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 .
Election/Restrictions
Examiner notes that Applicant elects Group I, corresponding to claims 1-11 and 14 without traversal. Examiner correspondingly examines Group I (Claims 1-11 and 14) and Claim 15.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/17/2024 and 10/30/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Para[0035] line 2 recites “disclosure;”, which should be “disclosure.”.
Para[0035] line 8 and Para[0036] line 7 recite “constellation sensor 110”, which should be “constellation simulator 110”.
Para[0043] line 5 recites “Inv(QSTR)”, which should be “QSTR”.
Para[0043] line 13 recites “STR and OSPS”, which should be “QSTR and QOSPS”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-4, 6, and 8-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 lines 1-2, Claim 5 line 14, and Claim 8 line 1 recite “the fixed calibrated rotation”, which should be “the first fixed calibrated rotation”.
Claim 4 line 1 recites “according claim 1”, which should be “according to claim 1”.
Claim 6 line 2 recites “the least one feature”, which should be “the at least one feature”.
Claim 9 line 2 recites “the following formula”, which should be “a following formula”.
Claim 9 line 4 recites “the operator”, which should be “an operator”.
Claim 9 line 4 recites “the inversion”, which should be “an inversion”.
Claim 9 line 5 recites “the operator”, which should be “an operator”.
Claim 9 lines 5-6 recite “the quaternion multiplication”, which should be “a quaternion multiplication”.
Claim 9 line 6 recites “ “QOSPS” the calibration rotation”, which should be “the first fixed calibrated rotation (QOSPS)”.
Claim 14 line 1 recites “interface and”, which should be “interface, and”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
an optical unit in claim 2, which has the corresponding structure of optical elements, see Para[0008] of the specification of the instant application,
a static or dynamic display unit in claim 2, which has the corresponding structure of a display, see Para[0008] of the specification of the instant application,
detection unit in claims 5-6, which has the corresponding structure of an optical sensor, see Para[0018] of the specification of the instant application,
optical detection unit in claim 6, which has the corresponding structure of an optical sensor, see Para[0018] of the specification of the instant application, and
a computing unit, a processor unit, a communication interface, and a storage unit in claim 14, which has the corresponding structure of any electronic device capable to processing, communicating data, and storing data, see Para[0026] of the specification of the instant application.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 1-11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 line 3 recites “a defined star formation (IRF)” and Claim 1 lines 7-8 recite “the defined star formation (IRF) and the position and/or location reference (ARF) lie in a first fixed calibrated rotation (QOSPS) relative to one another”. It is unclear how a star formation can be both a discrete number of points (by virtue of it being a star formation) and a reference frame that lies in a fixed calibrated rotation with ARF, rendering “a defined star formation (IRF)” as indefinite. Examiner interprets “IRF” as the set of points whose positions are defined in an inertial reference frame.
Claim 4 lines 1-2 recite “the alignment unit has or is designed to have”. It is unclear what it means for the alignment unit to be designed to have something, rendering this limitation in the claim as indefinite.
Claim 5 line 1 and Claim 14 line 2 recite “calibrating and/or testing”, even though Claim 1 line 1 recites “calibrating and/or testing”. It is unclear if there are separate instances of “calibrating and/or testing” in Claims 1, 5, and 14, rendering these limitations in the claims as indefinite.
Claim 5 line 1 recites “a star sensor”, even though Claim 1 line 1 recites “a star sensor”. It is unclear if there are separate instances of “a star sensor” in Claims 1 and 5, rendering this limitation in the claim as indefinite.
Claim 5 line 1 recites “a spacecraft”, even though Claim 1 line 2 recites “a spacecraft”. It is unclear if there are separate instances of “a spacecraft” in Claims 1 and 5, rendering this limitation in the claim as indefinite.
Claim 5 lines 2, 3, and 11, Claim 9 line 5, and Claim 10 line 2 recite “the star sensor”, even though Claim 1 line 1 and Claim 5 line 1 recite “a star sensor”. It is unclear which star sensor is “the star sensor”, rendering these limitations in the claims as indefinite.
Claim 5 lines 2, 4, 7-8, and 9, Claim 10 lines 2-3, and Claim 11 line 1 recite “the spacecraft”, even though Claim 1 line 2 and Claim 5 line 1 recite “a spacecraft”. It is unclear which spacecraft is “the spacecraft”, rendering these limitations in the claim as indefinite.
Claim 5 line 11 recites “calibrate”, even though Claim 1 line 1 and Claim 5 line 1 recite “calibrating”. It is unclear if there are separate instances of the act of calibrating in Claims 1 and 5, rendering this limitation in the claim as indefinite.
Claim 5 line 11 recites “the calibrating”, even though Claim 1 line 1 and Claim 5 line 1 recite “calibrating” and Claim 5 line 11 recites “calibrate”. It is unclear which calibration is occurring in “the calibrating”, rendering this limitation in the claim as indefinite.
Claim 8 line 2 recites “a quaternion metric (QOSPS)”, even though Claim 1 line 8 recites “a first fixed calibration rotation (QOSPS)”. It is unclear if there are separate instances of “QOSPS” in Claims 1 and 8, rendering this limitation in the claim as indefinite.
Claim 9 lines 4-5 recites “a quaternion, “QSTR””. It is unclear if this is the same as the “second rotation QSTR” in Claim 5 line 6, rendering this limitation in the claim as indefinite.
Claim 9 line 5 recites “the quaternion output”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 line 2 recites “the calibration”, even though Claim 1 line 1 and Claim 5 line 1 recite “calibrating” and Claim 5 line 11 recites “calibrate”. It is unclear which calibration is occurring in “the calibration”, rendering this limitation in the claim as indefinite.
Claim 15 line 3 recites “the method for calibrating and/or testing”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-11 and 14-15 are also rejected as they depend on the above rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 15 line 1 recites “loadable into” which is intended use and consequently does not further limit Claim 14. Examiner suggests amending “loadable into” to “loaded into”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 USC § 101 because it is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The descriptions or expressions of the programs are not physical “things.” They are neither computer components nor statutory processes, as they are not “acts” being performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer, which permit the computer program’s functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed a non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program is a computer element which defines structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and the rest of the computer which permit the computer program’s functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory. Accordingly, it is important to distinguish claims that define descriptive material per se from claims that define statutory inventions.
In order to overcome this rejection, the following language is suggested:
“15. (Currently amended) A non-transitory computer readable medium encoded with a computer program product, wherein the non-transitory computer readable medium encoded with the computer program product is…”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dazin (US 20160097834 A1) in view of Padro (“Development of a Star Tracker-Based Reference System for Accurate Attitude Determination of a Simulated Spacecraft”).
With regards to Claim 1, Dazin teaches
an optical device (See Fig. 2 the optical simulator 23) configured to project a defined star formation (IRF) of a star catalog (See Para[0045] “the optical simulator 23 is formed of a set of luminous points 23a configured to reproduce an image (i.e. project) of the celestial canopy (i.e. a defined star formation)”. Since the celestial canopy contains a set of stars, the stars comprise a star catalogue. ) onto the star sensor assembled on the spacecraft (See Fig. 2, the star tracker 10 assembled on the satellite 11), and
an alignment unit (See Fig. 2, the device 20. The device 20 is an alignment unit, see Para[0046] “the device according to the invention comprises on the one hand means of optical simulation, compatible with the star tracker, allowing the measurement of alignment of the device with respect to the functional axes of the star tracker”) having a position and/or location reference (ARF) of the calibrated constellation simulator configured for detecting a position and/or location of the calibrated constellation simulator in space (See Fig. 2, the trihedron T2 defines the ARF for the device, see Para[0050] “the trihedron tied to the device T2”. T2 therefore is configured to determine a location of the device, see Fig. 2 where T2 is located in the device 20 (i.e. the calibrated constellation simulator, as the device comprises a constellation simulator (See Abstract “A device…comprises:… an optical simulator comprising a set of optical markers to be measured by the star tracker”) that is calibrated as it outputs a standard set of images of a celestial canopy (See Para[0045] “the optical simulator 23 is formed of a set of luminous points 23a configured to reproduce an image of the celestial canopy”)), therefore defining a location of the device itself. Examiner notes the celestial canopy belongs to a star catalogue, See Para[0004] “take images of the celestial canopy, and a unit for processing these images making it possible to position and orient a functional trihedron of the star tracker with respect to space. By analysing the star field imaged with the aid of an onboard star catalogue”, as the canopy is analyzed using a star catalogue, the canopy contains stars in the catalogue, which is a standardized set of information, making the device that generates the celestial canopy a calibrated constellation simulator.).
Dazin is silent to the language of
wherein the defined star formation (IRF) and the position and/or location reference (ARF) lie in a first fixed calibrated rotation (QOSPS) relative to one another.
Padro teaches
wherein the defined star formation (IRF) and the reference lie in a first fixed calibrated rotation (QOSPS) relative to one another (See Section 2.2.2 Page 11 “Vector observations of stars made from Earth are typically measured with respect to the ECI frame (i.e. the defined star formation (IRF)), then stored in a star catalog. To compare the two sets of vector measurements requires that the tracker frame (i.e. the reference) vectors be represented in the ECI frame through application of a rotation matrix Rit (i.e. reference lie in a first fixed calibrated rotation (QOSPS) relative to one another. The rotation matrix defines the first fixed calibrated rotation relative to one another as the rotation matrix itself is fixed via being defined by a set of fixed angles, and it is calibrated as it is set as a calibration standard to align the two reference frames.) , where the superscript it is read as "star tracker frame to inertial frame".”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Dazin wherein the defined star formation (IRF) and the reference lie in a first fixed calibrated rotation (QOSPS) relative to one another like in Padro in order to find a rotation matrix to efficiently express the orientation of the T2 frame with an objective reference frame defined by the star canopy in Dazin.
With regards to Claim 3, Dazin and Padro teach the limitations of Claim 1. Dazin is silent to the language of
wherein the fixed calibrated rotation (QOSPS) is implemented in a quaternion metric (QOSPS) or in a rotation matrix (AOSPS).
Padro teaches
wherein the fixed calibrated rotation (QOSPS) is implemented in a quaternion metric (QOSPS) or in a rotation matrix (AOSPS) (See Section 2.2.2 Page 11 “a rotation matrix Rit”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Dazin wherein the fixed calibrated rotation (QOSPS) is implemented in a quaternion metric (QOSPS) or in a rotation matrix (AOSPS) like in Padro in order to clearly define which type of matrix will be used to describe the orientations.
With regards to Claim 4, Dazin and Padro teach the limitations of Claim 1. Dazin further teaches
wherein the alignment unit (See Fig. 2, the device 20. The device 20 is an alignment unit, see Para[0046] “the device according to the invention comprises on the one hand means of optical simulation, compatible with the star tracker, allowing the measurement of alignment of the device with respect to the functional axes of the star tracker”) has or is designed to have at least one unit from the following group of units: one or more mirror cubes, one or more prisms (See Para[0019] “the geometric markers (i.e. part of the alignment unit) comprise (i.e. has or is designed to have) at least one optical cube (i.e. one or more prisms, as optical cubes function to bend and modify light beams) fixed on the device to allow a position measurement by theodolite.”), one or more polished surfaces, and/or one or more reflective elements.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dazin (US 20160097834 A1) and Padro (“Development of a Star Tracker-Based Reference System for Accurate Attitude Determination of a Simulated Spacecraft”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JENA-OPTRONIK GmbH (“Star Sensor Ground Support Equipment”).
With regards to Claim 2, Dazin and Padro teach the limitations of Claim 1. Dazin and Padro are silent to the language of
wherein the optical device has at least one optical unit together with a light source and a static constellation mask with the defined star formation (IRF) of the star catalog or a static or dynamic display unit for representation of the defined star formation (IRF) of the star catalog.
JENA-OPTRONIK GmbH teaches
wherein the optical device has at least one optical unit together with a light source (See Page 2 “a lightweight optical head (OH)” is the optical unit, and the light source generated by it is “a collimated beam”) and a static constellation mask with the defined star formation (IRF) of the star catalog or a static or dynamic display unit for representation of the defined star formation (IRF) of the star catalog (See Page 2 “The real sky scenery (stars, planets, moon, SEU’s, etc.) is imaged in real-time (i.e. representation of the defined star formation (IRF) of the star catalog, where Page 2 under “Performance” recites “Stars from star catalogue”) on a high resolution micro-display (i.e. a static display)”. Examiner notes an option is recited between the static constellation mask and the static or dynamic display via “or”. Optional limitations are considered non-limiting.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Dazin and Padro wherein the optical device has at least one optical unit together with a light source and a static constellation mask with the defined star formation (IRF) of the star catalog or a static or dynamic display unit for representation of the defined star formation (IRF) of the star catalog is done like in JENA-OPTRONIK GmbH in order to have a specialized device that can optically generate a constellation and display the image.
Claim(s) 5-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dazin (US 20160097834 A1) and Padro (“Development of a Star Tracker-Based Reference System for Accurate Attitude Determination of a Simulated Spacecraft”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang (US 20090012734 A1).
With regards to Claim 5, Dazin and Padro teach the limitations of Claim 1. Dazin further teaches
the star sensor (See Fig. 2, the star tracker 10 is the star sensor), which is assembled on the spacecraft (See Para[0002] “a star tracker fixed on a structure, notably the structure of a spacecraft”) and has sensor optics (See Para[0004] “the star tracker comprises means of optical measurement (for example, a CCD sensor)”), wherein the sensor optics has an alignment reference (BRF) (See Fig. 2 the functional trihedron T1, which describes the orientation of the star tracker, hence defining an alignment reference for the sensor optics as the sensor optics are part of the star tracker) and the star sensor has a mechanical position and/or location reference (MRF) with respect to the spacecraft (See Fig. 2, the star tracker 10 is positioned above the satellite/spacecraft 11, making it have a mechanical position with respect to the spacecraft, where this reference frame is defined by the functional trihedron T3 of the spacecraft), and wherein the alignment reference (BRF) and the mechanical position and/or location reference (MRF) lie in a second rotation (QSTR) with respect to one another (See Para[0056] “Q_T1-3 (i.e. QSTR) is the quaternion (i.e. a second rotation with respect to one another) of the functional trihedron of the star tracker (i.e. BRF, defined by T1) in the reference trihedron of the satellite (i.e. MRF, defined by T3)”);
the calibrated constellation simulator according to claim 1 (See Abstract, the device comprises the constellation simulator, see Claim 1 above), arranged in space around the spacecraft (See Fig. 2, the spacecraft is the satellite 11, and the entire figure is arranged in three-dimensional space); and
a detection unit assembled on the spacecraft (See Fig. 2, the optical measurement instrument 13 is on the satellite 11) , configured to detect at least one feature of the alignment unit of the calibrated constellation simulator (See Para[0051] “ the optical measurement instrument 13 in such a way as to trigger and recover the measurement of position of the trihedron tied to the device T2 (i.e. detect at least one feature of the alignment unit of the calibrated constellation simulator, the alignment unit is the device, which comprises the calibrated constellation simulator, See Claim 1 above) in the reference trihedron T3”),
determining at least one feature of the alignment unit by the detection unit (See Para[0051] “ the optical measurement instrument 13 in such a way as to trigger and recover the measurement of position of the trihedron tied to the device T2 (i.e. determining at least one feature of the alignment unit of the calibrated constellation simulator, the alignment unit is the device) in the reference trihedron T3”)
converting the alignment reference (BRF) to the position and/or location reference (ARF) using the second rotation (QSTR) and the calibrated rotation (See Para[0056] “Q_T1-2 is the quaternion provided by the star tracker”. Solving for Q_T1-2 in the equation (hereinafter referred to as “Equation 1”) of Para[0056] provides a conversion from the alignment reference of the star tracker (i.e. T1) to the position and/or location reference (i.e. T2) of the alignment unit, which is the device. In this case, Q_T1-3 is QSTR and Q_disp is the fixed calibrated rotation, as it reflects “the device's own quaternion quantifying the position of the optical simulator 23 with respect to the geometric markers 22 (i.e. a fixed calibrated rotation with respect to the geometric markers 22)”).
Dazin is silent to the language of
the fixed calibrated rotation (QOSPS).
Padro teaches
the fixed calibrated rotation (QOSPS) (See Section 2.2.2 Page 11 “Vector observations of stars made from Earth are typically measured with respect to the ECI frame, then stored in a star catalog. To compare the two sets of vector measurements requires that the tracker frame vectors be represented in the ECI frame through application of a rotation matrix Rit (i.e. the fixed calibrated rotation (QOSPS). The rotation matrix defines the first fixed calibrated rotation relative to one another as the rotation matrix itself is fixed via being defined by a set of fixed angles, and it is calibrated as it is set as a calibration standard to align the two reference frames.) , where the superscript it is read as "star tracker frame to inertial frame".”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Dazin wherein the fixed calibrated rotation (QOSPS) is used like in Padro in order to determine efficiently the orientation of the star tracker with respect to a calibration standard of the device via a composition of rotation matrices, where the rotation matrix of Padro defines a stable inertial reference frame to calibrate the entire calculation.
Dazin and Padro are silent to the language of
wherein the system is configured to calibrate the star sensor and the calibrating comprises determining at least one feature of the alignment unit by the detection unit after converting the alignment reference (BRF) to the position and/or location reference (ARF) using the second rotation (QSTR) and the fixed calibrated rotation (QOSPS).
Zhang teaches
wherein the system (See Fig. 3 the entire figure is the calibration device, making it a system) is configured to calibrate the star sensor (See Abstract “A method for calibration of a digital celestial sensor is disclosed”) and the calibrating comprises determining at least one feature of the alignment unit by the detection unit (See “A3. Establishing an integrated external and internal parameters imaging modeling equation”. The external and internal parameters are features of the alignment unit, see Abstract “an integrated mathematic model for imaging of a celestial sensor is established according to external and internal parameters of the calibration system of the celestial sensor”, and the alignment unit is the calibration system) after converting the reference frames (See Para[0016] “establishing an external parameters modeling equation according to a rotation matrix (i.e. using the second rotation (QSTR)) from the rotator coordinate frame to the celestial sensor coordinate frame (i.e. converting reference frames) and the pitch and yaw angle of simulated sunlight or starlight in the rotator coordinate frame”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Dazin and Padro wherein the system is configured to calibrate the star sensor and the calibrating comprises determining at least one feature of the alignment unit by the detection unit after converting the reference frames like in Zhang in order to have a checking system to verify the calibration of the star sensor after applying rotation matrices to calibrate it.
With regards to Claim 6, Dazin, Padro, and Zhang teach the limitations of Claim 5. Dazin further teaches
that detecting the least one feature by the detection unit (See Para[0051] “ the optical measurement instrument 13 in such a way as to trigger and recover the measurement of position of the trihedron tied to the device T2 (i.e. detect at least one feature of the alignment unit of the calibrated constellation simulator, the alignment unit is the device and the device comprises the calibrated constellation simulator, see Claim 1) in the reference trihedron T3”) comprises optical detection using an optical detection unit (See Fig. 2, the optical measurement instrument 13 is on the satellite 11, the detection unit is the optical detection unit).
With regards to Claim 7, Dazin, Padro, and Zhang teach the limitations of Claim 5. Dazin is silent to the language of
that the optical detection is performed using autocollimation.
Padro teaches
that the optical detection is performed using autocollimation (See Section 2.6 page 47 “The optical collimator corrects the finite conjugate image geometry projected on the screen (i.e. the optical detection is performed using autocollimation, as the collimation is done using an automated device via the optical collimator ) to simulate star images from infinity, while the imaging computer is able to stream dynamic images to the star tracker.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Dazin wherein that the optical detection is performed using autocollimation like in Padro in order to have an automated method to correct images.
With regards to Claim 8, Dazin, Padro, and Zhang teach the limitations of Claim 5. Dazin is silent to the language of
wherein the fixed calibrated rotation (QOSPS) are or are implemented in a quaternion metric (QOSPS) or in a rotation matrix (AOSPS).
Padro teaches
wherein the fixed calibrated rotation (QOSPS) are or are implemented in a quaternion metric (QOSPS) or in a rotation matrix (AOSPS) (See Section 2.2.3 page 13 “Because direction cosine matrices (i.e. the fixed calibrated rotation (QOSPS), See Section 2.2.2 Page 11 “Vector observations of stars made from Earth are typically measured with respect to the ECI frame, then stored in a star catalog. To compare the two sets of vector measurements requires that the tracker frame vectors be represented in the ECI frame through application of a rotation matrix Rit (i.e. the fixed calibrated rotation (QOSPS). The rotation matrix defines the first fixed calibrated rotation as the rotation matrix itself is fixed via being defined by a set of fixed angles, and it is calibrated as it is set as a calibration standard to align the two reference frames.) , where the superscript it is read as "star tracker frame to inertial frame".”) apply to vector rotations in general, the Euler Angles that compose a direction cosine matrix can be used to describe a spacecraft's attitude. However, the most common way to mathematically represent a spacecraft's orientation is through Euler Parameters, or commonly known as quaternions.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Dazin wherein the fixed calibrated rotation (QOSPS) are or are implemented in a quaternion metric (QOSPS) or in a rotation matrix (AOSPS) like in Padro in order efficiently encapsulate attitude information via Euler Parameters.
With regards to Claim 9, Dazin, Padro, and Zhang teach the limitations of Claim 5. Dazin further teaches
QARF(BRF, IRF)= Inv (QSTR x Q) (See Para[0056], equation 1, where rearranging the equation results in Inv(transpose(Q_T1-2)) = Inv(Q_T1-3 x Inv(Q_disp x Q_T2-3)) where Inv(transpose(Q_T1-2)) is QARF, Q_T1-3 is QSTR , and Inv(Q_disp x Q_T2-3) is Q. Note that an inversion of a rotation matrix is still a rotation matrix that acts as a transfer function.)
wherein "QARF'' represents the transfer (See Para[0056], equation 1, where Inv(transpose(Q_T1-2)) is a transfer or rotation, between T1 and T2) , "Inv" the operator for the inversion of a quaternion (See Para[0056], equation 1, where the inverse operator arises by solving for Q_T1-2), "QSTR" the quaternion output by the star sensor (See Para[0056], equation 1, where the quaternion output by the star sensor is Q_T1-3), 'x' the operator for the quaternion multiplication (See Para[0056], equation 1, where the quaternion multiplication is “**”), and "Q" the calibrated rotation (See Para[0056], equation 1, where Inv(Q_disp x Q_T2-3) is a calibrated rotation as it is a product of quaternions based on a calibration standard defined by T2 and T3).
Dazin is silent to the language of
QOSPS.
Padro teaches
QOSPS (See Section 2.2.2 Page 11 “Vector observations of stars made from Earth are typically measured with respect to the ECI frame, then stored in a star catalog. To compare the two sets of vector measurements requires that the tracker frame vectors be represented in the ECI frame through application of a rotation matrix Rit (i.e. QOSPS, which is calibrated as it is set as a calibration standard to align the two reference frames.) , where the superscript it is read as "star tracker frame to inertial frame".”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Dazin wherein QOSPS is used like in Padro in order to determine efficiently the orientation of the star tracker with respect to a calibration standard of the device via a composition of rotation matrices, where the rotation matrix of Padro defines a stable inertial reference frame to calibrate the entire calculation.
With regards to Claim 10, Dazin, Padro, and Zhang teach the limitations of Claim 5. Dazin and Padro are silent to the language of
that the calibration of the star sensor is performed to a reference system (SCRF) of the spacecraft.
Zhang teaches
that the calibration of the star sensor (See Abstract “A method for calibration of a digital celestial sensor ”) is performed to a reference system (SCRF) of the spacecraft(See Para[0016] “star sensors are two kinds of important celestial sensors and are widely used in many spacecrafts (i.e. a reference system (SCRF) of the spacecraft) for attitude measurement.” The SCRF is the spacecraft, and the calibration is therefore performed to it.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Dazin and Padro wherein that the calibration of the star sensor is performed to a reference system (SCRF) of the spacecraft in order to define a clear reference of where the calibration is to occur in Zhang.
With regards to Claim 11, Dazin, Padro, and Zhang teach the limitations of Claim 5. Dazin further teaches
wherein the spacecraft is designed as a satellite (See Para[0002] “a structure, notably the structure of a spacecraft, notably of a satellite.”), or a space capsule (Examiner notes optional limitations are recited due to “or”. Optional limitations are considered non-limiting.).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dazin (US 20160097834 A1) and Padro (“Development of a Star Tracker-Based Reference System for Accurate Attitude Determination of a Simulated Spacecraft”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sequier (US 20190092498 A1).
With regards to Claim 14, Dazin and Padro teach the limitations of Claim 1. Dazin further teaches
a computing unit having a processor unit (See Fig. 2, the entire Figure is the computing unit, as it computes orientations of different components, including the star tracker 10, using T1, T2, and T3. See also Para[0005] “the star tracker comprises means of optical measurement (for example, a CCD sensor) making it possible to take images of the celestial canopy, and a unit for processing these images (i.e. a computing unit having a processor unit)”.), a communication interface (See Paras[0049]-[0050] “Advantageously, the control unit 24 comprises means for: communicating with the star tracker 10 ”. Therefore the control unit functions as a communication interface. ) for calibrating and/or testing the star sensor assembled on the spacecraft (See Abstract “A device for positioning (i.e. testing, as the star tracker is tested for its orientation) a functional trihedron of a star tracker in a reference trihedron tied to a structure on which the star tracker is mounted comprises”, where the structure is a spacecraft, see Para[0002] “a star tracker fixed on a structure, notably the structure of a spacecraft”) for use in the calibrated constellation simulator according to claim 1 (See Abstract, the device is the constellation simulator, see Claim 1 above.).
Dazin and Padro are silent to the language of
a storage unit.
Siquier teaches
a storage unit (See Para[0080] “Software assisting in one or more of this functions may be stored on a computer (i.e. a storage unit) local to the apparatus 10, or partially or entirely stored off-site as part of a ‘cloud computing’ application. ”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Dazin and Padro wherein a storage unit is used like in Siquier in order to have a specialized compartment for recording the data gathered in Dazin.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dazin (US 20160097834 A1), Padro (“Development of a Star Tracker-Based Reference System for Accurate Attitude Determination of a Simulated Spacecraft”), and Siquier (US 20190092498 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Parsons (US 20200313770 A1).
With regards to Claim 15, Dazin , Padro, and Siquier teach the limitations of Claim 14. Dazin further teaches
execute the method for calibrating and/or testing the star sensor assembled on the spacecraft (See Fig. 2, the control unit 24, which executes the method of Dazin, which involves testing the star sensor by obtaining measurements of its position, See para[0015] “determine by calculation the position of the functional trihedron in the reference trihedron”, where the functional trihedron is that of the star tracker, see Abstract “functional trihedron of a star tracker”. The star tracker is also assembled on the spacecraft, see para[0002] “a star tracker fixed on a structure, notably the structure of a spacecraft”.)
Dazin , Padro, and Siquier are silent to the language of
a computer program, wherein the computer program is loadable into the storage unit of the computing unit according to claim 14 and has program code portions for causing the computing unit to execute the method when the computer program is executed in the computing unit.
Parsons teaches
a computer program (See Para[0022] “Manual or automatic implementations may be executed, or at least assisted, through the use of machines, hardware, software (i.e. a computer program), firmware, middleware, microcode, hardware description languages, or any combination thereof.”), wherein the computer program is loadable into the storage unit of the computing unit according to claim 14 and has program code portions for causing the computing unit to execute the method when the computer program is executed in the computing unit (See para[0022] “When implemented in software, firmware, middleware or microcode, the program code or code segments to perform the necessary tasks (i.e. and has program code portions for causing the computing unit to execute the method) may be stored in a machine readable medium (i.e. the computer program is loadable into the storage unit, which is the machine readable medium). A processor(s) (i.e. the computing unit) may perform the necessary tasks (i.e. the computer program is executed in the computing unit).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Dazin , Padro, and Siquier wherein a computer program, wherein the computer program is loadable into the storage unit of the computing unit according to claim 14 and has program code portions for causing the computing unit to execute the method when the computer program is executed in the computing unit like in Parsons in order to define a structured system for executing the testing as done in Dazin.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOSTOFA AHMED HISHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 a.m. - 4 p.m. ET.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/MOSTOFA AHMED HISHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/YOSHIHISA ISHIZUKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights