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 .
Drawings
The drawings that were filed on 09/28/2022 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-2, 10-13, and 19 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.
Independent Claims 1, 10, and 19 each recite “applying a moving average filter to the selected one of the plurality of diagonal lines of pixels to find a location of one of the plurality of start on an x- and y- axis coordinate.” The term “start” does not correspond to any element previously introduced in the claims or defined in the specification as a term of art. It is unclear whether “start” is intended to refer to “stars” (as introduced in each claim’s recitation of “a plurality of stars”). A person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine with reasonable certainty the metes and bounds of the claims.
Claims 2 and 11 recites “extracting a subset of pixels from each horizontal row of pixels in order to line the extract subset of pixels with column.” The term “column” lacks antecedent basis in parent Claim 1 or Claim 10 rendering the scope of this limitation indeterminate. It is unclear whether the limitation requires alignment with a single column, multiple columns, or a previously introduced column element. The Examiner interprets “in order to line the extracted subset of pixels with column” as “in order to line the extracted subset of pixels into columns,” consistent with the specification at [0028].
Claims 11, 12, and 13 recite “The computer-implemented method of..” Claims 14-18 recite “The method of claim…”. However, the parent Claim 10 is directed to “A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a computer program.” The preamble of each dependent claim identifies a “method” or “computer-implemented method”, a different statutory category (process) than the computer readable medium (manufacture) recited in Claim 10. This creates ambiguity as to whether Claims 11-18 are directed to a method or to a non-transitory computer readable medium and whether they properly include all the limitations of Claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis et al. (US 8218013 B1), herein after will be referred to as Ellis, in view of Lane et al. (US 10180327 B1), herein after will be referred to as Lane, and in further view of Silver et al. (US 20130161398 A1), herein after will be referred to as Silver.
Regarding Claim 1, Ellis teaches a computer-implemented method for analyzing electro-optical imagery from a telescope observing…(An electro-optical imaging system comprising a telescope and detector array for sensing stars; Col 5 lines 42-50), the method comprising:
capturing one or more images of a plurality of stars…(A star sensor with a detector array for capturing star data; Col 3 lines 21-23);
applying a moving average filter to…find a location of one of the plurality of start on an x- and y-axis coordinate (A moving average filter is applied and a centroid calculation to determine the star location on x, y location in focal plane array coordinates; Col 8 lines 10-22, Col 10 lines 64-66); and
providing the location of the one of the plurality of stars in the one or more captured images to be cross referenced with angular coordinates and radiometric quantities in stellar catalogs (Comparing the calculated star location with a known location from a star catalog for verification; Col 7 lines 38-41, Col 5 lines 54-56).
Ellis does not explicitly teach capturing one or more images of…one or more satellites.
However, Lane discloses an image processing system for detecting and tracking stars and satellites from a telescope based focal plane array. Lane teaches a typical sight includes both a star and satellite in the same image (Col 13 lines 4-29). Lane further teaches shifting and stacking frames, a sliding window averaging technique, to detect star locations with improved sensitivity (Col 13 lines 25-29). Furthermore, Lane teaches that a star tracker includes a star catalog listing bright navigational stars and information about their locations in the sky and that the system compares images acquired against a catalog of known stars (Col 7-8 lines 63-4, Col 10 lines 7-10). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitations of capturing one or more images of a plurality of stars and the one or more satellites, moving average filter, and providing the location of the one of the plurality of stars in the one or more captured images to be cross referenced with angular coordinates and radiometric quantities in stellar catalogs because the system captures a single image that includes both a star and satellite and applies a moving average technique to shift the images before summation and cross references the acquired images against a star catalog.
Ellis and Lane are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of optical imagery of stars and space objects and address the same problem of accurately detecting and locating stars in captured imagery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the star sensor system of Ellis to incorporate the teachings of the capturing both stars and satellites and cross referencing against a star catalog based on the motivation to improve the detection sensitivity for faint objects. This modification would predictably result in a star sensor system with improved detection sensitivity and a reliable determination of position for both stars and satellites.
Ellis and Lane does not explicitly teach sequentially or randomly selecting each one of a plurality of diagonal lines of pixels in the one or more images, the plurality of diagonal lines of pixels represent…one or more images.
However, Silver discloses a method and apparatus for extracting a one-dimensional signal from a two-dimensional digital image along a projection line at any orientation, including a diagonal orientation of the pixel grid. Silver teaches that the pixel grid defines two specifical orientations diagonal to the grid axes called diagonal orientations ([0055]) and that the system sequentially selects extraction strategies depending on whether the projection line orientation corresponds to a diagonal of the pixel grid ([0017]. Silver defines specific “diagonal zones” orientations ([0055]) and teaches sequential selection of projection lines at these orientations for signal extraction ([0045-0046]). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitations because the method selects projection lines at diagonal orientations of the pixel grid ([0017]) and sequentially processes them according to the orientation ([0045-0046]).
Ellis, Lane, and Silver are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of digital image processing and they are reasonably pertinent to address the same problem of detecting and determining the spatial location of signal features within digital imagery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ellis and Lane star sensor system to incorporate the teachings of the diagonal line extractions as taught by Silver based on the motivation to achieve accurate signal extraction in different orientations including diagonals. This modification would predictably result in a satellite observation method capable of detecting star streaks at any orientation, including diagonals, with improved accuracy. Each component performs its known function without modification of its operating principle. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).)
Regarding Claim 2, Ellis, Lane, and Silver remains as applied above in claim 1. Ellis and Lane does not explicitly teach for each of the one or more captured images, extracting a subset of pixels from each horizontal row of pixels in order to line the extracted subset of pixels with column.
However, Silver teaches extracting pixels from horizontal DRAM rows in sequential order and transferring them to SRAM in a different processing order ([0187]). The 2-D DMA transfer copies “B-count rows of A-count pixels per row” with differing source and destination B-pitch values ([0193]). Silver further teaches changing the row pitch during the transfer to a value known in advanced ([0189]), with destination pitches computed to align the transferred pixels ([0206]). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitation because the 2-D DMA transfer extracts a specified number of pixels (A-count) from each of a specified number of horizontal rows (B-count rows) and realigns them by changing the destination B-pitch to differ from the source B-pitch, effectively transforming horizontal row subsets into column aligned arrays in the working memory. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Ellis and Lane to incorporate the teachings of 2-D DMA pixel extraction and row pitch adjustments based on the motivation to efficiently reorder the pixels for downstream signal extraction as taught by Silver ([0190]). This modification would predictably result in efficient extraction and column realignment of pixel subsets from horizontal image rows within the satellite observation pipeline.
Regarding Claim 3, Ellis, Lane, and Silver remains as applied above in claim 2. Ellis and Lane does not explicitly teach the extracting the subset of pixels comprising shifting the selected subset of pixels horizontally to match a known diagonal path traced by a streak representing the one of the plurality of stars.
However, Silver teaches extracting pixels along a known diagonal path by applying orientation transfer templates that change the row pitch during the transfer to follow the projection line orientation ([0189] [0199]). The destination pitches are computed from information known in advance to align the transferred pixels with the projection line ([0206]). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitation because the orientation transfer shifts the pixel starting position horizontally, row by row, to follow the diagonal projection line, the same horizontal shifting operation to match a known diagonal path. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Ellis and Lane to incorporate the teachings of the orientation pixel transfer technique shifting pixel to follow a diagonal projection line based on the motivation to achieve accurate pixel alignment along diagonal signal paths. Silver explicitly teaches that “it can be desirable to change the row pitch, during the act of transferring the pixels, from that of the digital image to a value known in advance” ([0189]) and would predictably result in a pixel extraction process that follows the diagonal path of a star streak through the image, enabling efficient downstream processing of the extracted signal.
Regarding Claim 4, Ellis, Lane, and Silver remains as applied above in claim 3. Ellis and Lane does not explicitly teach shifting a starting point of the selected subset of pixels horizontally and to the right to match the one of the plurality of diagonal lines of pixels, thereby transforming the one of the plurality of diagonal lines of pixels containing the streak within a 2 dimensional image into a set of 1 dimensional arrays of pixels containing the streak.
However, Silver teaches transforming a 2D image into a 1D signal by shifting the starting pixel position along the projection line orientation using a repeating sequence of pixel weight templates placed at relative positions ([0015]). The relative positions shift to follow the diagonal path resulting in a 1D signal array extract from the 2D image ([0061]). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitation because the extraction process shifts starting positions along a diagonal projection line and produces a 1D signal from a 2D image. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Ellis and Lane to incorporate the teachings of extracting a 1-D signal from a 2-D image along a diagonal projection line as taught by Silver based on the motivation to transform diagonal streak data into a 1-D signal that is suitable for efficient downstream processing. Silver teaches that the method achieves “desirable characteristics of the 1D signal, for example photometric accuracy, geometric accuracy, resolution, and noise reduction” ([0016]). This modification would predictably result in an efficient transformation of 2-D diagonal star streak data into 1-D arrays.
Regarding Claim 5, Ellis, Lane, and Silver remains as applied above in claim 2. Ellis and Lane does not explicitly teach after identifying one or more locations of starting pixels, performing scatter-gather direct memory access (DMA) to accomplish pixel sorting as part of data transfer into a field programmable array (FPGA).
