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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
2. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
3. Claims 1, 12-13, and 16-17 are currently amended.
4. The 112(a) and 112(b) rejections to Claims 12-13 and 16-17 have been overcome.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
7. 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.
8. 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; already of record), and in further view of Sun (CN 104574347 A; already of record).
9. 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 determining the satellite's orbit by determining altitude, longitude, and latitude is equivalent to determining the relative motion of the satellite. The orbital position (altitude, longitude, and latitude) being determined by the imager by star and landmark measurements is equivalent to performing visual odometry of a set of captured images.);
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 determining the satellite's orbit by determining altitude, longitude, and latitude is equivalent to generating loop closure measurements. The orbital position (altitude, longitude, and latitude) being determined by the imager by star and landmark measurements is equivalent to comparing a set of images. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a loop closure may occur in Kamel when the orbital parameters are determined to be the same at different time periods.);
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 comparing image data coordinates with landmark area coordinates (at a known geographic location) stored in its database is equivalent to determining a relative geographic position of the satellite by detecting points in a set of images. Also, storing the data from a small area onto the disk is equivalent to storing geo-registered images onboard the satellite.);
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 accurately determining the position of the satellite without the use of external satellite communication sources as explicitly explained in [0019] and [0036] of Janschek. The landmark identification uses image movement algorithms to improve the precise position measurement of the satellite.
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 while maintaining high precision and extracting accurate control point information as explicitly explained in [Page 14, Lines 20-23] and [Page 17, Lines 15-17] of Sun.
10. 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]).
11. 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]).
12. 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]).
13. 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 determining the satellite's orbit by determining altitude, longitude, and latitude is equivalent to generating loop closure measurements. The orbital position (altitude, longitude, and latitude) being determined by the imager by star and landmark measurements is equivalent to comparing a set of images. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a loop closure may occur in Kamel when the orbital parameters are determined to be the same at different time periods.).
14. 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]).
15. 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]).
16. 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]).
17. 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 determining the satellite's orbit by determining altitude, longitude, and latitude is equivalent to determining the relative motion of the satellite. The orbital position (altitude, longitude, and latitude) being determined by the imager by star and landmark measurements is equivalent to performing visual odometry of a set of captured images.);
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 determining the satellite's orbit by determining altitude, longitude, and latitude is equivalent to generating loop closure measurements. The orbital position (altitude, longitude, and latitude) being determined by the imager by star and landmark measurements is equivalent to comparing a set of images. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a loop closure may occur in Kamel when the orbital parameters are determined to be the same at different time periods.);
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 comparing image data coordinates with landmark area coordinates (at a known geographic location) stored in its database is equivalent to determining a relative geographic position of the satellite by detecting points in a set of images. Also, storing the data from a small area onto the disk is equivalent to storing geo-registered images onboard the satellite.);
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 accurately determining the position of the satellite without the use of external satellite communication sources as explicitly explained in [0019] and [0036] of Janschek. The landmark identification uses image movement algorithms to improve the precise position measurement of the satellite.
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 while maintaining high precision and extracting accurate control point information as explicitly explained in [Page 14, Lines 20-23] and [Page 17, Lines 15-17] of Sun.
18. Regarding Claim 13, Kamel, Janschek, and Sun remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further, Kamel teaches the determining the relative geographic position further comprises performing 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]).
19. 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).
20. 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 determining the satellite's orbit by determining altitude, longitude, and latitude is equivalent to generating loop closure measurements. The orbital position (altitude, longitude, and latitude) being determined by the imager by star and landmark measurements is equivalent to comparing a set of images. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a loop closure may occur in Kamel when the orbital parameters are determined to be the same at different time periods.).
21. Regarding Claim 16, Kamel, Janschek, and Sun remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further, Janschek teaches determining relative motion comprises determining relative motion using consecutive 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]).
22. Regarding Claim 17, Kamel, Janschek, and Sun remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further, Kamel teaches determining the relative geographic position comprises map matching 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]).
23. 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; already of record), in view of Sun (CN 104574347 A; already of record), and in further view of Laine (US 20180313651 A1).
24. 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 improving the matching terrain imagery to calculate locations more precisely as explicitly explained in [0054] of Laine.
25. 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 improving the matching terrain imagery to calculate locations more precisely as explicitly explained in [0054] of Laine.
26. Regarding Claim 12, Kamel, Janschek, and Sun remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further, Janschek teaches the operations further comprise using 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 processors comprise 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 operations further comprise using a batch estimation algorithm to estimate the orbit of the satellite (Laine: [0005], [0067], and [0068]),
And wherein the one or more processors comprise 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 improving the matching terrain imagery to calculate locations more precisely as explicitly explained in [0054] of Laine. Navigation aids like a simultaneous and localization mapping algorithm are used to estimate the precise location of the satellite in orbit.
27. 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 improving the matching terrain imagery to calculate locations more precisely as explicitly explained in [0054] of Laine.
28. 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 determining the satellite's orbit by determining altitude, longitude, and latitude is equivalent to determining the relative motion of the satellite. The orbital position (altitude, longitude, and latitude) being determined by the imager by star and landmark measurements is equivalent to performing visual odometry of a set of captured images.);
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 comparing image data coordinates with landmark area coordinates (at a known geographic location) stored in its database is equivalent to determining a relative geographic position of the satellite by detecting points in a set of images. Also, storing the data from a small area onto the disk is equivalent to storing geo-registered images onboard the satellite.);
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 determining the satellite's orbit by determining altitude, longitude, and latitude is equivalent to generating loop closure measurements. The orbital position (altitude, longitude, and latitude) being determined by the imager by star and landmark measurements is equivalent to comparing a set of images. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a loop closure may occur in Kamel when the orbital parameters are determined to be the same at different time periods.);
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 accurately determining the position of the satellite without the use of external satellite communication sources as explicitly explained in [0019] and [0036] of Janschek. The landmark identification uses image movement algorithms to improve the precise position measurement of the satellite.
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 while maintaining high precision and extracting accurate control point information as explicitly explained in [Page 14, Lines 20-23] and [Page 17, Lines 15-17] of Sun.
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 improving the matching terrain imagery to calculate locations more precisely as explicitly explained in [0054] of Laine. Navigation aids like a simultaneous and localization mapping algorithm are used to estimate the precise location of the satellite in orbit.
29. 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
30. Applicant's arguments filed 4/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
31. First, the Applicant has alleged "the cited references do not teach or suggest the claimed integrated orbit estimation framework." The Examiner disagrees.
It appears that the Applicant is arguing the references individually. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As was specifically stated in the Final Office Action mailed 11/6/2025, Kamel was used to disclose the visual odometry of images, loop closure measurements to identify orbital revisit events, and map matching using geo-registered reference images stored onboard including feature extraction. Janschek was used to teach visual odometry using structure-from-motion analysis of consecutive images and Sun was used to teach map matching using geo-registered images including clustering and outlier rejection. Thus, Kamel still teaches the features for which it was cited.
Additionally, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, Janschek accurately determines the position of the satellite without the use of external satellite communication sources as explicitly explained in at least [0019] and [0036]. The landmark identification uses image movement algorithms to improve the precise position measurement of the satellite. The explicit forms of improvement explained in Janschek for determining the orbital position by using visual odometry are the strongest form of motivation. Further, Sun uses satellite image detection algorithms while maintaining high precision and extracting accurate control point information as explicitly explained in [Page 14, Lines 20-23] and [Page 17, Lines 15-17]. These algorithms improve the position measurements of the satellite when comparing geographic anchor points. Again, these explicit forms of improvement explained in Sun for determining the geographic satellite position in the orbit are the strongest form of motivation.
32. Second, the Applicant has alleged "the references do not teach or suggest using loop closure to identify orbital revisit events." The Examiner disagrees.
Determining the satellite's orbit by determining altitude, longitude, and latitude in Kamel's [Column 3, Lines 42-46] and [Column 4, Lines 3-9] is equivalent to generating loop closure measurements. These loop closure measurements are broadly interpreted as orbital parameters including altitude, longitude, and latitude. The orbital position (altitude, longitude, and latitude) being determined by the imager using star and landmark measurements is equivalent to comparing a set of images. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a loop closure may occur in Kamel when the orbital parameters are determined to be the same at different time periods.
Kamel's loop closure measurements are derived by images because the orbital parameters are determined based on the imager. The images taken in Kamel are stored in a database for subsequent landmark identification. This indicates that Kamel uses the images to determine loop closure because the satellite will pass over the previously imaged geographic region and can make the determination of the geographic position by comparing the current and previous images. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, loop closure is equivalent to passing over the known geographic landmarks multiple times.
33. Third, the Applicant has alleged "the references fail to teach the claimed onboard geo-registered map matching." The Examiner disagrees.
Kamel teaches in at least [Column 7, Lines 58-63] that the PM 63 detects the images and stores the small area surrounding the landmark for subsequent landmark identification. This is equivalent to storing geo-registered images onboard the satellite. Comparing image data coordinates with landmark area coordinates (at a known geographic location) stored in its database is equivalent to determining a relative geographic position of the satellite by performing feature matching against the geo-referenced data.
Additionally, Janschek teaches in at least [0036] that memory is required for the onboard landmark database. This is equivalent to storing the geo-registered imaged onboard the satellite. Further, Janschek also performs feature matching against the onboard geo-referenced data to determine geographic anchor points in [0036] because the landmarks can be tracked at high speed during the passage of the landmarks through the field of the imager.
34. Fourth, the Applicant has alleged "the references do no teach the claimed clustering and consistency checking integrated with orbit estimation." The Examiner disagrees.
Both Kamel and Sun use images to determine orbital position of the satellite. Sun improves on Kamel because it uses the feature clustering and consistency checks on extracted geographic anchor points. Eliminating the mismatched control point information is equivalent to performing clustering and consistency checks on the geographic anchor points where outlying features are omitted. As currently claimed, there is nothing that further defines or clarifies what feature clustering and consistency checks are. As a result, feature clustering is broadly interpreted as matching control points information and consistency checks are broadly interpreted as eliminating the mismatched control points. In order to overcome Sun, the Applicant may further clarify feature clustering and consistency checks.
Sun uses satellite image detection algorithms while maintaining high precision and extracting accurate control point information as explicitly explained in [Page 14, Lines 20-23] and [Page 17, Lines 15-17]. These algorithms improve the position measurements of the satellite when comparing geographic anchor points. This explicit form of improvement explained in Sun for determining the geographic satellite position in the orbit is the strongest form of motivation.
35. Fifth, the Applicant has alleged that there is "no motivation to combine the references in the claimed manner." The Examiner disagrees.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, Janschek accurately determines the position of the satellite without the use of external satellite communication sources as explicitly explained in at least [0019] and [0036]. The landmark identification uses image movement algorithms to improve the precise position measurement of the satellite. The explicit forms of improvement explained in Janschek for determining the orbital position by using visual odometry are the strongest form of motivation. Further, Sun uses satellite image detection algorithms while maintaining high precision and extracting accurate control point information as explicitly explained in [Page 14, Lines 20-23] and [Page 17, Lines 15-17]. These algorithms improve the position measurements of the satellite when comparing geographic anchor points. Again, these explicit forms of improvement explained in Sun for determining the geographic satellite position in the orbit are the strongest form of motivation.
36. Sixth, the Applicant has alleged "the claimed combination produces a technical improvement not suggest by the prior art." The Examiner disagrees.
Janschek accurately determines the position of the satellite without the use of external satellite communication sources as explicitly explained in at least [0019] and [0036] and is an improvement from Kamel. The landmark identification uses image movement algorithms to improve the precise position measurement of the satellite. Further, Sun uses satellite image detection algorithms while maintaining high precision and extracting accurate control point information as explicitly explained in [Page 14, Lines 20-23] and [Page 17, Lines 15-17]. These algorithms improve the position measurements of the satellite when comparing geographic anchor points. Again, these explicit forms of improvement explained in Sun for determining the geographic satellite position in the orbit are the strongest form of motivation.
Additionally, the Examiner would like to point out that the technical improvement of the combination does not have to be the exact same improvement as the invention. However, Janschek explains in [0019] and [0036] that the reliance on external communication is reduces and improves accuracy. This explicit teaching in Janschek is also the technical improvement of the invention provided by the Applicant. In addition, Sun also explains that accuracy is improved in [Page 14, Lines 20-23] and [Page 17, Lines 15-17], which is the also exact technical improvement of the invention. Therefore, the claimed combination explicitly provides the exact technical improvements.
37. Kamel (US 4688092 A), in view of Janschek (DE 10127399 A1; already of record), in view of Sun (CN 104574347 A; already of record), 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.
38. 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
39. 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
Prosecution Insights