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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 56, “mechanical error offsets 605” does not appear in any figure.
In paragraph 78, “input/output circuitry 90” should read “input/output circuitry 906”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Pending claims must be given broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. The claimed “encoder offset data structure” will be interpreted to include a combination of the data from an azimuth error map and an altitude error map (Specification Para 45).
The claimed “azimuth-based encoder errors” and “elevation-based encoder errors” will be interpreted to include pointing errors (Para 37: “The azimuth-based encoder error may then be generated based on a measured position and a ground position truth corresponding to at least one of the plurality of celestial objects” and Para 42: “The elevation-based encoder error may then be generated based on a measured position and a ground position truth corresponding to at least one of the plurality of celestial objects”).
The claimed “encoder offset values” will be interpreted to include a combination of azimuth and elevation pointing errors (Para 46: “encoder offset data structure 315 may include a combination of errors (e.g. elevation-based encoder error and azimuth-based encoder error”).
The claimed “encoder correction model” will be interpreted to include calibration methods (Spec. Para 5: “then combining the plurality of resulting error maps to calibrate a telescope system”, Para 22: “improve precision of telescope measurements by accurately predicting encoder offsets that may be applied to refine position estimates output by any mapped telescope system”, and Para 49: “The encoder error correction model 325 may apply the respective offset to location estimates before outputting the estimate to an end user”).
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recites an abstract idea as discussed below. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for reasons discussed below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims are to one of the statutory categories of invention. Applied to the present application, the claims belong to the statutory class of a product or process.
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two Prongs. Prong 1 requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that the abstract idea belong to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Claim 1 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
A telescope alignment method, comprising:
generating an azimuth error map for a telescope system;
generating an elevation error map for the telescope system;
generating an encoder offset data structure for the telescope system based on a combination of the azimuth error map and the elevation error map; and
modifying an encoder correction model for the telescope system based on the encoder offset data structure.
The limitations underlined can be considered to describe a mathematical concept, namely steps to calculate error maps, calculate offset values, and build a correction model. The lack of specific equation in the claim merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible appropriate equations for accomplishing this purpose in all possible systems.
The additional limitations of “telescope alignment method” and “telescope system” are not particular machines and only limit the abstract idea to a field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The “telescope system” does not alter or affect how the steps of “generating error maps”, “generating encoder offset data”, or “modifying an encoder correction model” are performed.
The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea. The claim does not effect a real-world transformation or reduction of any particular article to a different state or thing. The claim does not contain additional elements which describe the functioning of a computer, or which describe a particular technology or technical field, being improved by the use of the abstract idea.
Step 2b of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The considerations for this particular claim are essentially the same as the considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2a, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 12 and 19 are analogous to claim 1, except claim 12 additionally recites “computing system comprising memory and one or more processors” and claim 19 additionally recites “one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media”. These are additional elements separate from the abstract idea that need to be considered at Prong 2 of the 101 analysis. However, these additional elements are merely generic computer processing components that are invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which does not cause the claim as a whole to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea (see ALICE CORP. v. CLS BANK INT’L 573 U. S. 208 (2014)). Claims 12 and 19 are therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101 as well.
Dependent Claims 2-11 are similarly ineligible. Dependent Claim 2 adds the recited “lookup table” to the abstract idea limitations discussed above. Dependent Claim 3 adds the recited “establishing elevation angle range” and “generating a plurality of azimuth-based encoder errors” to the abstract idea limitations. Dependent Claim 4 adds the recited “five-degree range” to the abstract idea limitations. Dependent Claim 5 adds the recited “fifteen to twenty degrees” to the abstract idea limitations. Dependent Claim 6 additionally recites “a number of celestial objects” which only limits the field of use. Dependent Claim 7 adds the recited “establishing an azimuth angle range” and “generating the azimuth-based encoder error” to the abstract idea limitations. Claim 7 additionally recites “identifying a plurality of celestial objects” which is a mental process. Dependent Claim 8 adds the recited “establishing an azimuth angle range” and “generating a plurality of elevation-based encoder errors“ to the abstract idea limitations. Dependent Claim 9 adds the recited “five-degree range” to the abstract idea limitations. Dependent Claim 10 additionally recites “a number of celestial objects” which only limits the field of use. Dependent Claim 11 adds the recited “establishing an elevation angle range” and “generating the elevation-based encoder error” to the abstract idea limitations. Claim 11 additionally recites “identifying a plurality of celestial objects” which is a mental process. None of these dependent claims recite any further additional elements which would cause the claim as a whole to integrate the recited abstract idea into a particular practical application at Prong 2, or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea at Step 2B. Claims 2-11 are therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101 as well.
