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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged that application is a National Stage application of PCT FR2022/050492. Priority to FR 2102684 with a priority date of 17 March 2021 is acknowledged under 35 USC 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS dated 18 September 2025 has been considered and placed in the application file.
Specification - Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should not contain legal language such as comprising.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Specification - Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the blocks pertaining to elements (lines and other picture elements) in FIG. 7, (unlabeled blocks and pictures) shown in FIG. 9, (unlabeled blocks) shown in FIG. 10 and (unlabeled blocks and tables) shown in FIG. 11 do not have descriptive labels in conformance with 37 CFR 1.84(n) and 1.84(o), or numbering that is further described in the specification. For example, a descriptive label of "table 1" or "catalog information table" should be inserted into FIG. 11 to describe the upper table (within block 4), as opposed to “table 2” or “predicted location table” for the tables within block 5. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification - Drawings
Acknowledgement is made of the color drawings submitted 18 September 2023 in this application. Applicants are reminded that, absent a successful petition, the black and white drawings submitted on 18 September 2023 will be used. No petition is currently on file.
Claim Objections
In Claim 1 the Examiner has noted the use of at least one of the clauses “a central computer for recording”, “adapted to” or “adaptable to.” Examples of such claim language raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim. The claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. Notably, limitations recited after the phrases will be considered optional to the functionality of the claimed system. It is suggested to positively and concretely define the functionality of the claimed invention. Examiner recommends amending the claim to "that records".
1st Claim Interpretation
Under MPEP 2143.03, "All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art." In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970). As a general matter, the grammar and ordinary meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation.
Under SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004), “the phrase ‘at least one of’ precedes a series of categories of criteria, and the patentee used the term ‘and’ to separate the categories of criteria, which connotes a conjunctive list. The district court correctly interpreted this phrase as requiring that the user select at least one value for each category; that is, at least one of a desired program start time, a desired program end time, a desired program service, and a desired program type.”, SuperGuide, 358 F.3d at 886.
In this case, applicant has presented the following categorical list, all of which must be present in order to reject the claim:
each of the telescopes oriented with an elevation angle between 35 and 85°,
each of the telescopes having a field of view between 2 and 6 degrees square and
comprising a sensor of N x M pixels each of a width L for acquiring images.
2nd Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “an elevation angle between 35 and 85°, each of the telescopes having a field of view between 2 and 6 degrees” "[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) (emphasis in original) (Claims to titanium (Ti) alloy with 0.6-0.9% nickel (Ni) and 0.2-0.4% molybdenum (Mo) were held anticipated by a graph in a Russian article on Ti-Mo-Ni alloys because the graph contained an actual data point corresponding to a Ti alloy containing 0.25% Mo and 0.75% Ni and this composition was within the claimed range of compositions.). "If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Thus, if prior art discloses a range which touches or overlaps the claimed range, it anticipates the claim.
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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "C" twice. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the second “C” and if it is different than the first “C” limitation in the claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of US Patent 12,430,773 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications claim:
A system for detecting the path of moving objects comprises:
a first network of N1 telescopes each having a field angle of M1 degrees and orientated to cover an arc of C° in a plane P1, M1 being between 1 and 4°, N1 being greater than C/M1,
wherein the system further comprises a computer executing: for each of the images I, a recognition processing of the coordinates of a segment Si (T, H, C) corresponding to a movement of an object in the corresponding telescope field T, where the variable H designates a time stamp of the image and C denotes coordinates of the segment in the image; and processing applied to all of the recorded segments to estimate the paths of the objects.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims of this application have not in fact been patented.
1st Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Patent Publication 2013 0278757 A1, (Martin et al.) in view of US Patent Publication 2022 0026700 A1, (Dantowitz).
[AltContent: textbox (Martin et al. Fig. 1, showing multiple telescopes at different points around the earth used to detect orbital objects.)]
PNG
media_image1.png
440
523
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1
Regarding Claim 1, Martin et al. teach a system for detecting a path of moving celestial objects ("The disclosed embodiment is more specifically concerned with debris in Low Earth Orbit," paragraph [0007]), the system comprising:
a plurality of telescopes each configured to rotate about a zenithal axis ("telescopes arranged on the surface of the planet according to a configuration designed to provide an effective daily cycle," paragraph [0066]), each of the telescopes oriented with an elevation angle between 35 and 85° ("each optical system installed at each node of the grid scans only areas of sky some 10° to 40°, preferably 20° to 40°, in azimuth above 35° and of 10° to 60° in elevation, preferably 20° to 60°, around azimuths varying according to the time, season and latitude," paragraph [00120]), each of the telescopes having a field of view between 2 and 6 degrees square and comprising a sensor of N x M pixels each of a width L for acquiring images ("For the optical systems, detectors are used that have a wide field, greater than 5° or preferably greater than 10°, and are designed to detect the objects in the scanned area," paragraph [0079]); and
a central computer for recording time-stamped data corresponding to each of the images acquired by each of the sensors of each of the telescopes ("a computer means for processing the images coming from the optical systems to extract the date stamped positions of the objects going across the field," paragraph [0065]), coordinates of the start of each trace and the end of each trace being determined by way of astrometry reduction matching a pattern of fixed stars in each image with data from a star catalog ("determining for each image the coordinates of the identified orbital objects by measuring their position (central pixel) relative to the stars' positions. For this determination, 5 known stars are used even though, in theory, 3 stars are enough; but in this way the precision and reliability of the calculations are improved," paragraph [0132]), the central computer executing processing operations to estimate orbital paths for each moving object to determine, for each of the objects, whether or not it the respective object belongs to an orbital path ("sufficient precision in measuring the changes in objects crossing this field of view to estimate their orbital parameters with the required performance level," paragraph [0024]), and processing operations to record a catalog of orbital parameters of the moving objects ("population of LEO objects to be covered, the objective coverage
PNG
media_image2.png
576
476
media_image2.png
Greyscale
rate and the precision to be maintained for the catalog," paragraph [0120]).
[AltContent: textbox (Dantowitz Fig. 1, showing a rotating telescope)]Martin et al. do not explicitly teach all of each trace recorded during exposure time.
However, Dantowitz teaches wherein the data comprises, for each of the images, coordinates time-stamped with an accuracy of at least a millisecond of a start and of an end of each trace recorded during exposure time ("Secondary data may include location, weather parameters, time tags, and pointing data from the KTM. In at least some embodiments, the information is parsed and accepted by the data handling system," paragraph [0209] where the teaching of time tags enables a person of ordinary skill to use the most exact time period available, also see "(m) timing to less than 10 milliseconds," paragraph [0184]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify “Space Survey System for Monitoring Near Earth Space” as taught by Martin et al. to use “Telescope Array System and Processing Method” as taught by Dantowitz.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that, “Further limitations and disadvantages of conventional and traditional approaches will become apparent to one of skill in the art, through comparison of such systems with some aspects of the present invention as set forth in the remainder of the present application with reference to the drawings.” as noted by the Dantowitz disclosure in paragraph [0021].
Claim 2
Regarding claim 2, Martin et al. teach the system of claim 1, as noted above.
Martin et al. do not explicitly teach all of telescopes are configured to rotate in a jumping manner.
However, Dantowitz teaches wherein the telescopes are configured to rotate in a jumping manner ("In at least some embodiments, tracking can keep a moving object-of-interest stationary in the field(s) of view or slew to stationary positions ahead of the satellite and allow the object to repeatedly streak through the field(s) of view, or a blend of the two approaches," paragraph [0229]).
Claim 3
Regarding claim 3, Martin et al. teach the system of claim 1, as noted above.
Martin et al. do not explicitly teach all of the telescopes are configured to rotate with a number of steps per second.
However, Dantowitz teaches wherein the telescopes are configured to rotate with a number of steps per second during rotation of the telescopes, the number of steps per second is being determined by the relationship P x C = 360 . Cos E / N / T ("the tracking mount of system 100 may be commanded to strategically scan the fields of view 105 through space at angular velocities matching specific orbital altitudes and inclinations," paragraph [0230]) where:
V is a speed of rotation of an object relative to a position of the observation system at a given altitude and elevation angle ("In at least some embodiments, tracking can keep a moving object-of-interest stationary in the field(s) of view or slew to stationary positions ahead of the satellite and allow the object to repeatedly streak through the field(s) of view, or a blend of the two approaches," paragraph [0229]);
C is a vertical and horizontal field of the camera ("In at least some embodiments, the search rate of the system 100 depends on the optical configuration. In at least some embodiments, in a wide-field mode, the system 100 is a 110-megapixel array delivering a 25 deg2 field of view," paragraph [0189]);
N is the number of telescopes of the plurality ("sensors 1061 - 10620 of telescopes 1021-10220, that collectively provide 110 megapixels of sensors," paragraph [0231]);
T is a time lapsed while the object crosses the field C ("may appear stationary or nearly so in fields of view 105, if only for a short period of time," paragraph [0231]);
P is a number of steps taken to rotate by C horizontal degrees per second ("In at least some embodiments, tracking can keep a moving object-of-interest stationary in the field(s) of view or slew to stationary positions ahead of the satellite and allow the object to repeatedly streak through the field(s) of view, or a blend of the two approaches," paragraph [0229]);
E is an object elevation angle relative to a horizontal plane at the observation system ("the tracking mount of system 100 initially points and maintains the system 100 on a desired fixed sky location with respect either to the star background or to a selected azimuth and elevation. Objects passing through the telescope's field of view while in this "staring mode" may be detected either as a streak or as a series of points," paragraph [0228]);
C=T x V ("different exposures and different array configurations will produce different survey rates as a function of sensitivity which can be optimized for scanning a desired altitude or type of target. The variables determining search rate and limiting magnitude include effective aperture, focal ratio, spatial sampling, read noise, quantum efficiency (QE) of the sensor, time for the telescope step and settle, and exposure time to suit the desired target population," paragraph [0191]).
Claim 6
Regarding claim 6, Martin et al. teach the system of claim 5, as noted above.
Martin et al. do not explicitly teach all of telescopes are configured to rotate in a jumping manner.
However, Dantowitz teaches wherein the platform is configured to rotate in a jumping manner with steps of 11.25° ("In at least some embodiments, tracking can keep a moving object-of-interest stationary in the field(s) of view or slew to stationary positions ahead of the satellite and allow the object to repeatedly streak through the field(s) of view, or a blend of the two approaches," paragraph [0229]).
2nd Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Patent Publication 2013 0278757 A1, (Martin et al.) and US Patent Publication 2022 0026700 A1, (Dantowitz) in view of International Patent Publication 2015 136102 A1, (Boer).
Claim 4
Regarding Claim 4, Martin et al. and Dantowitz teach the system of claim 1, as noted above.
[AltContent: textbox (Boer Fig.1, showing many telescopes used to detect a satellite.)]
PNG
media_image3.png
485
725
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Martin et al. and Dantowitz do not explicitly teach all of four telescope search separated by 90°.
However, Boer teaches wherein the plurality of telescopes comprises four telescope search separated by 90° ("In this example, a fourth distribution corresponds to the first distribution R- | . Indeed, a movement of the optical axis Ao (Ty) of each detection telescope Ty to change from the third distribution R 3 to a new distribution in the continuity of the movement of the fields," page 19, 9th paragraph).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify “Space Survey System for Monitoring Near Earth Space” as taught by Martin et al. and “Telescope Array System and Processing Method” as taught by Dantowitz to use “Optical method for Detecting Spatial Moving Objects and Systems of Telescopes for Detecting Spatial Moving Objects” as taught by Boer..
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that, “The invention solves the aforementioned drawbacks. In particular, the invention relates to a method for detecting a mobile in space as well as to a method for multiplexing a telescope field distribution for detecting a mobile in space.” as noted by the Boer disclosure in paragraph [0002].
Claim 5
Regarding Claim 5, Martin et al. and Dantowitz teach the system of claim 1, as noted above.
Martin et al. and Dantowitz do not explicitly teach all of four telescopes supported by the platform.
However, Boer teaches further comprising a platform, wherein the plurality of telescopes comprises four telescopes supported by the platform, axes of observation of the four telescopes being separated by 90° ("A pseudo-parallax will be induced by the angle difference of the different optical axes A 0 (T 4 ) and A 0 (T 32 ) in the measurements of the traces of a mobile traversing different fields," page 20, 4th paragraph, where the different optical axes teaches telescopes being separated by a number of degrees according to the number of telescopes, of which 4 telescopes and 90 degrees is one).
Reference Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US Patent Publication 2019 0297238 A1 to Klosterman discloses multi-camera systems and methods for imaging faint objects are disclosed, which includes an array of cameras that, when taken alone, are incapable of imaging such objects.
Non Patent Publication “A Low Cost Automatic Detection and Ranging System for Space Surveillance in the Medium Earth Orbit Region and Beyond” to Radu et al. discloses telescopes are pointed towards any visible region of the sky, and the system is able to automatically calibrate the orientation parameters using automatic matching of reference stars from an online catalog, with a very high tolerance for the initial guess of the sky region and camera orientation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEATH E WELLS whose telephone number is (703)756-4696. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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, Ms. Jennifer Mehmood can be reached on 571-272-2976. 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.
/H.E.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2664
/PING Y HSIEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2664
Date: 8 October 2025