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
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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/27/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Amended claim 1 recites at lines 11-14 “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine a size of the extraction range based on or a parameter correlated with a temperature of the image sensor.”. Due to the recital of at least one of and also or only one is required to be met and the specification/drawings does not describe or disclose determine a size of the extraction range only or alone based on a parameter correlated with a temperature of the image sensor as claimed. Amendments/clarification are required. Claims 2-4, 7-9 and 12-14 depends directly or indirectly on claim 1, therefore they are rejected.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Amended claim 10 recites at lines 10-12 “wherein the determining includes determining a size of the extraction range based on or a parameter correlated with a temperature of the image sensor.”. Due to the recital of at least one of and also or only one is required to be met and the specification/drawings does not describe or disclose determine a size of the extraction range only or alone based on a parameter correlated with a temperature of the image sensor as claimed. Amendments/clarification are required.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Amended claim 11 recites at lines 10-12 “wherein the determining includes determining a size of the extraction range based on or a parameter correlated with a temperature of the image sensor.”. Due to the recital of at least one of and also or only one is required to be met and the specification/drawings does not describe or disclose determine a size of the extraction range only or alone based on a parameter correlated with a temperature of the image sensor as claimed. Amendments/clarification are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vilaire et al. (US5229594) hereafter Vilaire.
Regarding claim 1, Vilaire discloses a star tracker (figs 1-3 shows a star tracker) comprising:
an image sensor configured to capture an image of a star and output the image (fig 1 element 1 “an astronomical viewfinder”, col 4 lines 25-29 and col 5 lines 26-29, shows and discloses an image sensor configured to capture an image of a star and output the image”, examiner notes that the specifics of an image sensor are not required by the current claim);
and at least one processor configured (fig 1 microprocessor 13) to:
search out, from a plurality of pixels constituting the image, a peak pixel having a luminance value higher than luminance values of neighboring pixels neighboring the peak pixel (col 4 lines 25-35 discloses “to provide that the image of a predetermined star of the chosen star track, denoted star A, is formed on the detection matrix, this image being slightly defocused so as to illuminate a plurality of pixels. Thereafter, a what is called search stage allows the localization of the pixel (or alternatively a square group of 4 or 9 pixels) having the maximum level illuminated by the star A in a search window which forms a sub-assembly of the detection matrix (i.e a localization of peak pixel (i.e the pixel) having a luminance value higher (i.e maximum illumination level or value) than the other illuminated plurality of pixels (i.e luminance values of neighboring pixels)). This (these) pixel(s) with the maximum level constitute(s) the estimated position of the star A.” meeting the above claim limitations);
determine an extraction range from which to extract, from the image, a partial image containing the peak pixel (col 4 lines 25-35 discloses “Thereafter, a what is called search stage allows the localization of the pixel (or alternatively a square group of 4 or 9 pixels) having the maximum level illuminated by the star A in a search window which forms a sub-assembly (i.e an extraction range from which to extract, from the image, a partial image containing the peak pixel) of the detection matrix” meeting the above claim limitations, examiner notes that the specifics of an extraction range are not required by the current claim); and
compute a star position based on luminance values of a plurality of pixels constituting the partial image (col 4 lines 25-41 discloses compute a star position based on luminance values of a plurality of pixels constituting the partial image (i.e search window)), wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine a size of the extraction range based on at least one of the luminance value of the peak pixel (col 4 lines 25-35 discloses “Thereafter, a what is called search stage allows the localization of the pixel (or alternatively a square group of 4 or 9 pixels) having the maximum level illuminated by the star A in a search window which forms a sub-assembly (i.e a window has a size with extraction range from which to extract, from the image, a partial image containing the peak pixel with the maximum illumination level (the luminance value of the peak pixel)) of the detection matrix” meeting the above claim limitations, examiner notes that due to the recital of at least one of only one is required to be met and the specifics of a size are not required by the current claim), or
2. Regarding claim 3, see the explanation of claim 1. Due to the recital of at least one of and or in claim 1, the limitations of claim 3 are not required to be met.
3. Regarding claim 4, see the explanation of claim 1. Due to the recital of at least one of and or in claim 1, the limitations of claim 4 are not required to be met.
4. Regarding claim 7, see the explanation of claim 1. Due to the recital of at least one of and or in claim 1, the limitations of claim 7 are not required to be met.
5. Regarding claim 8, see the explanation of claim 7. Due to the recital of at least one of and or in claim 1, the limitations of claim 8 are not required to be met.
6. Regarding claim 9, see the explanation of claim 1. Due to the recital of at least one of and or in claim 1, the limitations of claim 9 are not required to be met.
7. Claim 10 is a corresponding method claim of claim 1. See the corresponding explanation of claim 1.
8. Claim 11 is a computer readable storage medium storing a computer program code of claim 1. See the explanation of claim 1. Fig 1 shows the RAM 25 (i.e computer readable storage medium) and the microprocessor 13 performing the program (col 7 lines 1 and line 35) steps as seen in fig 3. Meeting the claim limitations.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited figures, and paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested for the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Examiner has also cited references in PTO892 but not relied on, which are relevant and pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, and may also be reading (anticipatory/obvious) on the claims and claimed limitations. Applicant is advised to consider the references in preparing the response/amendments in-order to expedite the prosecution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1227. The examiner can normally be reached IFW Mon-FRI.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached on 571-270-5183. 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.
JAYESH PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2677
/JAYESH A PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677