However, Silver teaches a DMA controller that executes 2D and 3D transfers to the orientation of a projection line, where an orientation transfer template is selected and combined with the starting address and length of the projection line to generate customized DMA parameters at run time ([0020] [0191-0195] [0199-0200]). The source starting address is computed from the coordinates of a first repetition anchor pixel derived from information describing the projection line, plus a DMA offset vector stored in the transfer template ([0207]). For diagonal orientations, the source C-pitch follows the diagonal across non-contiguous DRAM rows while the destination pitches place the gather pixels into contiguous sequential working memory (SRAM 1450) reordering pixels from their scattered 2D spatial positions into a sorted 1D arrangement that follows the projection line order ([0205-0206]). Furthermore, Silver teaches that the apparatus can be implemented as a special purpose logic circuit such as an FPGA ([0227]). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitations because the source pixels along a diagonal are scattered across DRAM rows but gathered into sequential SRAM locations constitutes the scatter-gather DMA and the reordering of pixels from scattered 2D positions into a contiguous sequential arrangement following the projection line order constitutes as the pixel sorting. The system computes a source starting address from the anchor pixel coordinates and a DMA offset vector ([0207]), identifying the location of starting pixels, then uses the DMA controller to gather the scattered diagonal pixels into sorted contiguous working memory ([0205-0206]) and is implemented as an FPGA ([0227]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Ellis and Lane to incorporate the teachings of the scatter-gather DMA technique for pixel sorting within an FPGA as taught by Silver based on the motivation to achieve efficient hardware accelerated pixel sorting during data transfer, as explicitly stated by Silver ([0020]). Silver teaches that the DMA based approach enables “sequential access, overlap of fetching and processing of pixels, and ability to use address offsets with a row pitch not known in advanced” ([0190]). This modification would predictably result in an FPGA based scatter-gather DMA pipeline that sorts pixels along diagonal star streaks during the transfer, eliminating the need for separate post transfer sorting.
Regarding Claim 6, Ellis, Lane, and Silver remains as applied above in claim 5. Ellis and Lane does not explicitly teach writing, by a host processor, memory address(es) of the starting pixels and a number of the plurality of pixels to be transferred into a table, the table being stored in a database.
However, Silver teaches that microprocessor selects a transfer template from a transfer table memory in response to the orientation of a projection line and computes a customized set of transfer parameters including the starting address derived from the anchor pixel coordinates and the pixel count (A-count, B-count, C-count) ([0199-0200] [0213-0214]). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitations because the microprocessor computes the starting addresses and the pixel transfer counts and writes them as transfer parameters, the same operations of a host processor populating a table with pixel addresses and counts. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Ellis and Lane to incorporate the teachings of the writing transfer parameters including starting pixel addresses and pixel counts into a transfer table based on the motivation to enable orientation specific DMA configuration without runtime re-computation. Silver explicitly teaches that “the transfer template associated with the orientation of the projection line is used to generate DMA transfer parameters customized for that particular projection line” ([0200]) and that these templates are stored in “transfer table memory 1470, which holds transfer templates for a set of allowable orientations” ([0213]). This modification would predictably result in a host processor that writes pixel addresses and counts into a table, enabling the DMA controller to execute pre-configured orientation specific transfers for star streak execution.
Regarding Claim 7, Ellis, Lane, and Silver remains as applied above in claim 6. Ellis and Lane does not explicitly teach reading, by the FPGA, the table to identify segments of memory to transfer the data from the database, and performing, by the FPGA, the scatter-gather DMA to accomplish the transfer of the data.
However, Silver teaches that microprocessor selects a transfer template from the transfer table memory in response to the orientation of a projection line and commands the DMA controller to transfer data from image memory to working memory using the computed multi-dimensional transfer parameters ([0214] [0191-0195]). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitation because the DMA controller executes the multi-dimensional transfers that gather scattered diagonal pixels into working memory within an FPGA architecture. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Ellis and Lane to incorporate the teachings of the FPGA reading a transfer table to identify memory segments and perform scatter-gather DMA as taught by Silver based on the motivation to enable an automated table driver pixel transfer without the host processor intervening during the transfer. Silver explicitly teaches that “Microprocessor 1400 selects a transfer template from transfer table memory 1470 in response to the orientation of a projection line” and then “commands DMA controller 1430 to transfer data from image memory 1440 to working memory 1452” ([0214]). This modification would predictably result in an FPGA that autonomously reads transfer tables and executes scatter-gather DMA to accomplish pixel transfers for star streak extraction.
Regarding Claim 9, Ellis, Lane, and Silver remains as applied above in claim 7. Ellis and Lane does not explicitly teach arranging, by the FPGA, each of the horizontal rows of pixels to align with the one of the plurality diagonal lines of pixels as an outcome of the data transfer.
However, Silver teaches that the DMA transfer arranges pixels so that destination rows are aligned with the projection line orientation as an outcome of the data transfer itself. The destination B-pitch and C-pitch are processed from information known in advanced ([0206]) such that the transferred pixels emerge aligned with the diagonal projection line ([0199-0207]) by the FPGA ([0227]). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitation because the precomputed destination pitches cause the DMA transfer to produce pixel arrangements aligned with the diagonal projection line where the arrangement is an inherent outcome of the transfer operation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Ellis and Lane to incorporate the teachings of precomputing the destination pitches so that the DMA transfer produces pixel rows aligned with the diagonal projection line based on the motivation to eliminate the need for a separate post transfer alignment process. Silver teaches that “the destination B-pitch and C-pitch are computed entirely from information known in advanced, so that address offsets for pixels can be used without any prior knowledge of the source image row pitch or the length of the projection line” ([0206]). This modification would predictably result in an FPGA where diagonal pixel alignment is achieved as a necessitated outcome of the data transfer, reducing processing latency and hardware resources.
Regarding Claim 10, Ellis teaches capturing one or more images of a plurality of stars…(A star sensor with a detector array for capturing star data; Col 3 lines 21-23);
applying a moving average filter to…find a location of one of the plurality of start on an x- and y-axis coordinate (A moving average filter is applied and a centroid calculation to determine the star location on x, y location in focal plane array coordinates; Col 8 lines 10-22, Col 10 lines 64-66); and
providing the location of the one of the plurality of stars in the one or more captured images to be cross referenced with angular coordinates and radiometric quantities in stellar catalogs (Comparing the calculated star location with a known location from a star catalog for verification; Col 7 lines 38-41, Col 5 lines 54-56).
Ellis does not explicitly teach a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a computer program, the computer program configured to execute the following and capturing one or more images of…one or more satellites.
However, Lane discloses a computer usable tangible medium with computer readable program (Col 3 lines 52-54) for an image processing system for detecting and tracking stars and satellites from a telescope based focal plane array. Lane teaches a typical sight includes both a star and satellite in the same image (Col 13 lines 4-29). Lane further teaches shifting and stacking frames, a sliding window averaging technique, to detect star locations with improved sensitivity (Col 13 lines 25-29). Furthermore, Lane teaches that a star tracker includes a star catalog listing bright navigational stars and information about their locations in the sky and that the system compares images acquired against a catalog of known stars (Col 7-8 lines 63-4, Col 10 lines 7-10). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitations of capturing one or more images of a plurality of stars and the one or more satellites, moving average filter, and providing the location of the one of the plurality of stars in the one or more captured images to be cross referenced with angular coordinates and radiometric quantities in stellar catalogs because the system captures a single image that includes both a star and satellite and applies a moving average technique to shift the images before summation and cross references the acquired images against a star catalog.
Ellis and Lane are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of optical imagery of stars and space objects and address the same problem of accurately detecting and locating stars in captured imagery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the star sensor system of Ellis to incorporate the teachings of the capturing both stars and satellites and cross referencing against a star catalog based on the motivation to improve the detection sensitivity for faint objects. This modification would predictably result in a star sensor system with improved detection sensitivity and a reliable determination of position for both stars and satellites.
Ellis and Lane does not explicitly teach sequentially or randomly selecting each one of a plurality of diagonal lines of pixels in the one or more images, the plurality of diagonal lines of pixels represent…one or more images.
However, Silver discloses a method and apparatus for extracting a one-dimensional signal from a two-dimensional digital image along a projection line at any orientation, including a diagonal orientation of the pixel grid. Silver teaches that the pixel grid defines two specifical orientations diagonal to the grid axes called diagonal orientations ([0055]) and that the system sequentially selects extraction strategies depending on whether the projection line orientation corresponds to a diagonal of the pixel grid ([0017]. Silver defines specific “diagonal zones” orientations ([0055]) and teaches sequential selection of projection lines at these orientations for signal extraction ([0045-0046]). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitations because the method selects projection lines at diagonal orientations of the pixel grid ([0017]) and sequentially processes them according to the orientation ([0045-0046]).
Ellis, Lane, and Silver are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of digital image processing and they are reasonably pertinent to address the same problem of detecting and determining the spatial location of signal features within digital imagery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ellis and Lane star sensor system to incorporate the teachings of the diagonal line extractions as taught by Silver based on the motivation to achieve accurate signal extraction in different orientations including diagonals. This modification would predictably result in a satellite observation method capable of detecting star streaks at any orientation, including diagonals, with improved accuracy. Each component performs its known function without modification of its operating principle. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).)
Regarding Claim 11, Ellis, Lane, and Silver remain as applied above in claim 10. Ellis and Lane does not explicitly teach for each of the one or more captured images, extracting a subset of pixels from each horizontal row of pixels in order to line the extracted subset of pixels with column.
However, Silver teaches extracting pixels from horizontal DRAM rows in sequential order and transferring them to SRAM in a different processing order ([0187]). The 2-D DMA transfer copies “B-count rows of A-count pixels per row” with differing source and destination B-pitch values ([0193]). Silver further teaches changing the row pitch during the transfer to a value known in advanced ([0189]), with destination pitches computed to align the transferred pixels ([0206]). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitation because the 2-D DMA transfer extracts a specified number of pixels (A-count) from each of a specified number of horizontal rows (B-count rows) and realigns them by changing the destination B-pitch to differ from the source B-pitch, effectively transforming horizontal row subsets into column aligned arrays in the working memory. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Ellis and Lane to incorporate the teachings of 2-D DMA pixel extraction and row pitch adjustments based on the motivation to efficiently reorder the pixels for downstream signal extraction as taught by Silver ([0190]). This modification would predictably result in efficient extraction and column realignment of pixel subsets from horizontal image rows within the satellite observation pipeline.
Regarding Claim 12, Ellis, Lane, and Silver remains as applied above in claim 11. Ellis and Lane does not explicitly teach shifting the selected subset of pixels horizontally to match a known diagonal path traced by a streak representing the one of the plurality of stars.
However, Silver teaches extracting pixels along a known diagonal path by applying orientation transfer templates that change the row pitch during the transfer to follow the projection line orientation ([0189] [0199]). The destination pitches are computed from information known in advance to align the transferred pixels with the projection line ([0206]). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitation because the orientation transfer shifts the pixel starting position horizontally, row by row, to follow the diagonal projection line, the same horizontal shifting operation to match a known diagonal path. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Ellis and Lane to incorporate the teachings of the orientation pixel transfer technique shifting pixel to follow a diagonal projection line based on the motivation to achieve accurate pixel alignment along diagonal signal paths. Silver explicitly teaches that “it can be desirable to change the row pitch, during the act of transferring the pixels, from that of the digital image to a value known in advance” ([0189]) and would predictably result in a pixel extraction process that follows the diagonal path of a star streak through the image, enabling efficient downstream processing of the extracted signal.
Regarding Claim 13, Ellis, Lane, and Silver remains as applied above in claim 12. Ellis and Lane does not explicitly teach shifting a starting point of the selected subset of pixels horizontally and to the right to match the one of the plurality of diagonal lines of pixels, thereby transforming the one of the plurality of diagonal lines of pixels containing the streak within a 2 dimensional image into a set of 1 dimensional arrays of pixels containing the streak.
However, Silver teaches transforming a 2D image into a 1D signal by shifting the starting pixel position along the projection line orientation using a repeating sequence of pixel weight templates placed at relative positions ([0015]). The relative positions shift to follow the diagonal path resulting in a 1D signal array extract from the 2D image ([0061]). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitation because the extraction process shifts starting positions along a diagonal projection line and produces a 1D signal from a 2D image. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Ellis and Lane to incorporate the teachings of extracting a 1-D signal from a 2-D image along a diagonal projection line as taught by Silver based on the motivation to transform diagonal streak data into a 1-D signal that is suitable for efficient downstream processing. Silver teaches that the method achieves “desirable characteristics of the 1D signal, for example photometric accuracy, geometric accuracy, resolution, and noise reduction” ([0016]). This modification would predictably result in an efficient transformation of 2-D diagonal star streak data into 1-D arrays.
Regarding Claim 14, Ellis, Lane, and Silver remains as applied above in claim 13. Ellis and Lane does not explicitly teach after identifying one or more locations of starting pixels, performing scatter-gather direct memory access (DMA) to accomplish pixel sorting as part of data transfer into a field programmable array (FPGA).
However, Silver teaches a DMA controller that executes 2D and 3D transfers to the orientation of a projection line, where an orientation transfer template is selected and combined with the starting address and length of the projection line to generate customized DMA parameters at run time ([0020] [0191-0195] [0199-0200]). The source starting address is computed from the coordinates of a first repetition anchor pixel derived from information describing the projection line, plus a DMA offset vector stored in the transfer template ([0207]). For diagonal orientations, the source C-pitch follows the diagonal across non-contiguous DRAM rows while the destination pitches place the gather pixels into contiguous sequential working memory (SRAM 1450) reordering pixels from their scattered 2D spatial positions into a sorted 1D arrangement that follows the projection line order ([0205-0206]). Furthermore, Silver teaches that the apparatus can be implemented as a special purpose logic circuit such as an FPGA ([0227]). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitations because the source pixels along a diagonal are scattered across DRAM rows but gathered into sequential SRAM locations constitutes the scatter-gather DMA and the reordering of pixels from scattered 2D positions into a contiguous sequential arrangement following the projection line order constitutes as the pixel sorting. The system computes a source starting address from the anchor pixel coordinates and a DMA offset vector ([0207]), identifying the location of starting pixels, then uses the DMA controller to gather the scattered diagonal pixels into sorted contiguous working memory ([0205-0206]) and is implemented as an FPGA ([0227]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Ellis and Lane to incorporate the teachings of the scatter-gather DMA technique for pixel sorting within an FPGA as taught by Silver based on the motivation to achieve efficient hardware accelerated pixel sorting during data transfer, as explicitly stated by Silver ([0020]). Silver teaches that the DMA based approach enables “sequential access, overlap of fetching and processing of pixels, and ability to use address offsets with a row pitch not known in advanced” ([0190]). This modification would predictably result in an FPGA based scatter-gather DMA pipeline that sorts pixels along diagonal star streaks during the transfer, eliminating the need for separate post transfer sorting.
Regarding Claim 15, Ellis, Lane, and Silver remains as applied above in claim 14. Ellis and Lane does not explicitly teach writing, by a host processor, memory address(es) of the starting pixels and a number of the plurality of pixels to be transferred into a table, the table being stored in a database.
However, Silver teaches that microprocessor selects a transfer template from a transfer table memory in response to the orientation of a projection line and computes a customized set of transfer parameters including the starting address derived from the anchor pixel coordinates and the pixel count (A-count, B-count, C-count) ([0199-0200] [0213-0214]). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitations because the microprocessor computes the starting addresses and the pixel transfer counts and writes them as transfer parameters, the same operations of a host processor populating a table with pixel addresses and counts. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Ellis and Lane to incorporate the teachings of the writing transfer parameters including starting pixel addresses and pixel counts into a transfer table based on the motivation to enable orientation specific DMA configuration without runtime re-computation. Silver explicitly teaches that “the transfer template associated with the orientation of the projection line is used to generate DMA transfer parameters customized for that particular projection line” ([0200]) and that these templates are stored in “transfer table memory 1470, which holds transfer templates for a set of allowable orientations” ([0213]). This modification would predictably result in a host processor that writes pixel addresses and counts into a table, enabling the DMA controller to execute pre-configured orientation specific transfers for star streak execution.
