Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4 and 7-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 4 recites the limitation "the position of the peak pixel” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the position of the peak pixel” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the position of the peak pixel” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vilaire et al. (US5229594) hereafter Vilaire in view of Kostrzewa et al., (US10425603) hereafter Kostrzewa.
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
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”). Vilaire is silent and however fails to disclose determine a size of the extraction range based on at least one of : a first manner that increases the size of the extraction range as the luminance value of the peak pixel increases; a second manner that decreases the size of the extraction range as the peak pixel is located closer to an edge of the image; or a third manner that decreases the size of the extraction range as a parameter correlated with the temperature of the image sensor increases, thereby reducing a probability that noise is included in the partial image.
Kostrzewa disclose determine a size of the extraction range based on at least one of : a first manner that increases the size of the extraction range as the luminance value of the peak pixel increases (fig 3 shows the first size of the extraction range 310 is 3X3 with the pixel 320 (i.e center pixel) and the extraction range 350 increasing to 5X5 with the pixel 360 (the center pixel) in the image 300 and figs 7(715), fig 9 (915), (935-940) which selects the pixel as anomalous (center pixel) pixel (col 13 lines 1-20 discloses the determination of the flickering pixels (i.e the increased luminance value in the increased extraction range of 5X5 and col 15 lines 9 -55 discloses the pixel value updated from 0 to 255 (increased luminance peak pixel value of 255) meeting the claim limitations); or (examiner notes that due to the recital of at least one of only one is required to be met. The strike through limitations are not required to be met). Before the effective filing date of the invention was made, Vilaire and Kostrzewa are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor and are analogous art of image processing. The suggestion/motivation would be a fast and efficient and advantageous system/method at col 1 lines 43-45 and col 2 lines 56-60. Therefore, it would be obvious and within one of ordinary skill in the art to have recognized the advantages of Kostrzewa in the system of Vilaire to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
2. Regarding claim 2, Vilaire and Kostrzewa disclose the star tracker according to claim 1. Vilaire discloses the extraction range from which to extract the partial image (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”.
Kostrzewa disclose further wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine the size of the extraction range based on the luminance value of the peak pixel such that the extraction range of the partial image expands as the luminance value of the peak pixel contained in the partial image increases (fig 3 shows the first size of the extraction range 310 is 3X3 with the pixel 320 (i.e center pixel) and the extraction range 350 increasing to 5X5 (i.e expands) with the pixel 360 (the center pixel) in the image 300 and figs 7(715), fig 9 (915), (935-940) which selects the pixel as anomalous (center pixel) pixel (col 13 lines 1-20 discloses the determination of the flickering pixels (i.e the increased luminance value in the increased extraction range of 5X5 and col 15 lines 9 -55 discloses the pixel value updated from 0 to 255 (increased luminance peak pixel value of 255) meeting the claim limitations). Vilaire and Kostrzewa in combination would therefore meet the limitations of claim 2.
3. Regarding claim 3, see the explanation of claim 1. Due to the recital of at least one of in the claim 1, the limitations of claim 3 are not required to be met.
4. Regarding claim 4 as best understood by the examiner, see the explanation of claim 1. Due to the recital of at least one of in the claim 1, the limitations of claim 4 are not required to be met.
5. Regarding claim 7, Vilaire and Kostrzewa disclose the star tracker according to claim 1. Kostrzewa shows wherein the image is constituted by a plurality of image regions, the extraction range is set in advance for each of the plurality of image regions, and the at least one processor is further configured to determine the size of the extraction range in accordance with to which of the plurality of image regions the peak pixel belongs (fig 3 shows wherein the image is constituted by a plurality of image regions, the extraction range is set in advance for each of the plurality of image regions, and the at least one processor is further configured to determine the size of the extraction range in accordance with to which of the plurality of image regions 310 and 350 the peak pixel belongs 320 and 360).
6. Regarding claim 8, see the explanation of claims 1 and 7. Due to the recital of at least one of in the claim 1, the limitations of claim 8 are not required to be met.
7. Regarding claim 9, see the explanation of claim 1. Due to the recital of at least one of in the claim 1, the limitations of claim 9 are not required to be met.
8. Claim 10 is a corresponding method claim of claim 1. See the corresponding explanation of claim 1.
9. Claim 11 is a computer readable storage medium storing a computer program code of claim 1. See the explanation of claim 1. Vilaire in 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.
10. Regarding claim 12, Vilaire and Kostrzewa disclose the star tracker according to claim 2. Kostrzewa discloses further wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine the size of the extraction range by comparing the luminance value of the peak pixel with a threshold value (fig 3 and col 15 lines 15-67 shows and discloses determine the size of the extraction range (i.e kernel 350 5X5) by comparing the luminance value of the peak pixel (luminance of the peak pixel 360 of kernel 350) compared with a threshold value in the range of 0-255, examiner notes that the specifics of a threshold are not required by the current claim) meeting the claim limitations).
11. Regarding claim 13, Vilaire and Kostrzewa disclose the star tracker according to claim 2. Kostrzewa discloses further wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine the size of the extraction range by using a conversion formula for calculating the extraction range of the partial image according to the luminance value of the peak pixel (fig 3 and col 15 lines 15-25 equation 5 (i.e conversion formula) determine the size of the extraction range by using a conversion formula for calculating the extraction range of the partial image according to the luminance value of the peak pixel meeting the claim limitations, examiner that the specifics/details of a conversion formula are not required by the current claim).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vilaire in view of Kostrzewa and in further view of Lakemond (US11727549) hereafter Lakemond.
12. Regarding claim 14, Vilaire and Kostrzewa disclose the star tracker according to claim 2. Vilaire and Kostrzewa however fail to disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine the size of the extraction range by performing a calculation using a luminance weighted averaging on a plurality of pixels constituting the partial image.
Lakemond discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine the size of the extraction range by performing a calculation using a luminance weighted averaging on a plurality of pixels constituting the partial image (col 1 lines 15-50 discloses “A standard bilateral filter can determine a filtered value (I.sub.filtered(x)) for a target pixel based on a weighted average of intensity values from neighboring pixels. For example, a weighted sum of neighboring pixel values (I(x.sub.i)) within a kernel (Ω) can be used, wherein the weight for a particular neighboring pixel in the sum is based on both: (i) the spatial distance between the target pixel and the neighboring pixel (∥x.sub.i−x∥), and (ii) the difference between the target pixel value and the neighboring pixel value (∥I(x.sub.i)−I(x)∥). The kernel (Ω) would typically be a square kernel (e.g. 3×3 or 5×5 i.e size of the extraction range) centred on the target pixel (x), but in general the kernel could be any suitable shape and size” meeting the claim limitations). Before the effective filing date of the invention was made, Vilaire and Kostrzewa and Lakemond are combinable because they are form the same filed of endeavor and are analogous art of image processing. The suggestion/motivation would be a smooth image at col 1 lines 18-25. Therefore, it would be obvious and within one of ordinary skill in the art to have recognized the advantages of Lakemond in the system/method of Vilaire and Kostrzewa to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14.
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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 at 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
Prosecution Insights