DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/09/2026 (claim set dated 03/25/2026) has been entered.
Claims 1-2 and 4-20 are currently pending in U.S. Patent Application No. 18/448,818 and an Office action on the merits follows.
Response to 35 USC § 112 Rejections
In view of the foregoing amendments claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are withdrawn. The language ‘sky’ in the context of the instant application and referenced literature is understood to be synonymous with ‘space’.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant's arguments/remarks filed 03/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. More specifically Applicant’s remarks assert that neither a sun-synchronous LEO close to the terminal plane nor a GEO embodiment meet the requirement that the image taking satellite be positioned such that a nadir view thereof is not illuminated by the Sun.
PNG
media_image1.png
288
940
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner concedes that a sun-synchronous LEO orbit close to the terminal/terminator plane/border (a border/boundary between sunlit/night portions on the Earth’s surface as viewed from orbit), may (depending on the proximity required for the term ‘close’), feature a nadir view/point – as defined by Applicant’s remarks (but not disclosed in Applicant’s Specification/claims as originally filed), associated with both lit/illuminated portions and dark/night portions (particularly if that division/boundary is not itself crisp given a twilight zone/area spanning multiple miles). However Flohrer’s disclosed/suggested embodiments are not limited to only sun-synchronous LEO orbits close to this terminator line/plane (as evidenced at least by the GEO embodiment(s) also explicitly disclosed – page 2/1030 “A generic instrument architecture was found feasible, for both”, page 5/1033 Fig. 2, etc.,), and a sun-synchronous LEO orbit (synchronized with certain solar times and at a ‘low’ orbit – but not necessarily one where the nadir position is associated with the terminator day/night plane/line) e.g. that operates in midnight local solar time would read. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun-synchronous_orbit
PNG
media_image2.png
328
577
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Instead Flohrer discloses that such an orbit may be one selected, if motivated by a desire to survey/assess e.g. “the entire GEO regime” within a day/24 hour period (Florhrer Abs). Examiner asserts that any of various desired observation/coverage areas would motivate a selection between various orbits, and between various acquisition times associated with one or more orbits – all at the minimum suggested by Flohrer – and that a plurality of these various orbits are likely to be characterized by points, even if intermittent/transitory, satisfying the conditions now required by the claim(s) as amended.
It is also the Examiner’s understanding that Low Earth Orbits (LEOs) broadly are in no way excluded from having nadir point(s) existing in darkness/shadow (even if temporarily) (and daylight/Sun illumination) with at least one well-known example being the ISS - https://science.nasa.gov/earth/earth-observatory/a-trail-of-night-lights-145750/ .
Additional evidence in support of the Examiner’s position includes e.g.:
https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Transportation/Types_of_orbits
which illustrates the manner in which even an orbit associated with Lagrange points (e.g. L2 behind Earth) at various points passes such that its nadir position and the satellite itself is in darkness/shadow:
PNG
media_image3.png
716
768
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Geostationary satellites are understood by the Examiner to be located in a fixed position relative to a point proximate the Earth’s equator (0° latitude), and this fixed nadir point experiences both night and day over the course of a 24 hour period. Reference may be made to the attached document, from “Catalog of Earth Satellite Orbits” (Sep 04, 2009), at page 6 of 21. Available online < https://science.nasa.gov/earth/earth-observatory/catalog-of-earth-satellite-orbits/ > Satisfying the limitation in question would simply require acquisitions occurring wherein the nadir point of the satellite, for any of a LEO and/or GEO, is located in darkness/night.
Applicant’s remarks assert that it is apparent (apparent from what is not made clear in the remarks) that a GEO is characterized by a nadir point that is illuminated by the Sun, as if any illumination whatsoever is disqualifying. Despite what may arguably be a disclaimer/ disavowal of claim scope in view of the accompanying remarks, the recited claim language doesn’t preclude all/any instance(s) of nadir points illuminated by the Sun, but instead only instances characterizing an acquisition of interest.
References of record serve to evidence the manner in which an acquisition characterized by such a nadir point in darkness/shadow, may serve to minimize thermal/infrared glare/reflected light/albedo from the Earth (see e.g. page 9/11 of the ESA literature under the Lagrange points section, Liu newly cited), and eliminate/reduce stray light improving signal to noise ratio (see also the various albedo and SNR disclosure of Flohrer) as may be desired for observations of faint/small debris (Flohrer Abs “space debris population in the millimetre and centimetre regime”). More importantly however, nowhere in Applicant’s Specification is it asserted that such a feature is itself novel/distinguishing (which at the minimum forecloses Applicant from any argument that improper hindsight bias is relied upon in modifying Flohrer such that one or more acquisitions are characterized by a nadir view in darkness/shadow - See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971)).
Updated Search and consideration further identifies at least Liu et al. “Space Debris Detection and Positioning Technology Based on Multiple Star Trackers” (April 1, 2022) disclosing those same considerations identified above (stray light interference page 5 of 24 and thermal effect on background noise page 2 of 24) and an acquisition meeting the constraints of the amended language - see e.g. Fig. 3 reproduced below:
PNG
media_image4.png
562
676
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s remarks assert that no new matter is added and that support exists at least in ¶¶ 0012, 0015, 0020, however these referenced portions at best disclose that the Sun 120 may simply “provide some illumination of some of the plurality of image objects in the captured image” and that objects between 10cm and 1cm may be resolved by consequence of satellite 105 being at an altitude characterized by less/thinner atmosphere as compared to an image taken from Earth’s surface. Applicant’s Specification falls entirely silent on any illumination/ darkness constraints related to a nadir view/position, during capture and more broadly.
Applicant’s remarks at page 8 of 10 and with respect to claim 18 as amended, assert Flohrer as modified by Zhang fails to fairly teach/suggest the recited identifying as amended so as to be “based on star ephemeris and a known satellite ephemeris”.
PNG
media_image5.png
416
960
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully traverses any argument that the disclosed catalogue/ephemeris equivalents of Flohrer cannot constitute ‘known satellite ephemeris’ equivalents. Examiner similarly disagrees with any assertion that Flohrer fails to at least suggest relying upon previously catalogued detections, in current/subsequent detections, given that catalogue maintenance disclosure – see e.g. Flohrer page 1032 “It is, however, possible to implement 'implicit' follow-up capabilities, if the re-observation of objects is guaranteed to be frequent enough to ensure meeting the follow-up requirements. Such an observation strategy is known as a "survey only" approach. A sufficient "survey only'' ensures the acquisition of the necessary number of observations in order to improve the determined orbit. "Survey only" might be seen sufficient for all cataloguing tasks, if the observation frequency meets the requirements for catalogue maintenance, and if covariance information associated with the tracklets allow for a successful and unambiguous correlation”. It is not clear if Applicant considers the disclosed correlation to be solely between tracklets and not between previously catalogued and to be catalogued/maintained objects – however the context of a catalogue maintenance suggests the later, or at the minimum that reference to previously catalogued objects is made when determining whether and what maintenance is appropriate. Even if it were asserted that DISCOS concerns only satellites/objects that are not stars, Flohrer does disclose processing on the basis of “reference stars” (page 1031 “Observations and data processing shall be controlled by on-board software without the requirement of ground real-time commanding or specific spacecraft operations. Only subframes containing either reference stars or debris objects shall be downlinked due to the proposed "dynamic masking" image processing approach using series of exposures”). Regardless, Liu et al. “Space Debris Detection and Positioning Technology Based on Multiple Star Trackers” (April 1, 2022) further suggests the obvious nature of object identification on the basis of star ephemeris (e.g. page 2 of 24 “Using the star as the reference frame for attitude measurement, the star trackers can output the vector direction of the star in the coordinates of the star trackers, thus providing highly accurate measurement data for spacecraft attitude control and astronomical navigation. The star map taken by the star trackers contains not only stars but also space targets, such as space debris [16]. In the starry background, space debris can also reflect part of the energy from the Sun and has similar luminous characteristics to the stars. When the signal-to-noise ratio is high enough, space debris can be captured by star trackers, and all its information is contained in the point target of the star map. Combined with the principle of extracting star points and star map recognition of star trackers [17], it can distinguish space targets from stars”, non-exhaustive). Additionally cited literature, e.g. “Catalog of Earth Satellite Orbits” (2009) at page 14/21, further suggests the manner in which such ephemeris are routinely maintained by e.g. NASA’s Orbital Debris Program Office.
Examiner maintains that references of record serve to evidence the obvious nature of the instant claims, even as amended, and corresponding rejections to the claims are maintained/reproduced below.
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(s) 1-2 and 4-20 are 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) recite 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. More specifically, the instant claims as amended now require an acquisition wherein the image taking satellite 105 is positioned such that a nadir view thereof is not illuminated by the Sun. Applicant’s disclosure even in view of e.g. ¶¶ 0012, 0015, 0020, fail(s) to provide adequate written description support, since as identified in the remarks above this disclosure at best describes Sun 120 as providing “some illumination of some of the plurality of image objects in the captured image” and that objects between 10cm and 1cm may be resolved by consequence of satellite 105 being at a certain altitude. Even if Applicant were to assert that Fig. 1 serves to suggest that a nadir position so characterized may occur in at least one instance of satellite 105’s orbit (Fig. 1 is disclosed as illustrating an operating environment broadly), Applicant’s Specification at large fails to disclose any constraints on a nadir view during acquisition, or otherwise, and falls entirely silent on terminology to include ‘nadir’, ‘shadow’, ‘darkness’, ‘terminator plane’, etc., that might arguably impose constraints, other than altitude (e.g. orbital inclination, eccentricity), on the orbit(s) of 105 and/or periods during which acquisition is permitted. See MPEP § 2163.04.
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(s) 1-2 and 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, in particular an Abstract Idea falling under the (c) mental processes grouping (concepts performable in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), not ‘integrated into a practical application’ at Prong Two of Step 2A and without ‘significantly more’ at Step 2B.
Step 1: The claim(s) in question are directed to a computer implemented method for evaluating imagery as obtained from a satellite, so as to identify a plurality of objects/debris. (Step 1: Yes).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. Representative claim(s) 1/18/20 recite:
1) “selecting an area of sky that is illuminated by the Sun and is in a direction away from the Earth in relation to the image taking satellite”
2) “identifying a plurality of image objects in the image, based on each of the plurality of image objects having at least a predetermined number of pixels with at least a predetermined brightness”
3) “identifying a plurality of uncharacterized objects within the identified plurality of image objects” … even if further “based on a star ephemeris and a known satellite ephemeris” (e.g. recognizing debris as those objects that cannot be confidently associated with known ephemeris/database information – available online JPL Solar System Dynamics < https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/ >.
Wherein 1-3 as broadly recited and accordingly permissibly interpreted (see MPEP 2173.01 and 2111.01), fall under the mental processes grouping (concepts performable in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). Even for the case of 2), a person can visually/mentally analyze associated imagery, and a determination based on a number of pixels does not exclude visual/mental assessment, because the pixel dimensions of the image may be known/determined and/or manipulated (e.g. via cropping, zoom) by the user – see for example that imagery as illustrated in Liu et al. “Space Debris Detection and Positioning Technology Based on Multiple Star Trackers” (April 1 2022), Fig. 5, Fig. 8, etc.:
PNG
media_image6.png
538
1016
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Applicant is directed to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) and sub-section(s) III Mental Processes and C. A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process, to include 1-3 therein:
PNG
media_image7.png
290
632
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Applicant may also consider Examples 47-49 of the 2024 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG): https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-AI-SMEUpdateExamples47-49.pdf Reference may be made to 2024 PEG, Example 47 claim 2, wherein using an ANN and the generic computer hardware recited, did not preclude that anomaly detection and analysis of step(s) (d) and (e) from being drawn under the mental processes grouping at Prong One. See pages 6-7 of the above linked/referenced 2024 PEG document/Examples.
Flohrer as previously applied further, with reference to disclosed ‘observation scheduling’ and orbit planning, supports an interpretation wherein the 1) ‘selecting…’ as recited may be interpreted as a planning/decision making performed by one or more persons motivated by a desire to capture one or more areas of observation (whether such a decision making would then require modification to orbit(s) during flight/travel or otherwise).
To be clear, Examiner does not assert that the capturing itself is interpreted so as to fall under the mental processes grouping (this is instead an ‘additional element’ that fails to serve for integration at Prong Two in view of 2106.05(g) and/or (h)) – but instead that imagery so acquired, is not in any way precluded from being visually/mentally analyzed by a human being with the assistance of a computer. Furthermore, as Applicant’s remarks point out, Claim 18 does not recite any capturing – instead it is directed to the identifying steps (for the instance that imagery analyzed is associated with certain capturing conditions that may arguably be ‘wherein’ clause equivalents given little patentable weight/limiting effect – see MPEP 2111.04). Dependent claims are similarly analyzed at least at Prong One since they inherit this/these same limitation(s) identified for the case of independent claim(s). (Step 2A, Prong One: Yes).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception, distinct from the exception itself. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any ‘additional elements’ recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those ‘additional elements’ individually and in combination (weighed against the exception) to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). Examiner notes for consideration at Prong Two of 2A that MPEP 2106.05(a), (b), (c), and (e) generally concern elements that may be indicative of integration, whereas 2106.05(f), (g), and (h) generally concern elements that are not likely indicative of integration. As an additional note, ‘additional elements’ are generally limitations excluded from interpretation under the Abstract Idea groupings, and may comprise portions of limitations otherwise identified as falling under those Abstract Idea groupings of the 2019 PEG (e.g. any detection/determination/recognition that may be made mentally accompanied by the use of a neural network and/or generic computer hardware considered under the ‘apply it’ considerations of 2106.05(f)). Any ‘providing’/outputting broadly, and ‘collection’ of data (i.e. image acquisition(s)), be they images for training any learning model and/or data/images visually observable/ evaluated by a user/operator, also fail(s) to integrate at least in view of MPEP 2106.05(g) (extra-solution data gathering/output) and/or 2106.05(h) as ‘generally linking’ the exception to a field of use involving machine learning and/or imagery so acquired. Examiner also pre-emptively notes with respect to 2106.05(a), that ‘functioning of a computer’ (see fact pattern of Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) does not constitute operations that a general purpose computer may be programmed/configured to perform, since functioning of a computer instead concerns functions integral to the way computers operate (e.g. memory read-write for Enfish and virus scanning for Finjan). Regarding the claim(s) ‘as a whole’, the requirement for considering the claim as a whole stems from the fact that the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement, and any ‘additional elements’ are not evaluated in a vacuum separate from the weight of those directed to the exception (in further view of the Alice/Mayo framework’s roots in pre-emption). Consideration must be given to the degree/extent to which the apparent/disclosed improvement, as it is realized in recited claim language, is to the exception itself or otherwise distinct from it and captured by those limitations clearly serving as ‘additional elements’ after analysis at Prong One, in addition to how the ‘additional elements’ weigh in comparison to those limitations directed to the exception.
Reference may be made to the 08/04/2025 memo affirming analysis set forth in the 2024 PEG (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-101-20250804.pdf) and consistent with guidance to date. The most recent SME Memo(s) are available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility and more specifically: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-desjardins.pdf
For the case of Desjardins, the claim(s) explicitly recited a limitation not drawn under/subsumed by the identified exception at Prong One (wherein that ‘adjusting’ at [D] was drawn to the mathematical operations grouping), and realizing an improvement to the technical field of machine learning (serving for integration accordingly in view of 2106.05(a) – reciting an improvement to the way machine learning models are trained – so as to address the problem of catastrophic forgetting – via that explicitly recited “to optimize an objective function that depends in part on a penalty term that is based on the determined measures of importance of the plurality of parameters to the first machine learning task”). The ARP’s decision in Desjardins also did not disturb the Board’s Prong One finding. The instant claims are unlike Desjardins however, and do not concern any improvement to the technical field of training machine learning models.
Even if the recited ‘identifying’/debris recognition is in itself useful/ practical – the utility of the exception itself is not a factor serving for integration into a ‘practical application’ (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). Additional elements that include providing any notification and/or output of finally calculated statistics/counts/identifies, fail to serve for integration in view of MPEP 2106.05(g) and no additional elements outside of those directed to the exception itself, appear to explicitly/ specifically capture/recite any disclosed improvement in any technology and/or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)). With reference to MPEP 2106.05(a):
It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981))
Even when viewed in combination, the limited/minimal ‘additional elements’ (i.e. implementation of processing/method steps on generic processor/memory and a field-of-use involving satellite imagery acquisition) present do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: No; Revised Step 2A: Yes [Wingdings font/0xE0] Step 2B).
Examiner requests Applicant’s assistance in providing a competing and compelling eligibility analysis, at Prong Two of Step 2A in particular, that explicitly identifies the improvement associated with Applicant’s invention (explicit or implied) (see MPEP 2106.05(a) sub-section II Improvements to any other technology or technical field – since the instant application does not concern “functioning of a computer” analogous to that of Enfish, (see also e.g. TJTM Technologies v Google, Appeal No. 2025-1218 (Fed. Cir. May 5, 2026) at page 5 citing Enfish)). The competing analysis should explicitly identify which limitations serve as the ‘additional elements’ realizing the improvement, and how these elements are not themselves subsumed under/within any exception. Applicant should also be advised, as Applicant’s representative(s) is/are likely aware, that the courts have declined to adopt the enumerated Abstract Idea groupings from 2019 Eligibility Guidance, and while the Examiner’s analysis does not rely on any Tentative Abstract Idea requiring approval (MPEP 2106.04(a)(3)), the instant claims are very arguably directed to a collection of data, analysis (even if one involving a comparison to known/stored ephemeris/database information), and displaying/transmitting certain results (e.g. identification of debris) of the collection and analysis.
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to ‘significantly more’ than the recited exception, i.e., whether any ‘additional element’, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. The considerations of Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B overlap, but differ in that 2B also requires considering whether the claims feature any “specific limitation(s) other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field” (WURC) (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Such a limitation if specifically recited however, must still be excluded from interpretation under any of the Abstract Idea groupings. Step 2B further requires a re-evaluation of any additional elements drawn to extra-solution activity in Step 2A (e.g. gathering/acquiring image(s)) – however no limitations appear directed to any novel collection per se (see those remarks and related 112(a) rejection). For at least the case of representative claim(s), both the acquisition and subsequent analysis are generically recited, if not WURC.
Applicant may consider Longitude Licensing Ltd. v. Google LLC, No. 24-1202, (Fed. Cir. April 30, 2025) (available at https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1202.OPINION.4-30-2025_2506816.pdf) (see e.g. pages 7-9). While it is the MPEP that governs Examination and not necessarily case law (2019 marking a shift away from analysis attempting to identify analogous case law from a large and growing body of possibly pertinent case law examples), this opinion and those referenced therein (e.g. Recentive in particular) Recentive Analytics, Inc., v. Fox Corp., Appeal No. 2023-2437, 18 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025) available at https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/23-2437.OPINION.4-18-2025_2500790.pdf serve to illustrate the manner in which claims that seek to apply broad classes of machine learning to a ‘new’ field of use, and/or claim limitations that do not explain/capture how a purported inventive concept/ improvement is actually achieved, are not likely to be determined eligible/enforceable. For clarity purposes, Examiner’s analysis does not rely upon any factual finding that any specifically recited (instead all are at a high level of generality) ‘additional elements’ constitute only that which is WURC (e.g. 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer memo of 2018) – but instead that the minimally present ‘additional elements’ fail to serve as ‘significantly more’ when considered at 2B, for the same reasons they fail at Prong Two of 2A – 2106.05(f) (implementation on generic computer hardware not constituting a particular machine as defined in 2106.05(b)), 2106.05(h) (linking to a field-of-use, i.e. wherein the images are acquired by satellite, or other features that do not preclude those same images from being evaluated visually/mentally (even if computer assisted - MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsection C) based thereon), and/or 2106.05(g) for any outputting/delivery of calculated statistics if the claim language precludes doing so manually. See also, Dental Monitoring SAS, v Align Technology, Inc., Appeal No. 2024-2270 (Fed. Cir. July 07, 2026), available at - https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-2270.OPINION.7-7-2026_2719362.pdf is of note, at page 12 – ““the relevant inquiry is not whether the claimed invention as a whole is unconventional or non-routine.” See BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018)”. Reference may also be made to the 2024 PEG describing that an improvement/ inventive concept (for ‘significantly more’ determination(s)) cannot be to the judicial exception itself. (Step 2B: No).
References Cited in Prior Art Rejections
The following references are cited in the prior art rejections set forth below and are referred to as noted:
Flohrer et al., “Feasibility of performing space surveillance tasks with a proposed space-based optical architecture”, ADVANCES IN SPACE RESEARCH, ELSEVIER, AMSTERDAM, NL, vol. 47, no. 6, 18 November 2010 (14 pgs.), hereinafter Flohrer.
Zhang et al., CN 115717887 A, published on 2023-02-28 (machine translation), hereinafter Zhang.
Martin et al., US 20130211778 A1, published on 2013-08-15, hereinafter Martin.
Schildknecht, "Optical surveys for space debris", THE ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS REVIEW, SPRINGER, BERLIN, DF, vol. 14, no. 1, 9 January 2007 (771 pgs.}, hereinafter Schildknecht.
Liu et al. “Space Debris Detection and Positioning Technology Based on Multiple Star Trackers” (April 1, 2022), hereinafter Liu.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 4-8, 10-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flohrer in view of Zhang and Liu.
Regarding claim 1, Flohrer discloses a method (Flohrer: abstract, sections 2-3) comprising:
while a nadir view, of an image taking satellite, of the Earth is not illuminated by the Sun: (see remarks above, Flohrer GEO for portions of a 24 hour orbit wherein an associated nadir position is in darkness/shadow and LEO if not necessarily proximate the terminator line/plane, Fig. 2, etc.,)
selecting an area of sky that is illuminated by the Sun and is in a direction away from the Earth in relation to the image taking satellite; (Flohrer: section 2, p1030-1031. In particular, “the fixed pointing direction could be requested freely. … Two regions of space debris populations were considered, the GEO and the LEO region. The two most promising concepts were to observe objects in LEO from a sensor placed into a sun-synchronous LEO close to the terminator plane with the sensor oriented away from the Earth, but slightly inclined, while objects in GEO should be observed from a GEO satellite, with the sensor pointing to the North (or South). Another favourable option to observe the GEO region with the sensor pointing “away from the Sun” would require the satellite orbiting below the GEO in order to achieve full GEO coverage”. See the discussions under 112(b) regarding the interpretation of this claim limitation. The claimed features are implied since sensors are either oriented away from the Earth or pointing away from the Sun.)
capturing an image of the area of sky; (Flohrer: section 2, p1030-1031. “The platform was assumed to be a 3-axis stabilised spacecraft, which shall accommodate the telescope (a 20 cm aperture, 6o field of view, 45o folded Schmidt design with f/D = 2.05 and a field flattener), the camera (either a CCD or a hybrid CMOS detector with 2k x 2k pixels)”. “Observations and data processing shall be controlled by on-board software without the requirement of ground real-time commanding or specific spacecraft operations. Only subframes containing either reference stars or debris objects shall be downlinked due to the proposed “dynamic masking” image processing approach using series of exposures.”)
identifying a plurality of image objects in the image, Flohrer: section 3, p1031-1032. “We assume here that available data processing methods, such as directly forming tracklets through the already mentioned “dynamic masking” approach (as outlined, e.g., in Schildknecht, 2007), or a probabilistic data/track association (DeMars et al., 2009; DeMars et al., 2010), allow solving this critical issue.” “Objects can only be observed while they cross the sensor’s field-of-view. Depending on the relative angular velocity of the object with respect to the line-of-sight and the exposure frequency several positions of the object can be acquired. Those individual data points form a short observation arc, what is sometimes referred to as a ‘tracklet’. From such tracklets initial orbits can be determined.” “A sufficient “survey only” ensures the acquisition of the necessary number of observations in order to improve the determined orbit. “Survey only” might be seen sufficient for all cataloguing tasks, if the observation frequency meets the requirements for catalogue maintenance, and if covariance information associated with the tracklets allow for a successful and unambiguous correlation.”) and
identifying a plurality of uncharacterized objects within the identified plurality of image objects. (Flohrer: section 3, p1031, and section 5, p1037. This is implied by “the cataloguing process” or “the build-up and maintenance of a catalogue of orbital elements” since they include the detection and identification of new objects. In particular, “the definition of an appropriate observation strategy is driven by the needs of SSA, in particular by the build-up and maintenance of a catalogue of orbital elements. For SSA the observation of an object in a given regime that is larger than a given diameter has to be guaranteed with at least a certain re-acquisition frequency. The related uncertainties of the observations have to allow for successful and unambiguous correlation with other observations of that object. … Further the cataloguing process sets requirements on the accuracy of the observations, which in case of optical observations we may sufficiently describe by the astrometric accuracy of the centroid determination of a single observation.” (section 3) “Those results enable the further discussion of the initial determination of orbits, and indicated that the maintenance of a catalogue of orbits with sufficient timeliness of the detection of events is possible.” (section 5))
Flohrer does not disclose explicitly but Zhang teaches, in an analogous art of detecting space objects such as stars, identifying a plurality of image objects in the image, based on each of the plurality of image objects having at least a predetermined number of pixels with at least a predetermined brightness. (Zhang: “each mark is a sub-graph containing star point to pre-set step length traversing sub-graph searching growth seed point, the pixel is greater than the sub-graph background threshold value of the search point, determining to grow seed point; for each growth seed point, performing pixel-by-pixel area growth to the four-connected domain direction to obtain the pixel point to be selected; determining the sub-graph of each pixel point to be selected, if the pixel point to be selected grey value is greater than the background threshold of the sub-graph, the pixel point to be selected as the star point pixel; for each growth seed point, if the number of star point pixel determined in the set area range is greater than the pixel number threshold value, then determining a star point. otherwise, considering the star point extraction failure, re-scanning and searching for growing seed point, until the sub-graph traversal is finished.” (middle of page 6))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Flohrer’s disclosure with Zhang’s teachings by combining the method for detecting space objects (from Flohrer) with the technique of identifying each space object such as a star based on the space object having at least a predetermined number of pixels with at least a predetermined brightness (from Zhang) to yield no more than predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions since all the claimed elements, which are taught by prior art references, would continue to operate in the same manner, particularly, the method for detecting space objects would still work in the way according to Flohrer and the technique of identifying each space object such as a star based on the space object having at least a predetermined number of pixels with at least a predetermined brightness would continue to function as taught by Zhang. In fact, the inclusion of Zhang's technique would provide a practical and/or alternative implementation of the method for detecting space objects and as a result would enable a better and more effective method for detecting space objects due to the implementation made possible by the combination.
Assuming arguendo that Flohrer’s disclosed LEO embodiments only concern one proximate the terminator line/plane and/or that Flohrer fails to explicitly disclose when GEO or any alternative orbit embodiments may be characterized by a nadir point that is in darkness, Examiner takes Official Notice (MPEP 2144.03) to the manner in which a GEO for example is characterized at least by intermittent/temporary intervals in which the fixed nadir point is located in darkness/shadow, and at least some acquisitions over the course of a 24 hour period would then necessarily occur under such conditions.
Examiner further asserts that a LEO can be modified by e.g. firing thrusters (so as to manipulate altitude and orbit speed accordingly – see attached documents) so as to move its nadir point away from the terminator/day-night line, and that any of various desired observation/coverage areas (and/or positions of the satellite itself) would motivate a selection between various orbit parameters to include nadir point relative to darkness/shadow and sunlight.
Liu further evidences, in analogous art, the obvious nature of an acquisition as recited (Figs. 1-3), and specifically for the purposes of minimizing one or more of the effects of stray light interference (page 5) and thermal effect on background noise (page 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Flohrer {modified by Zhang and Liu}’s disclosure with Liu’s teachings to position the image acquiring satellite so as to minimize the negative effects of stray light, thermal/infrared albedo, etc., and thereby improving an associated signal-to-noise resolution facilitating debris detection, and further to consider e.g. star ephemeris similar to alternate catalogue disclosure in Flohrer, so as to facilitate modification(s) to orbit as well as object detection, the motivation as similarly taught/suggested therein and readily recognized by POSITA that such an acquisition may serve to improve platform performance in a manner characterized by a reasonable expectation of success.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Flohrer with Zhang and Liu to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Flohrer {modified by Zhang and Liu} teaches the method of claim 1, wherein identifying the plurality of uncharacterized objects within the plurality of image objects comprises: determining a plurality of characterized objects within the plurality of image objects; and determining objects not determined to be the plurality of characterized objects to be uncharacterized objects within the plurality of image objects. (Flohrer: sections 2-3. In particular, “the definition of an appropriate observation strategy is driven by the needs of SSA, in particular by the build-up and maintenance of a catalogue of orbital elements.” “From such tracklets initial orbits can be determined. The quality of the initial orbits is primarily a function of the length of the arc …. Improving those determined initial orbits is required, e.g., to maintain the orbits in a catalogue.” Maintaining the orbits in a catalogue implies determining characterized objects. “A sufficient “survey only” ensures the acquisition of the necessary number of observations in order to improve the determined orbit. “Survey only” might be seen sufficient for all cataloguing tasks, if the observation frequency meets the requirements for catalogue maintenance, and if covariance information associated with the tracklets allow for a successful and unambiguous correlation.” Here “all cataloguing tasks” includes the “build-up” task and “a successful and unambiguous correlation” implies the unambiguous determination of both the orbits (i.e., objects) in the catalogue (i.e., “common observation arcs” or orbits to be maintained in the catalogue) and those not in the catalogue (i.e., existing “knowledge gap”). “The goal of the SBO study was to analyse how the existing knowledge gap in the space debris population in the millimetre and centimetre regime may be closed by means of a passive optical instrument.” (Abstract, and section 1, p1030) “The simulation results also allow specifying the input to a correlation algorithm that tries to identify common observation arcs in the orbital element domain.” (section 6, p1038))
Regarding claim 5, Flohrer {modified by Zhang and Liu} teaches the method of claim 4, wherein determining the plurality of characterized objects within the plurality of image objects comprises determining at least a portion of the characterized objects to be stars. (Flohrer: section 2, p1031. “Only subframes containing either reference stars or debris objects shall be downlinked due to the proposed “dynamic masking” image processing approach using series of exposures.”)
Regarding claim 6, Flohrer {modified by Zhang and Liu} teaches the method of claim 5, wherein determining the at least a portion of the characterized objects to be stars comprising using a star ephemeris. (Flohrer: Table 4, p1038. Also, section 2, p1031 and section 3, p1032, “to maintain the orbits in a catalogue.” Maintaining the orbits in a catalogue implies using a catalogue for determining characterized objects.)
Regarding claim 7, Flohrer {modified by Zhang and Liu} teaches the method of claim 4, wherein determining the plurality of characterized objects within the plurality of image objects comprises determining at least a portion of the characterized objects to be known satellites. (Flohrer: Figs. 5-6. Also, sections 2-3, p1031-1033 and Table 4, p1038. In particular, “two promising pointing scenarios can be described for the observation of satellites in higher altitudes” (section 3, p1031). “It is already obvious here that low elevation pointing directions (below about -5o) cannot acquire the controlled GEO satellites at 0o inclination, which is a densely populated and highly interesting sub-region. … From this very brief analysis a positive elevation angle between 0o or +5o indicates a good compromise between population coverage and dwell time of individual objects in the field-of-view.” (section 3, p1032-1033))
Regarding claim 8, Flohrer {modified by Zhang and Liu} teaches the method of claim 7, wherein determining the at least a portion of the characterized objects to be known satellites comprising using a known satellite ephemeris. (Flohrer: Figs. 5-6. Also, sections 2-3, p1031-1033 and Table 4, p1038. See discussions in claim 7. Furthermore, “TLE catalogue objects” include catalogued satellites listed in the field 2 and columns 3-7 of the TLE data format with catalog numbers of known satellites, implying the use of a known satellite ephemeris for determining a portion of the characterized objects as known satellites.)
Regarding claim 10, Flohrer {modified by Zhang and Liu} teaches the method of claim 4, wherein at least a portion of the uncharacterized objects comprise maneuvering objects. (Flohrer: section 3, p1031-1033, and section 5, p1037. See discussions in claim 1 regarding determining the uncharacterized objects and in claim 7 regarding population coverage of the entire GEO population. In particular, “The two most promising concepts were to observe objects in LEO from a sensor placed into a sun-synchronous LEO close to the terminator plane” (section 3, p1031). Further disclosure includes “to ensure the timely detection of manoeuvres, fragmentation or release events related to the covered objects” (section 3, p1031) and “timely manoeuvre and event detection, launch assessments and verification of orbit insertion” (section 3, p1032).)
Regarding claim 11, Flohrer {modified by Zhang and Liu} teaches the method of claim 4, wherein at least one of the uncharacterized objects comprise an object of less than 10 cm. (Flohrer: section 2, p1031. In particular, “At higher altitudes (GEO) the SBO system was found to clearly exceed the capabilities of 1-m telescopes on ground by enhancing the knowledge about space debris from 10 cm diameter objects down to a minimum of about 2 cm.” See also discussions in claim 1 regarding determining the uncharacterized objects.)
Regarding claim 12, Flohrer {modified by Zhang and Liu} teaches the method of claim 4, wherein at least one of the uncharacterized objects comprise an object of less than 10 cm and greater than 1 cm. (Flohrer: section 2, p1031. See discussions in claim 1 regarding determining the uncharacterized objects and in claim 11 above.)
Regarding claim 14, Flohrer {modified by Zhang and Liu} teaches the method of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the plurality of image objects comprise Near Earth Objects (NEOs). (Flohrer: section 1, p1030. “Furthermore the observation of space debris is sometimes investigated as a secondary application of space-based observations of Near-Earth Objects (NEOs)”.)
Regarding claim 15, Flohrer {modified by Zhang and Liu} teaches the method of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the plurality of image objects comprise objects in Low Earth Orbit (LEO). (Flohrer: section 2, p1031. “Two regions of space debris populations were considered, the GEO and the LEO region.”)
Regarding claim 16, Flohrer {modified by Zhang and Liu} teaches the method of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the plurality of image objects comprise objects in Flohrer: section 2, p1031. “Two regions of space debris populations were considered, the GEO and the LEO region.”)
Flohrer {modified by Zhang} does not disclose explicitly objects in cis-Lunar space, which is, however, a well-known fact in the analogous art of detecting space objects. Examiner has previously taken an Official Notice to this fact, page 18 of the Non-Final Office Action mailed 10/30/2025 (see MPEP 2144.03).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Flohrer {modified by Zhang and Liu}’s disclosure with the Official Notice’s teachings by combining the method for detecting space objects (from Flohrer {modified by Zhang}) with the objects in cis-Lunar space (from the Official Notice) to yield no more than predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions since all the claimed elements, which are taught by prior art references, would continue to operate in the same manner, particularly, the method for detecting space objects would still work in the way according to Flohrer {modified by Zhang} and the objects in cis-Lunar space would continue to function as taught by the Official Notice. In fact, the inclusion of the Official Notice's objects in cis-Lunar space would broaden the application of the method for detecting space objects into the cis-Lunar space and as a result would enable a better and more appealing method for detecting space objects due to the broadened application areas made possible by the combination.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Flohrer {modified by Zhang and Liu} with the Official Notice to obtain the invention as specified in claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, Flohrer {modified by Zhang and Liu} teaches the method of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the plurality of image objects comprise objects in geostationary orbit around Earth. (Flohrer: section 2, p1031. “Two regions of space debris populations were considered, the GEO and the LEO region.”)
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 comprises limitations similarly rejected as for the case(s) of those in claim 4. (See section 2 of Flohrer for the system disclosure implying a memory storage and a processing unit. See also page 5 of Zhang, 4th paragraph from bottom of the page, i.e., “computer”.) Regarding that determining/identifying as amended so as to be further “based on star ephemeris and a known satellite ephemeris”, see those remarks presented above with respect to Flohrer’s satellite catalogue/ephemeris equivalent and reference star disclosure.
Liu, in analogous art, further evidences the obvious nature of determining/ identifying one or more objects on the basis of known star ephemeris (page 2 of 24 “Using the star as the reference frame for attitude measurement, the star trackers can output the vector direction of the star in the coordinates of the star trackers, thus providing highly accurate measurement data for spacecraft attitude control and astronomical navigation. The star map taken by the star trackers contains not only stars but also space targets, such as space debris [16]. In the starry background, space debris can also reflect part of the energy from the Sun and has similar luminous characteristics to the stars. When the signal-to-noise ratio is high enough, space debris can be captured by star trackers, and all its information is contained in the point target of the star map. Combined with the principle of extracting star points and star map recognition of star trackers [17], it can distinguish space targets from stars”, page 8 section 4, Figs. 4, 7, etc., non-exhaustive).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Flohrer {modified by Zhang and Liu}’s disclosure with Liu’s teachings so as to consider e.g. star ephemeris similar to alternate catalogue disclosure in Flohrer, in a manner not only facilitating accurate modification(s) to orbit but also subsequent object detection and related catalogue maintenance as disclosed in Flohrer, the motivation as similarly taught/suggested therein and readily recognized by POSITA that such a consideration of star ephemeris may serve to improve platform performance generally (in terms of navigation and excluding otherwise false positive debris recognition, for instances of objects that are in fact stars), in a manner characterized by a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 19, Flohrer {modified by Zhang and Liu} teaches the system of claim 18, wherein the processing unit being operative to determine the plurality of characterized objects within the plurality of image objects comprises the processing unit being operative to determine the characterized objects to be stars and known satellites, based on the star ephemeris and the known satellite ephemeris. (Flohrer: Figs. 5-6. Also, sections 2-3, p1031-1033 and Table 4, p1038. See discussions in claims 5 & 7 in further view of that disclosure and associated rationale presented above in the rejection of claim 18, so as to further rely on the teachings of Liu)
Claim 20 is similarly rejected as claim(s) 1/18 (CRM claim corresponding to claim 18 while requiring the ‘capturing’ of claim 1 that is omitted for the case of claim 18). (See section 2 of Flohrer for the system disclosure implying a computer readable medium. See also page 5 of Zhang, 4th paragraph from bottom of the page, i.e., “computer”.)
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flohrer {modified by Zhang and Liu} as applied to claims 1 and 4 discussed above, and further in view of Martin.
Regarding claim 2, Flohrer {modified by Zhang} discloses the method of claim 1, wherein selecting the area of sky Flohrer: section 2, p1030-1031. See discussions in claim 1.)
Flohrer {modified by Zhang} does not disclose explicitly but Martin teaches, in an analogous art of space surveying by detecting space objects, selecting the area of sky comprising at least a 1% field of view, from a perspective of the image taking satellite; and wherein the image taking satellite is disposed at an altitude of 617 km. (Martin: “[0079] Preferably optical systems are used that have a wide field, greater than or equal to 5ox5o, preferably greater than or equal to 10ox10o.” “[0088] According to a variant of the disclosed embodiment, each station is equipped with an optical survey system and a tracking telescope.” “[0229] The tracking system is based on conventional telescopes with high sensitivity and standard field of view of the order of 1o.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Flohrer {modified by Zhang and Liu}’s disclosure with Martin’s teachings by combining the method for detecting space objects (from Flohrer {modified by Zhang and Liu}) with the technique of selecting the area of sky comprising at least a 1% field of view (from Martin) to yield no more than predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions since all the claimed elements, which are taught by prior art references, would continue to operate in the same manner, particularly, the method for detecting space objects would still work in the way according to Flohrer {modified by Zhang and Liu} and the technique of selecting the area of sky comprising at least a 1% field of view would continue to function as taught by Martin. In fact, the inclusion of Martin's technique of selecting the area of sky comprising at least a 1% field of view would provide a practical and/or alternative implementation of the method for detecting space objects and as a result would enable a better and more effective method for detecting space objects due to the implementation made possible by the combination.
Flohrer {as proposed} does not disclose explicitly wherein the image taking satellite is disposed at an altitude of 617 km.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an altitude of 617 km or any other altitude under 2000 km, typical for LEO satellites, for the image taking satellite depending on the application, that is, these are simply design choices. Applicant has not disclosed that selecting an altitude of 617 km provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with either the selection taught by Flohrer (e.g., a LEO satellite at an altitude of 800 km) or the claimed altitude of 617 km because both selection perform the same function of capturing an image of the area of sky.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art to modify Flohrer {modified by Zhang, Liu, and Martin} with different design choices to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Regarding claim 9, Flohrer {modified by Zhang and Liu} discloses the method of claim 4, wherein at least a portion of the uncharacterized objects comprise defunct human made debris. (Martin: [0013] In addition, the distribution of debris sizes varies from a characteristic radius of several millimeters, e.g. propulsion or paint residue, to meteorites with several tens of meters, satellites or artificial orbital systems in particular, whether they are operational or not.” “[0048] The solutions mentioned above and currently proposed do not however allow the fundamental difficulties and constraints linked to LEO monitoring to be resolved, i.e.: [0049] the need for rapid (several days) detection of any new object, in particular to identify any fragmentation or explosion phenomenon in orbit”. “[0060] The disclosed embodiment therefore aims to define a ground-based LEO survey system based on purely passive optical solutions that, at a competitive cost compared to radar solutions (a factor of 2 to 10), provide comparable performance levels, as follows: [0061] equivalent coverage of the object population in LEO, in terms of completeness, maximum detection period for a new object and maximum system revisit period for each cataloged object, i.e. typically a revisit period allowing 95% of objects larger than 10 cm to be detected”). Examiner further takes Official Notice to the fact that ‘defunct’ space debris is one class of commonly encountered space debris – particularly for an instance that permissible interpretation includes portions of otherwise/previously functional satellites that have been rendered inoperable/defunct by means of collision(s), if not otherwise abandoned.
The reasoning and motivation to combine, such that the proposed combination at least in view of Flohrer as further modified by Martin includes debris of a ‘defunct’ class, are similar to those previously presented for the case of claim 2 with additional reasoning that the purely passive optical solutions of Martin’s technique would work equally well with Flohrer {modified by Zhang and Liu}’s method even though Martin’s technique is for a ground-based LEO survey system while Fluhrer {modified by Zhang and Liu}’s method is space-based.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flohrer {modified by Zhang and Liu} as applied to claim 1 discussed above, and further in view of Schildknecht.
Regarding claim 13, Flohrer {modified by Zhang and Liu} teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising determining a size of at least one of the uncharacterized objects Flohrer: “to analyse how the existing knowledge gap in the space debris population in the millimetre and centimetre regime may be closed by means of a passive optical instrument.” (Abstract, and section 1, p1030). See discussions in claim 1 regarding determining the uncharacterized objects.)
Concerning the recited language based on a brightness of the at least one of the uncharacterized objects, see also newly cited Liu (page 5 Section 2.2, page 1 Table 1, and e.g. page 8 of 24 “Because the brightness information is closely related to the observation angle and the angle of the sun, even if certain space debris can simultaneously be observed by two star trackers, its brightness information will also vary greatly due to the influence of the observation angle and the sun angle [26]. Therefore, it is only a reference value and can be used to evaluate the target size information after the completion of orbit determination”.)
Flohrer {modified by Zhang} does not disclose explicitly but Schildknecht teaches, in an analogous art of space debris survey, determining a size of an object based on a brightness of the object. (Schildknecht: “Optical observations primarily measure the apparent brightness of an object expressed in astronomical magnitudes. … object diameters may be derived from absolute magnitudes by making some reasonable assumptions on the reflectivity (albedo) and the shape of the considered objects. … Optical measurements in LEO are currently conducted by NASA trying to derive the albedo of known small-size debris by comparing the optical brightness with the corresponding diameters derived by radar (Kessler and Jarvis 2004; Africano et al. 2004).” (p59))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Flohrer {modified by Zhang and Liu}’s disclosure with Schildknecht’s teachings by combining the method for detecting space objects (from Flohrer {modified by Zhang and Liu}) with the technique of determining a size of an object based on a brightness of the object (from Schildknecht) to yield no more than predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions since all the claimed elements, which are taught by prior art references, would continue to operate in the same manner, particularly, the method for detecting space objects would still work in the way according to Flohrer {modified by Zhang and Liu} and the technique of determining a size of an object based on a brightness of the object would continue to function as taught by Schildknecht. In fact, the inclusion of Schildknecht's technique of determining a size of an object based on a brightness of the object would provide a practical and/or alternative implementation of the method for detecting space objects and as a result would enable a better and more effective method for detecting space objects due to the implementation made possible by the combination.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Flohrer {modified by Zhang and Liu} with Schildknecht to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IAN L LEMIEUX whose telephone number is (571)270-5796. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 - 6:00 EST.
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, Chan Park can be reached at 571-272-7409. 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.
/IAN L LEMIEUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2669
Prosecution Insights