Regarding Claim 16, Ellis, Lane, and Silver remains as applied above in claim 15. Ellis and Lane does not explicitly teach reading, by the FPGA, the table to identify segments of memory to transfer the data from the database, and performing, by the FPGA, the scatter-gather DMA to accomplish the transfer of the data.
However, Silver teaches that microprocessor selects a transfer template from the transfer table memory in response to the orientation of a projection line and commands the DMA controller to transfer data from image memory to working memory using the computed multi-dimensional transfer parameters ([0214] [0191-0195]). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitation because the DMA controller executes the multi-dimensional transfers that gather scattered diagonal pixels into working memory within an FPGA architecture. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Ellis and Lane to incorporate the teachings of the FPGA reading a transfer table to identify memory segments and perform scatter-gather DMA as taught by Silver based on the motivation to enable an automated table driver pixel transfer without the host processor intervening during the transfer. Silver explicitly teaches that “Microprocessor 1400 selects a transfer template from transfer table memory 1470 in response to the orientation of a projection line” and then “commands DMA controller 1430 to transfer data from image memory 1440 to working memory 1452” ([0214]). This modification would predictably result in an FPGA that autonomously reads transfer tables and executes scatter-gather DMA to accomplish pixel transfers for star streak extraction.
Regarding Claim 18, Ellis, Lane, and Silver remains as applied above in claim 16. Ellis and Lane does not explicitly teach arranging, by the FPGA, each of the horizontal rows of pixels to align with the one of the plurality diagonal lines of pixels as an outcome of the data transfer.
However, Silver teaches that the DMA transfer arranges pixels so that destination rows are aligned with the projection line orientation as an outcome of the data transfer itself. The destination B-pitch and C-pitch are processed from information known in advanced ([0206]) such that the transferred pixels emerge aligned with the diagonal projection line ([0199-0207]) by the FPGA ([0227]). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitation because the precomputed destination pitches cause the DMA transfer to produce pixel arrangements aligned with the diagonal projection line where the arrangement is an inherent outcome of the transfer operation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Ellis and Lane to incorporate the teachings of precomputing the destination pitches so that the DMA transfer produces pixel rows aligned with the diagonal projection line based on the motivation to eliminate the need for a separate post transfer alignment process. Silver teaches that “the destination B-pitch and C-pitch are computed entirely from information known in advanced, so that address offsets for pixels can be used without any prior knowledge of the source image row pitch or the length of the projection line” ([0206]). This modification would predictably result in an FPGA where diagonal pixel alignment is achieved as a necessitated outcome of the data transfer, reducing processing latency and hardware resources.
Regarding Claim 19, Ellis teaches an apparatus for analyzing electro-optical imagery from a telescope observing……(An electro-optical imaging system comprising a telescope and detector array for sensing stars; Col 5 lines 42-50), comprising: ():
capturing one or more images of a plurality of stars…(A star sensor with a detector array for capturing star data; Col 3 lines 21-23);
applying a moving average filter to…find a location of one of the plurality of start on an x- and y-axis coordinate (A moving average filter is applied and a centroid calculation to determine the star location on x, y location in focal plane array coordinates; Col 8 lines 10-22, Col 10 lines 64-66); and
providing the location of the one of the plurality of stars in the one or more captured images to be cross referenced with angular coordinates and radiometric quantities in stellar catalogs (Comparing the calculated star location with a known location from a star catalog for verification; Col 7 lines 38-41, Col 5 lines 54-56).
Ellis does not explicitly teach at least one processor; and memory comprising a set of instructions, wherein the set of instructions, with the at least one processor, is configured to execute: and capturing one or more images of…one or more satellites.
However, Lane discloses an apparatus comprising a processor and memory comprising a set of instructions configured to execute (Col 16 lines 40-45) capturing an image containing both a star and a satellite (Col 13 lines 4-29). Lane further teaches shifting and stacking frames, a sliding window averaging technique, to detect star locations with improved sensitivity (Col 13 lines 25-29). Furthermore, Lane teaches that a star tracker includes a star catalog listing bright navigational stars and information about their locations in the sky and that the system compares images acquired against a catalog of known stars (Col 7-8 lines 63-4, Col 10 lines 7-10). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitations of capturing one or more images of a plurality of stars and the one or more satellites, moving average filter, and providing the location of the one of the plurality of stars in the one or more captured images to be cross referenced with angular coordinates and radiometric quantities in stellar catalogs because the system captures a single image that includes both a star and satellite and applies a moving average technique to shift the images before summation and cross references the acquired images against a star catalog.
Ellis and Lane are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of optical imagery of stars and space objects and address the same problem of accurately detecting and locating stars in captured imagery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the star sensor system of Ellis to incorporate the teachings of the capturing both stars and satellites and cross referencing against a star catalog based on the motivation to improve the detection sensitivity for faint objects. This modification would predictably result in a star sensor system with improved detection sensitivity and a reliable determination of position for both stars and satellites.
Ellis and Lane does not explicitly teach sequentially or randomly selecting each one of a plurality of diagonal lines of pixels in the one or more images, the plurality of diagonal lines of pixels represent…one or more images.
However, Silver discloses a method and apparatus for extracting a one-dimensional signal from a two-dimensional digital image along a projection line at any orientation, including a diagonal orientation of the pixel grid. Silver teaches that the pixel grid defines two specifical orientations diagonal to the grid axes called diagonal orientations ([0055]) and that the system sequentially selects extraction strategies depending on whether the projection line orientation corresponds to a diagonal of the pixel grid ([0017]. Silver defines specific “diagonal zones” orientations ([0055]) and teaches sequential selection of projection lines at these orientations for signal extraction ([0045-0046]). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitations because the method selects projection lines at diagonal orientations of the pixel grid ([0017]) and sequentially processes them according to the orientation ([0045-0046]).
Ellis, Lane, and Silver are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of digital image processing and they are reasonably pertinent to address the same problem of detecting and determining the spatial location of signal features within digital imagery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ellis and Lane star sensor system to incorporate the teachings of the diagonal line extractions as taught by Silver based on the motivation to achieve accurate signal extraction in different orientations including diagonals. This modification would predictably result in a satellite observation method capable of detecting star streaks at any orientation, including diagonals, with improved accuracy. Each component performs its known function without modification of its operating principle. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).)
Claim(s) 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis in view of Lane, and in view of Silver, as applied in claim 7, and in further view of Zheng et al. (CN 107249101 B), herein after will be referred to as Zheng.
Regarding Claim 8, the prior art combination remains as applied above in claim 7. The prior art combination does not explicitly teach deserializing, by the FPGA, each horizontal row of pixels into a set of first-in-first-out (FIFO) channels to perform a pixel sorting operation.
However, Zheng teaches an FPGA based image processing system where pixel data from horizontal image rows is deserialized via Low Voltage Differential Signaling (LVDS) serial-to-parallel conversion, then routed into multiple asynchronous First in First out (FIFO) channels where pixel level sorting (cropping and reordering) is performed under timing control (Page 3). The timing control unit controls each asynchronous FIFO read/write operation to ensure precise pixel counts per like segment (Page 6). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitation because the FPGA internally deserializes the pixel streams through LVDS conversion and then distributes horizontal rows of pixel data into multiple asynchronous FIFO channels where pixel level sorting is performed under the timing control.
Ellis, Lane, Silver, and Zheng are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of digital image processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ellis, Lane, and Silver to incorporate the teachings of the FIFO pixel deserialization as taught by Zheng based on the motivation to enable pixel level image cropping and multi-channel synchronization within an FPGA. This modification would predictably result in efficient pixel sorting within an FPGA using well-established FIFO buffering techniques.
Regarding Claim 17, Ellis, Lane, and Silver remains as applied above in claim 16. The combination of Ellis, Lane, and Silver does not explicitly teach deserializing, by the FPGA, each horizontal row of pixels into a set of first-in-first-out (FIFO) channels to perform a pixel sorting operation.
However, Zheng teaches an FPGA based image processing system where pixel data from horizontal image rows is deserialized via Low Voltage Differential Signaling (LVDS) serial-to-parallel conversion, then routed into multiple asynchronous First in First out (FIFO) channels where pixel level sorting (cropping and reordering) is performed under timing control (Page 3). The timing control unit controls each asynchronous FIFO read/write operation to ensure precise pixel counts per like segment (Page 6). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitation because the FPGA internally deserializes the pixel streams through LVDS conversion and then distributes horizontal rows of pixel data into multiple asynchronous FIFO channels where pixel level sorting is performed under the timing control. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ellis, Lane, and Silver to incorporate the teachings of the FIFO pixel deserialization as taught by Zheng based on the motivation to enable pixel level image cropping and multi-channel synchronization within an FPGA. This modification would predictably result in efficient pixel sorting within an FPGA using well-established FIFO buffering techniques.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent, most relevant, to applicant's disclosure.
Pfeiffer (US 5960097 A)
Flurry (US 5943504 A)
Burgoyne (US 11748897 B1)
Pignol (US 20230215039 A1)
Belenkii (US 20060085130 A1)
Zhou (EP 3499452B)
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see Page 2 and 3, filed 08/11/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-30 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered.
The Applicant argues that Claim 1 “utilizes scatter-gather DMA to extract arbitrary diagonal entries from a full-frame image” and that “neither Ellis nor Lanes discloses” this. Independent Claim 1 does not recite “scatter-gather DMA.” The scatter-gather DMA limitation appears only in dependent claim 5 in “performing scatter-gather direct memory access (DMA) to accomplish pixel sorting as part of data transfer into a field programmable gate array (FPGA)”). The scope of Claim 1 is defined by its own recited limitations, not by the narrower features of its dependent claims.
Applicant’s argument with respect to diagonal line selection recited in Claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the present rejection no long relies on Ellis or Lane alone for this limitation. Silver et al. (US 20130161398 A1) is now cited and explicitly teaches “two special orientations 270 diagonal to the grid axes” ([0055]), the selection extraction strategy “depends on whether the orientation of a projection line is, or is close to, …a diagonal of the pixel grid” ([0017]), and sequential selection among allowable orientations, which “can include…orientations selected at random; or to any other suitable restriction or combination of restrictions” ([0045]). Silver’s teaching of diagonal projection line selection eliminates the gap that the Applicant identified.
The Applicant argues that “neither references disclose real-time, closed-loop feedback control” and cites paragraphs [0044]-[0046] of the specification. This argument attempts to import unclaimed limitations from the specification into Claim 1. Independent Claim 1 does not recite “real-time,” “closed-loop,” “feedback control,” “continuously monitors,” “or adaptive updating.”. The Examiner must read the claims in light of the specification but cannot import limitations from the specifications that are note recited in the claims. See MPEP § 2111.01. The recited steps of Claim 1, capturing images, selecting diagonal lines, applying a moving average filter, and providing the location for catalog cross-referencing, do not require real-time feedback, closed-loop control, or adaptive updating. These unclaimed features cannot serve as a basis for distinguishing over the prior art.
The Applicant argues that “the feature of claim 1…include integrated steps to detect and mask star signals before they interfere with the satellite’s measurement” and cites paragraphs [0044]-[0046]. This argument attempts to import unclaimed limitations. Independent Claim 1 does not recite “detect and mask star signals,” “signal confusion,” or any step related to star-satellite interference resolution. The claim recites locating stars and cross-referencing their positions with stellar catalogs. Features described in the specification but not recited in the claims cannot distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art.
The Applicant argues that the claimed method achieves “a 619-fold speedup and a 20560x data reduction factor” and processing at “approximately 21 milliseconds or about 47 fps)”. Independent Claim 1 does not recite any processing latency requirement, frame rate, speedup factor, or data reduction ratio. These are unclaimed performance characteristics described in the specification. The limitations not appearing in the claims cannot serve as a basis for patentability.
The Applicant characterizes the combined features as yielding “unexpected performance improvements”. To establish unexpected results sufficient to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness, an applicant must provide objective evidence of unexpected results that commensurate in scope with the claims, compared against the closest prior art, and supported by factual data. See MPEP § 716.02.
The Applicant argues that Ellis’s mechanical scanning mirror generates a fixed star streak confined to the east/west direction, and that Ellis therefore cannot teach selecting diagonal lines of pixels. Applicant further argues that “Ellis must teach the use of software-based scatter-gather DMA” and Ellis’s method is “inherently confined to the east/west direction” and “imposes strict alignment requirements” have been considered but are moot because the present rejection no long relies on Ellis or Lane alone for this limitation.
The Applicant argues that Ellis’s 1x3 median filter and 1x123 average filter are “not the same as applying a moving average filter” and that Ellis’s centroid calculation is “not the same as applying a moving average filter”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ellis explicitly teaches the “moving average” to describe its filter. Specifically, “The present invention may accomplish the low-pass-filter by applying a moving average window. The width of the window may be selected to maximize the SNR of the filtered data.” (Col 8 lines 19-22) and “1 x 123 along-scan average-filtering using a moving average-filtering (Col 8 lines 13-16). Ellis does not merely apply a “1x123 average filter” as Applicant characterizes. Ellis explicitly describes this operation as a “moving average” filter, the exact term recited in Claim 1. Applicant’s characterization of Ellis as using only “two filtering techniques, one that is designating an array of 1 row by 3 columns of pixels and another one that is designating 1 row by 123 columns of pixels” omits Ellis’s own express characterization of the 1x123 filter as “moving average” filter.
The Applicant argues that the specification discloses “a cross-correlation template that is optimally sized based on its known length to maximize the detection sensitivity” and that this is “a point of distinction versus the 1x3 and 1x123 pixel filters of Ellis”. Claim 1 recites “applying a moving average filter,” not “applying a cross-correlation template.” The Examiner cannot import the specification’s cross-correlation teaching as a claim limitation. See MPEP § 2111.01. Ellis teaches “applying a moving average window” (Col 8 lines 13-22) and computes the centroid to determine the star’s x, y location in focal plan coordinates (Col 10-11 lines 64-5).
The Applicant argues that “the Office Action conceded that Ellis does not explicitly teach ‘applying a moving average filter’”. The Examiner notes that the Office Action’s acknowledgement was that Ellis does not explicitly teach applying the moving average filter “to the selected one of the plurality of diagonal lines of pixels” and is applied to the moving average filter along horizontal scan lines.
The Applicant argues that Lane’s frame stacking does not teach a moving average filter have been considered but are moot because the present rejection no long relies on Lane to cure a deficiency in Ellis’s teaching of a moving average filter. Accordingly, the claims remain rejected based on a new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD ANDREW IZON DIZON whose telephone number is (571)272-4834. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
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.
/EDWARD ANDREW IZON DIZON/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights