite by performing visual odometry on a first set of one or more images from the plurality of captured images, wherein the visual odometry comprises performing structure-from-motion analysis on consecutive images to determine a trajectory of the satellite (Janschek: [0059]);
And determining a relative geographic position of the satellite by detecting geographic anchor points of a third set of one or more images from the plurality of captured images, the geographic anchor points comprising points that map to features on the ground used to track how the images change across time to estimate relative motion… (Janschek: [0035], [0054], and [0074]).
Kamel and Janschek are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of satellite control and visual odometry. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kamel to incorporate the teachings of Janschek to determine a relative geographic position by detecting geographic anchor points comprising points that map to features on the ground to track how the images change across time to estimate relative motion because it provides the benefit of determining the position of the satellite without the use of external satellite communication sources. The provides the additional benefit of reducing the number of resources needed for the satellite to estimate its orbit position, which reduces the costs.
Kamel and Janschek fail to explicitly teach that the features including microscopic features; and wherein determining the relative geographic position of the satellite further comprises performing feature clustering and consistency checks on extracted geographic anchor points of captured images, wherein outlying features are omitted to enhance orbit estimation accuracy.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sun teaches determining a relative geographic position of the satellite by detecting geographic anchor points of a third set of one or more images from the plurality of captured images, the geographic anchor points comprising points that map to features… to estimate relative motion, the features including microscopic features (Sun: [Page 3, Lines 15-17], [Page 9, Line 28], and [Page 11, Lines 10-16] Note the control points and SURF are used to estimate the position of the satellite. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, features including microscopic features includes features similar to SURF. Also, note that the geographic position of the satellite is determined for the accuracy calculation using the control points.);
And wherein determining the relative geographic position of the satellite further comprises performing feature clustering and consistency checks on extracted geographic anchor points of captured images, wherein outlying features are omitted to enhance orbit estimation accuracy (Sun: [Page 2, Lines 26-27], [Page 15, Lines 33-37], and [Page 22, Lines 13-15; Page 23, Lines 6-8] Note that eliminating the mismatched control point information is equivalent to performing clustering and consistency checks on the geographic anchor points where outlying features are omitted.).
Kamel, Janschek, and Sun are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of satellites and image analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kamel and Janschek to incorporate the teachings of Sun to detect geographic anchor points from images comprising points that map to microscopic features and perform clustering and consistency checks on the extracted geographic anchor points to omit outlying features because it provides the benefit of using satellite image detection algorithms to improve the accuracy of the orbit position detection of the satellite.
18. Regarding Claim 2, Kamel, Janschek, and Sun remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Janschek teaches estimating the orbit of the satellite comprises using a batch estimation algorithm to estimate the orbit of the satellite (Janschek: [0066], [0072], and [0123]).
19. Regarding Claim 3, Kamel, Janschek, and Sun remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Kamel teaches estimating the orbit of the satellite comprises using a sequential filter algorithm to estimate the orbit of the satellite (Kamel: [Column 4, Lines 30-35]).
20. Regarding Claim 4, Kamel, Janschek, and Sun remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Kamel teaches determining the relative geographic position comprises performing features consistency check to omit outlying image matching correspondences (Kamel: [Column 5, Lines 57-61] and [Column 7, Lines 58-63]).
21. Regarding Claim 5, Kamel, Janschek, and Sun remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Kamel teaches generating loop closure measurements comprises determining at least an orbital revisit event (Kamel: [Column 3, Lines 42-46] and [Claim 1] Note that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a loop closure determination uses the longitude, latitude, and altitude measurements over the period of time to determine the full cycle of the orbit. Returning to an original position in an orbit in inferred.).
22. Regarding Claim 6, Kamel, Janschek, and Sun remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Janschek teaches performing visual odometry comprises performing relative motion analysis on consecutives images of the first set of one or more images to determine relative motion of a satellite along a trajectory (Janschek: [0035], [0054], and [0074]).
23. Regarding Claim 7, Kamel, Janschek, and Sun remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Kamel teaches determining the relative geographic position comprises map matching the third set of one or more images with geo-registered images (Kamel: [Column 7, Lines 58-63]).
24. Regarding Claim 8, Kamel, Janschek, and Sun remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Kamel teaches map matching comprises clustering map matches on the third set of one or more images to perform consistency check and omit outlying matches (Kamel: [Column 5, Lines 57-61] and [Column 7, Lines 58-63]).
25. Regarding Claim 11, Kamel teaches a system for estimating an orbit of a satellite, the system comprising (Kamel: [Column 1, Lines 47-51]):
An onboard camera of the satellite configured to capture a plurality of images of surfaces of Earth (Kamel: [Column 7, Lines 43-47]);
And one or more processors operatively coupled to a memory storing non-transitory instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by at least one of the processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations including (Kamel: [Column 3, Lines 42-46] and [Column 4, Lines 3-9]):
Determining a relative motion of the satellite by performing visual odometry on a first set of one or more images from the plurality of captured images… (Kamel: [Column 3, Lines 42-46] and [Column 4, Lines 3-9] Note that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that relative motion is determined from longitude and latitude over a period of time.);
Determining loop closure metrics by comparing a second set of images from the plurality of captured images, wherein the loop closure measurements indicate an orbital revisit event when the satellite passes over a previously imaged geographic region (Kamel: [Column 3, Lines 42-46] and [Column 4, Lines 3-9] Note that a loop closure determination uses the longitude, latitude, and altitude measurements over the period of time to determine the full cycle of the orbit. Returning to an original position in an orbit is inferred based on determining the same longitude, latitude, and altitude measurements at different periods of time. Returning to the original position in an orbit is equivalent to an orbital revisit event.);
Determining a relative geographic position of the satellite by detecting geographic anchor points of a third set of one or more images from the plurality of captured images, wherein detecting the geographic anchor points comprises matching features extracted from the captured images with features of geo-registered reference images stored onboard… (Kamel: [Column 5, Lines 57-61], [Column 7, Lines 58-63], and [Column 8, Lines 40-47] Note that the use of landmark identification over a period of time is equivalent to geographic anchor points in order to determine a relative geographic position of the satellite. The use of landmark identification uses the images to estimate relative motion/position.);
And estimating the orbit of the satellite based at least on one or more of a trajectory of the relative motion, loop closure metrics, and the relative geographic position of the satellite (Kamel: [Column 7, Lines 50-54] and [Column 8, Lines 40-41]).
Kamel fails to explicitly teach wherein the visual odometry comprises performing structure-from-motion analysis on consecutive images to determine a trajectory of the satellite; and the geographic anchor points comprising points that map to features on the ground used to track how the images change across time to estimate relative motion.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Janschek teaches determining relative motion of the satellite by performing visual odometry on a first set of one or more images captured by the onboard camera wherein the visual odometry comprises performing structure-from-motion analysis on consecutive images to determine a trajectory of the satellite (Janschek: [0059]);
And determining a relative geographic position of the satellite by detecting geographic anchor points of a third set of one or more images from the plurality of captured images, the geographic anchor points comprising points that map to features on the ground used to track how the images change across time to estimate relative motion… (Janschek: [0035], [0054], and [0074]).
Kamel and Janschek are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of satellite control and visual odometry. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kamel to incorporate the teachings of Janschek to determine a relative geographic position by detecting geographic anchor points comprising points that map to features on the ground to track how the images change across time to estimate relative motion because it provides the benefit of determining the position of the satellite without the use of external satellite communication sources. The provides the additional benefit of reducing the number of resources needed for the satellite to estimate its orbit position, which reduces the costs.
Kamel and Janschek fail to explicitly teach that the features including microscopic features.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sun teaches determining a relative geographic position of the satellite by detecting geographic anchor points of a third set of one or more images from the plurality of captured images… the geographic anchor points comprising points that map to features… to estimate relative motion, the features including microscopic features (Sun: [Page 3, Lines 15-17], [Page 9, Line 28], and [Page 11, Lines 10-16] Note the control points and SURF are used to estimate the position of the satellite. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, features including microscopic features includes features similar to SURF. Also, note that the geographic position of the satellite is determined for the accuracy calculation using the control points.);
Kamel, Janschek, and Sun are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of satellites and visual odometry. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kamel and Janschek to incorporate the teachings of Sun to detect geographic anchor points from images comprising points that map to microscopic features and perform clustering and consistency checks on the extracted geographic anchor points to omit outlying features because it provides the benefit of using satellite image detection algorithms to improve the accuracy of the orbit position detection of the satellite.
26. Regarding Claim 13, Kamel, Janschek, and Sun remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further, Kamel teaches the map matching module is further configured to perform a consistency check of image matches by clustering and comparing image matches of images in the third set of one or more images (Kamel: [Column 5, Lines 57-61] and [Column 7, Lines 58-63]).
27. Regarding Claim 14, Kamel, Janschek, and Sun remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further, Kamel teaches geographic features comprise one or more of coastal features, water-body features, man-made features, and terrestrial features (Kamel: [Column 7, Lines 43-47).
28. Regarding Claim 15, Kamel, Janschek, and Sun remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further, Kamel teaches the loop closure metrics comprises one or more of a loop closure event and relative motion data of images used to detect the loop closure event (Kamel: [Column 3, Lines 42-46] and [Claim 1] Note that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that relative motion is determined from longitude and latitude over a period of time. Also, note that a loop closure determination uses the longitude, latitude, and altitude measurements over the period of time to determine the full cycle of the orbit. Returning to an original position in an orbit is inferred.).
29. Regarding Claim 16, Kamel, Janschek, and Sun remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further, Janschek teaches the visual odometry module is configured to determine relative motion using consecutives images of the first set of one or more images to determine at least a portion of a trajectory of the satellite (Janschek: [0035], [0054], and [0074]).
30. Regarding Claim 17, Kamel, Janschek, and Sun remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further, Kamel teaches the map matching module is configured to map match features on the third set of one or more images with features on previously geo-registered images stored on an onboard database of the satellite (Kamel: [Column 7, Lines 58-63]).
31. Claims 9-10, 12, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamel (US 4688092 A), in view of Janschek (DE 10127399 A1), in view of Sun (CN 104574347 A), and in further view of Laine (US 20180313651 A1).
32. Regarding Claim 9, Kamel, Janschek, and Sun remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Kamel does not explicitly teach the first, second, and third sets of images are identical sets of images. However, Kamel is not limited to a particular sequence of capturing images. The first, second, and third sets of images are used to determine relative motion, loop closure, and the relative geographic position to estimate the orbit of the satellite. Therefore, since Kamel is not limited to a particular sequence for determining landmarks in the captured images, the landmarks can be determined at the same time, which would read on identical sets of images, or the landmarks can be taken at different times, which would read on different sets of images (Kamel: [Column 7, Lines 64-68] Note that, therefore, the sets of images can be taken as one set [identical sets] or at different times.).
Also, in the same field of endeavor, Laine teaches the first, second, and third sets of images are identical sets of images (Laine: [0103] Note that Laine is not limited to a particular sequence to determine relative motion, loop closure, and relative geographic position. Therefore, since Laine is not limited to a particular order of functions for capturing and comparing images, the sets of images can be taken at the same time [identical sets of images], or at different times.).
Kamel, Janschek, Sun, and Laine are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of satellite control and visual odometry. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kamel, Janschek, and Sun to incorporate the teachings of Laine to have identical sets of images because it provides the benefit of determining relative motion, loop closure, and relative geographic position to estimate an orbit of a satellite.
33. Regarding Claim 10, Kamel, Janschek, and Sun remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Kamel does not explicitly teach the first, second, and third sets of images are different sets of images. However, Kamel is not limited to a particular sequence of capturing images. The first, second, and third sets of images are used to determine relative motion, loop closure, and the relative geographic position to estimate the orbit of the satellite. Therefore, since Kamel is not limited to a particular sequence for determining landmarks in the captured images, the landmarks can be determined at the same time, which would read on identical sets of images, or the landmarks can be taken at different times, which would read on different sets of images (Kamel: [Column 7, Lines 64-68] Note that, therefore, the sets of images can be taken as one set [identical sets] or at different times.).
Also, in the same field of endeavor, Laine teaches the first, second, and third sets of images are different sets of images (Laine: [0103] Note that Laine is not limited to a particular sequence to determine relative motion, loop closure, and relative geographic position. Therefore, since Laine is not limited to a particular order of functions for capturing and comparing images, the sets of images can be taken at the same time, or at different times [different sets of images].).
Kamel, Janschek, Sun, and Laine are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of satellite control and visual odometry. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kamel, Janschek, and Sun to incorporate the teachings of Laine to have different sets of images because it provides the benefit of determining relative motion, loop closure, or relative geographic position to estimate an orbit of a satellite.
34. Regarding Claim 12, Kamel, Janschek, and Sun remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further, Janschek teaches the orbit estimating module is configured to use a batch estimation algorithm to estimate the orbit of the satellite (Janschek: [0066], [0072], and [0123]).
Kamel and Janschek fail to explicitly teach wherein the one or more processing circuits comprises at least one of micro-processing circuits, microcontrollers, digital signal processing circuits (DSPs), field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), programmable logic devices (PLDs), state machines, gated logic, and discrete hardware circuits.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Laine teaches the orbit estimating module is configured to use a batch estimation algorithm to estimate the orbit of the satellite (Laine: [0005], [0067], and [0068]),
And wherein the one or more processing circuits comprises at least one of micro-processing circuits, microcontrollers, digital signal processing circuits (DSPs), field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), programmable logic devices (PLDs), state machines, gated logic, and discrete hardware circuits (Laine: [0103]).
Kamel, Janschek, Sun, and Laine are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of satellite control and visual odometry. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kamel, Janschek, and Sun to incorporate the teachings of Laine to use a batch algorithm because it provides the benefit of using a simultaneous and localization algorithm and visual odometry to estimate the orbit of the satellite.
35. Regarding Claim 18, Kamel, Janschek, and Sun remains as applied above in Claim 11.
Kamel does not explicitly teach the first, second, and third sets of images are different sets of images. However, Kamel is not limited to a particular sequence of capturing images. The first, second, and third sets of images are used to determine relative motion, loop closure, and the relative geographic position to estimate the orbit of the satellite. Therefore, since Kamel is not limited to a particular sequence for determining landmarks in the captured images, the landmarks can be determined at the same time, which would read on identical sets of images, or the landmarks can be taken at different times, which would read on different sets of images (Kamel: [Column 7, Lines 64-68] Note that, therefore, the sets of images can be taken as one set [identical sets] or at different times.).
Also, in the same field of endeavor, Laine teaches the first, second, and third sets of images are different sets of images (Laine: [0103] Note that Laine is not limited to a particular sequence to determine relative motion, loop closure, and relative geographic position. Therefore, since Laine is not limited to a particular order of functions for capturing and comparing images, the sets of images can be taken at the same time, or at different times [different sets of images].).
Kamel, Janschek, Sun, and Laine are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of satellite control and visual odometry. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kamel, Janschek, and Sun to incorporate the teachings of Laine to have different sets of images because it provides the benefit of determining relative motion, loop closure, or relative geographic position to estimate an orbit of a satellite.
36. Regarding Claim 19, Kamel teaches a method for generating a 3D reconstruction map, the method comprising: obtaining… relative motion data from a plurality of images captured from an onboard camera of a satellite… (Kamel: [Column 3, Lines 42-46] and [Column 4, Lines 3-9] Note that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that relative motion is determined from longitude and latitude over a period of time.);
Map matching features of the plurality of captured images… with features of geo-registered images stored onboard the satellite to determine one or more geographic anchor points… (Kamel: [Column 5, Lines 57-61], [Column 7, Lines 58-63], and [Column 8, Lines 40-47] Note that the use of landmark identification over a period of time is equivalent to geographic anchor points in order to determine a relative geographic position of the satellite. The use of landmark identification uses the images to estimate relative motion/position.);
Detecting a loop closure event based on features matching of two sets of images indicating that the satellite passed over a generally same geographic location and generating relative motion data for each of the two set of images, wherein the loop closure measurements indicate an orbital revisit event when the satellite passes over a previously imaged geographic region (Kamel: [Column 3, Lines 42-46] and [Column 4, Lines 3-9] Note that a loop closure determination uses the longitude, latitude, and altitude measurements over the period of time to determine the full cycle of the orbit. Returning to an original position in an orbit is inferred based on determining the same longitude, latitude, and altitude measurements at different periods of time. Returning to the original position in an orbit is equivalent to an orbital revisit event.);
And generating the 3D… map based at least on the relative motion data from the SLAM algorithm, one or more geographic anchor points, and relative motion data of the two sets of images of the loop closure event (Kamel: [Column 7, Lines 50-54]).
Kamel fails to explicitly teach using a… algorithm… wherein the… algorithm comprises performing structure-from-motion analysis on consecutive images to determine a trajectory of the satellite; and the geographic anchor points comprising points that map to features on the ground used to track how the images change across time to estimate relative motion.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Janschek teaches using a… algorithm… wherein the… algorithm comprises performing structure-from-motion analysis on consecutive images to determine a trajectory of the satellite (Janschek: [0059]);
And map matching features of the plurality of captured images… with features of geo-registered images stored onboard the satellite to determine one or more geographic anchor points, the geographic anchor points comprising points that map to features on the ground used to track how the images change across time to estimate relative motion (Janschek: [0035], [0054], and [0074]).
Kamel and Janschek are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of satellite control and visual odometry. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kamel to incorporate the teachings of Janschek to determine a relative geographic position by detecting geographic anchor points comprising points that map to features on the ground to track how the images change across time to estimate relative motion because it provides the benefit of determining the position of the satellite without the use of external satellite communication sources. The provides the additional benefit of reducing the number of resources needed for the satellite to estimate its orbit position, which reduces the costs.
Kamel and Janschek fails to explicitly teach the features including microscopic features.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sun teaches map matching features of the plurality of captured images, the features including microscopic features, with features of geo-registered images… to determine one or more geographic anchor points… (Sun: [Page 3, Lines 15-17], [Page 9, Line 28], and [Page 11, Lines 10-16] Note the control points and SURF are used to estimate the position of the satellite. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, features including microscopic features includes features similar to SURF. Also, note that the geographic position of the satellite is determined for the accuracy calculation using the control points.).
Kamel, Janschek, and Sun are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of satellites and image analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kamel and Janschek to incorporate the teachings of Sun to detect geographic anchor points from images comprising points that map to microscopic features and perform clustering and consistency checks on the extracted geographic anchor points to omit outlying features because it provides the benefit of using satellite image detection algorithms to improve the accuracy of the orbit position detection of the satellite.
Kamel, Janschek, and Sun fails to explicitly teach obtaining, using a simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) algorithm… and generating the 3D reconstruction map based at least on the relative motion data from the SLAM algorithm, one or more geographic anchor points, and relative motion data of the two sets of images of the loop closure event.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Laine teaches obtaining, using a simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) algorithm, relative motion data from a plurality of images captured from an onboard camera of a satellite (Laine: [0067] and [0068]);
And generating the 3D reconstruction map based at least on the relative motion data from the SLAM algorithm, one or more geographic anchor points, and relative motion data of the two sets of images of the loop closure event (Laine: [0009], [0032], and [0065]).
Kamel, Janschek, Sun, and Laine are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of satellite control and visual odometry. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kamel, Janschek, and Sun to incorporate the teachings of Laine to determine a map using visual odometry and simultaneous localization and mapping because it provides the benefit of determining the satellite’s surroundings and the orbit of the satellite.
37. Regarding Claim 20, Kamel, Janschek, Sun, and Laine remain as applied above in Claim 19, and further, Kamel teaches map matching features further comprises performing consistency check of special features of the plurality of images (Kamel: [Column 5, Lines 57-61] and [Column 7, Lines 58-63]).
Response to Arguments
38. Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 8-9, filed 8/29/2025, with respect to the 112(f) interpretation and 112(a)/(b) rejections to Claim 11 have been fully considered. The 112(a) and 112(b) rejections of Claim 11 have been withdrawn. However, the 112(f) interpretation and 112(a)/(b) rejections to Claims 12-13 and 16-17 remain because the module language has not been removed.
39. Applicant's arguments with respect to the U.S.C 103 rejections filed 8/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
40. First, the Applicant has alleged "Claim 1 has been amended to more precisely recite the steps of the image-based orbit estimation process" and "the cited art, whether alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest these limitations." The Examiner disagrees.
Janschek has been applied to teach determining the relative motion of the satellite by performing visual odometry on a set of images. The visual odometry performed in Janschek is equivalent to structure from motion analysis on consecutive images to determine a trajectory of the satellite because overlapping successive images determine the path of the satellite. Janschek detects features that overlap from image to image to determine a path. This is equivalent to structure from motion analysis.
Further, the orbital position coordinates (latitude, longitude, and altitude) of Kamel is equivalent to the generation of the loop closure measurements by comparing images. A loop closure determination uses the longitude, latitude, and altitude measurements over the period of time to determine the full cycle of the orbit. Returning to an original position in an orbit is inferred based on determining the same longitude, latitude, and altitude measurements at different periods of time. Returning to the original position in an orbit is equivalent to an orbital revisit event. As a result, Kamel teaches to determine orbital revisit events.
Additionally, Kamel teaches in [Column 7, Lines 58-63] storing identifiable landmarks in its database from comparing image data coordinates. This is equivalent to matching features extracted from the captured images with features geo-registered references images stored onboard. Janschek also teaches to that geo-registered reference images may be stored onboard in at least [0013] and Claim 3.
Further, Sun teaches that the geographic anchor points are subject to clustering and consistency checks to omit outlying features to enhance orbit estimation accuracy in at least [Page 2, Lines 26-27], [Page 15, Lines 33-37], and [Page 22, Lines 13-15; Page 23, Lines 6-8]. The feature clustering and consistency checks on geographic anchor points to omit outlying features to enhance orbit estimation accuracy is equivalent Sun's elimination of mismatched control points.
41. Kamel (US 4688092 A), in view of Janschek (DE 10127399 A1), in view of Sun (CN 104574347 A), and in further view of Laine (US 20180313651 A1) teaches all aspects of the invention. The rejection is modified according to the newly amended language but still maintained with the current prior art of record.
42. Claims 1-20 remain rejected under their respective grounds and rational as cited above, and as stated in the prior office action which is incorporated herein. Also, although not specifically argued, all remaining claims remain rejected under their respective grounds, rationales, and applicable prior art for these reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action which is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
43. 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).
44. 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 MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: 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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663