Dependent Claims 13-18 and 20 are analogous to claims 2-8 and are therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101 for analogous reasons.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 12, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (KR 20230052000 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Cho teaches: A telescope alignment method (Para 8: “generating a first alignment model using the generated viewpoint data, and calculating a first coefficient for the first alignment model; generating a second alignment model based on the first alignment model, and calculating a second coefficient for the second alignment”), comprising:
generating an azimuth error map for a telescope system (Fig. 6(b); Para 122: “Figure 6(b) is calculated through the second alignment model It is a diagram of the equation for obtaining the error amount of the azimuth”);
generating an elevation error map for the telescope system (Fig. 6(a); Para 122: “Figure 6(a) is a schematic diagram of the equation for obtaining the error amount of the elevation”);
generating an encoder offset data structure for the telescope system based on
modifying an encoder correction model for the telescope system based on the encoder offset data structure (Fig. 7; Para 123: “Fig. 7 is a graph showing elevation and azimuth errors of stars after coordinate alignment”).
Cho does not explicitly teach generating an encoder offset data structure for the telescope system based on a combination of the azimuth error map and the elevation error map.
Cho further teaches generating an encoder offset data structure for the telescope system based on
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the elevation error map of Cho with the azimuth error map of Cho by combining them into a single data structure. Doing so would improve computational efficiency when retrieving error values.
Regarding Claim 2, Cho teaches wherein the encoder offset data structure comprises a lookup table with a plurality of encoder offset values and each encoder offset value corresponds to a particular azimuth angle and a particular elevation angle (Fig. 6; Para 122: “Figure 6 (a) is a schematic diagram of the equation for obtaining the error amount of the elevation angle of Equation 2 consisting of the coefficients calculated through the second alignment model, Figure 6 (b) is calculated through the second alignment model. It is a schematization of the equation for obtaining the error amount of the azimuth angle of Equation 2 composed of coefficients”).
Regarding Claim 12, the limitations of claim 12 are analogous to claim 1. Cho teaches the additionally recited computing system comprising memory and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory (Para 97: “The control device 10 includes at least one processor 12, a computer readable storage medium 14 and a communication bus 19. The processor 12 may cause the control device 10 to operate according to the exemplary embodiment mentioned above”).
Regarding Claim 13, the limitations of claim 13 are found in claim 2 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 19, the limitations of claim 19 are analogous to claim 1. Cho teaches the additionally recited one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media including instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors (Para 97: “The control device 10 includes at least one processor 12, a computer readable storage medium 14 and a communication bus 19. The processor 12 may cause the control device 10 to operate according to the exemplary embodiment mentioned above”).
Claims 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Yan ("Using Allan Variance Based Semi-Parameter Model to Calibrate Pointing Errors of Alt-az Telescopes", Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 614).
Regarding Claim 3, Cho teaches the limitations of claim 1 and Cho further teaches:
establishing an elevation angle range for the telescope system (Para 110: “the driving range of the elevation angle is 30° to 80°”);
generating a plurality of azimuth-based encoder errors for the telescope system, wherein each of the plurality of azimuth-based encoder errors correspond to a particular azimuth angle and the plurality of azimuth-based encoder errors comprise a respective azimuth-based encoder error (Fig. 5(b); Para 118: “Figure 5 (b) shows the azimuth error of each star”)
However, Cho does not explicitly teach each azimuth angle between zero and three-hundred and sixty degrees.
Yan teaches generating a plurality of azimuth-based encoder errors for the telescope system (Eq. 1, Section 2 Error Analysis and Modeling of Pointing Errors: “where ΔA and ΔE are pointing errors in azimuth axis and in elevation axis”), wherein each of the plurality of azimuth-based encoder errors correspond to a particular azimuth angle and the plurality of azimuth-based encoder errors comprise a respective azimuth-based encoder error for each azimuth angle between zero and three-hundred and sixty degrees (Fig. 3; Section 4 Experiment and Results: “an angular movement range from 0° to 360° in azimuth” and “The 176 stars in use were randomly distributed in the whole sky and uniformly selected from the FK5 Catalogue, as demonstrated in Figure 3”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the calibration method of Cho with the method of Yan by changing the azimuth range of Cho to be the azimuth range of Yan. Doing so would improve the accuracy of azimuth error map by having a larger range of azimuth angles.
Regarding Claim 7, Cho in view of Yan teaches the limitations of claim 3 and Cho in view of Yan further teaches:
establishing an azimuth angle range for the telescope system (Para 110: “the driving range of the azimuth angle is 0° to 180°”);
identifying a plurality of celestial objects within a field of view of the telescope system (Para 107: “In observing the stars, the space object monitoring system 1 obtains data”); and
generating the azimuth-based encoder error based on a measured position and a ground truth position corresponding to at least one of the plurality of celestial objects (Fig. 4(b); Para 113: “The difference between the predicted position of the star and the actually measured position can be calculated as shown in (b) of FIG. 4”).
Regarding Claim 8, Cho teaches the limitations of claim 1 and Cho further teaches:
establishing an azimuth angle range for the telescope system (Para 110: “the driving range for the azimuth angle is 0° to 180°”);
generating a plurality of elevation-based encoder errors for the telescope system, wherein each of the plurality of elevation-based encoder errors correspond to a particular elevation angle and the plurality of elevation-based encoder errors comprise a respective elevation-based encoder error (Fig. 5(a); Para 118: “Figure 5 (a) shows the elevation error of each star”)
Cho does not explicitly teach and for each angle between zero and one-hundred and eighty degrees.
Yan teaches generating a plurality of elevation-based encoder errors for the telescope system (Eq. 1, Section 2 Error Analysis and Modeling of Pointing Errors: “where ΔA and ΔE are pointing errors in azimuth axis and in elevation axis”), wherein each of the plurality of elevation-based encoder errors correspond to a particular elevation angle and the plurality of elevation-based encoder errors comprise a respective elevation-based encoder error for each angle between zero and one-hundred and eighty degrees (Fig. 3; Section 4 Experiment and Results: “an angular movement range from 0° to 360° in azimuth and 0° to 90° in the elevation” and “The 176 stars in use were randomly distributed in the whole sky and uniformly selected from the FK5 Catalogue, as demonstrated in Figure 3”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the calibration method of Cho with method of Yan by changing the elevation range of Cho to be the elevation range of Yan. Doing so would improve the accuracy of elevation error map by having a larger range of elevation angles.
Regarding Claim 10, Cho in view of Yan teaches the limitations of claim 8 and Cho in view of Yan further teaches: wherein the azimuth angle range is based on a number of celestial objects within a field of view of the telescope system at one or more elevation angles between zero and one-hundred and eighty degrees (Para 112: “In this test, 51 stars were selected as shown in FIG. 4 (a)”).
Regarding Claim 11, Cho in view of Yan teaches the limitations of claim 8 and Cho in view of Yan further teaches:
establishing an elevation angle range for the telescope system (Para 110: “the driving range of the elevation angle is 30° to 80°”);
identifying a plurality of celestial objects within a field of view of the telescope system (Para 107: “In observing the stars, the space object monitoring system 1 obtains data”); and
generating the elevation-based encoder error based on a measured position and a ground truth position corresponding to at least one of the plurality of celestial objects (Fig. 4(b); Para 113: “The difference between the predicted position of the star and the actually measured position can be calculated as shown in (b) of FIG. 4”).
Regarding Claims 14 and 20, the limitations of claims 14 and 20 are found in claims 3 and 8 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 4, 6, 9, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Yan as applied to claims 3 and 8 above, and further in view of Taylor (US 20090126774 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Cho in view of Yan teach the limitations of claim 3, but Cho in view of Yan does not explicitly teach wherein the elevation angle range comprises one or more elevation angles within a five-degree range.
Taylor teaches wherein the elevation angle range comprises one or more elevation angles within a five-degree range (Para 63: “scan the sky using a linear Lissajous pattern that has relatively prime periods in azimuth and elevation such that it covers the entire sky with 4-degree coverage”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the range of Taylor with the invention of Cho in view of Yan by limiting the established elevation range of Cho to the four degree range of Taylor. Doing so would improve accuracy of the azimuth error map by limiting the range of the elevation angles.
Regarding Claim 6, Cho in view of Yan and further in view of Taylor teach the limitations of claim 4 and Cho in view of Yan and Taylor further teaches wherein the elevation angle range is based on a number of celestial objects within a field of view of the telescope system at one or more azimuth angles between zero and three-hundred and sixty degrees (Para 112: “In this test, 51 stars were selected as shown in FIG. 4 (a)”).
Regarding Claim 9, Cho in view of Yan teach the limitations of claim 8, but Cho in view of Yan does not explicitly teach wherein the azimuth angle range comprises one or more azimuth angles within a five-degree range.
Taylor teaches wherein the azimuth angle range comprises one or more azimuth angles within a five-degree range (Para 63: “scan the sky using a linear Lissajous pattern that has relatively prime periods in azimuth and elevation such that it covers the entire sky with 4-degree coverage”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the range of Taylor with the invention of Cho in view of Yan by limiting the established azimuth range of Cho to the four degree range of Taylor. Doing so would improve accuracy of the elevation error map by limiting the range of the azimuth angles.
Regarding Claim 15, the limitations of claim 15 are found in claim 4 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 17, the limitations of claim 17 are found in claim 6 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 18, Cho in view of Yan and further in view of Taylor teaches the limitations of claim 15 and Cho further teaches:
establishing an azimuth angle range for the telescope system (Para 110: “the driving range of the azimuth angle is 0° to 180°”);
identifying a plurality of celestial objects within a field of view of the telescope system (Para 107: “In observing the stars, the space object monitoring system 1 obtains data”); and
generating the azimuth-based encoder error based on a measured position and a ground truth position corresponding to at least one of the plurality of celestial objects (Fig. 4(b); Para 113: “The difference between the predicted position of the star and the actually measured position can be calculated as shown in (b) of FIG. 4”).
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Yan and further in view of Taylor as applied to claims 4 and 15 above, and further in view of Chiarini (US 20150241677 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Cho in view of Yan and further in view of Taylor teaches the limitations of claim 4 but Cho, Yan, and Taylor do not explicitly teach wherein the five-degree range is between fifteen and twenty degrees.
Chiarini teaches wherein the five-degree range is between fifteen and twenty degrees (Para 5: “the object elevation needs to be greater than a fixed value, such as 15 degrees”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the elevation of Chiarini with the invention of Cho in view of Yan and Taylor by requiring the four-degree elevation range of Cho in view of Yan and Taylor start at the fifteen degree minimum of Chiarini. Doing so would allow for improve observation of celestial objects because measurements of objects with an elevation below fifteen degrees are less accurate.
Regarding Claim 16, the limitations of claim 16 are found in claim 5 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhong (CN 102879179 A) teaches calculating pointing error by locking the azimuth axis (Para 112: “data acquisition processing, the orientation of the telescope are locked at 0 degrees, 90 degrees, 180 degrees, 270 degree position, each azimuth position respectively shooting a group of error data to finish the data collection”).
Baun (US 20060238860 A1) teaches aligning a telescope by moving a predetermined amount in the elevation then moving a predetermined amount in the azimuth (Fig. 7; Para 69).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODGER MENSING whose telephone number is (571)270-0129. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/RODGER STEWART MENSING/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights