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 .
Amendment
Applicant submitted amendments on 06/25/2026. The Examiner acknowledges the amendment and has reviewed the claims accordingly.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS dated 07/28/2025 has been considered and placed in the application file.
Overview
Claims 1-13 are pending in the application.
Claims 1-13 are rejected.
Applicant Arguments:
In regards to the argument on Argument 1, Applicant/s state/s “This rejection is respectfully traversed for at least the following reasons. In the rejection, the Office asserts that the term "about" renders the claim indefinite for uncertainty to the metes and bounds thereof. Applicant respectfully submits that ¶0021 of the instant application includes an explicit, clear definition for the term (e.g., "the terms 'about' [is] used in this specification in connection with a numerical value, it is intended that the associated numerical value include a tolerance of ±10% around the stated numerical value," etc.), whereby the use of the term in Claim 13, in view of the specification, is in fact definite.” (See Remarks Pg 5, paragraph 4). Therefore the § 112(b) rejection on Claim 13 should be withdrawn.
In regards to the argument on Argument 2, Applicant/s state/s “Bamann merely illustrates a line of sight of the satellite device 100, i.e., the telescope axis of the telescope device included in the satellite device. The line is merely drawn in FIG. 2, but there is no indication that the line of apparent motion is determined or calculated based on any orbital direction. At !]{0051, for example, as cited, Bamann discloses a position dependent orbit coordinate system, and setting a predetermined pitch angle between the telescope axis and the orbit axis and then capturing lineshaped images. The object is not mentioned in ¶0052, as also cited by the Office. Also, at
¶0021, as cited, Bamann merely describes the concept of a path axis. There is no indication that
the path axis of the object, specifically, is determined or used in the manner claimed. Consequently, as cited, there is no expressed indication that the "orbital direction" of the object
in Bamann is used to determine any line of apparent motion.” (See Remarks Pg 6, paragraph 3). Therefore 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection on Claim 1 should be withdrawn.
In regards to the argument on Argument 3, Applicant/s state/s “the line of apparent motion is a combination of vector representations of the respective orbital directions. The Office cites similar subject matter in rejecting Claim 8, which recites a combination of the orbit directions. Claim 8 is amended herein to further recite the combination is an addition. As explained above, in Bamann, as cited, there is no specific step disclosed for determining the line of apparent motion, much less determining the same based on the specific vectors now recited in Claim 1.” (See Remarks Pg 6, paragraph 4). Therefore 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection on Claim 1 and 8 should be withdrawn.
In regards to the argument on Argument 4, Applicant/s state/s “Xu merely discloses calculating angular velocity and yaw/roll attitude angles to align a TDI camera's imaging direction with the distribution trace of curve-distributed ground targets. The angular velocity calculation is apparently directed to matching the velocity to the ground target trace direction. This is a satellite attitude maneuver calculation for Earth observation of ground targets. This is irrelevant to the residual motion recited in Claim 1. That is, as cited, Xu does not disclose determining the motion of the image capture device sufficient to expose an object in space to sensors of the image capture device. (See Remarks Pg 7, paragraph 3). Therefore 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection on Claim 1 should be withdrawn.
In regards to the argument on Argument 5, Applicant/s state/s “the Office's mapping of determining a residual motion to Xu's angular velocity calculation conflates two distinct concepts: (1) the satellite-level attitude velocity needed to align a camera with a target trace for Earth imaging, and (2) the camera-level residual rate needed to move an object across the sensors within the focal plane during an encounter window. These are technically and functionally distinct, whereby Xu is deficient. As such, the suggested combination of Bamman and Xu is also deficient.” (See Remarks Pg 7, paragraph 4). Therefore 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection on Claims 16 and 7-11 should be withdrawn.
In regards to the argument on Argument 6, Applicant/s state/s “Claims 7 and 12 depend from independent Claim 1, which is patentable over Bamann and Xu for the reasons explained above.” (See Remarks Pg 7, paragraph 7). Therefore 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection on Claims 7-12 should be withdrawn.
In regards to the argument on Argument 7, Applicant/s state/s “Claim 13 depends from independent Claim 1, which is patentable over Bamann and Xu for the reasons explained above.” (See Remarks Pg 8, paragraph 4). Therefore 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection on Claim 13 should be withdrawn.
Examiner’s Responses:
In response to Argument 1, Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/25/2026, with respect to rejection of Claim 13 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
In response to Argument 2 and 3, Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/25/2026 with respect to the U.S.C 103 rejections of Claims 1-6 and 8-11 have been considered but are non-persuasive in view of the maintained rejection caused by the amendments. The rejection is maintained for claims 1-6 and 8-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Bamann et al (DE 102023005476 A1 using espace.net for translation, hereafter referred to as Bamann) in view of Xu et al ("Study of space optical dynamic push-broom imaging along the trace of targets." Optik 202 (2020): 163640., hereafter referred to as Xu).
The Examiner finds that Bamann teaches on the amended claim language “orbital direction” in the amended claims 1.
Specifically, Bamann teaches the orbital direction in both ¶0021 and ¶0051-¶0052 in the form of axis that describes the path of the object relative to its movement. The Examiner also finds that Bamann teaches the direction of both the object and the image capture device in ¶0001, ¶0009, ¶0011, and ¶0051 and during prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation while reading claim language in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In construing the meaning of claims terms, caution must be taken not to import limitations from the specification as “[i]t is the claims that measure the invention.” See SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). The Examiner interprets that under broadest reasonable interpretation “orbital direction” has no special definition in the claims, and therefore can be interpreted as the path of the object or image capture device, as taught by Bamann. Applicant argues that “Bamann merely illustrates a line of sight of the satellite device 100, i.e., the telescope axis of the telescope device included in the satellite device. The line is merely drawn in FIG. 2, but there is no indication that the line of apparent motion is determined or calculated based on any orbital direction. At ¶0051, for example, as cited, Bamann discloses a position dependent orbit coordinate system, and setting a predetermined pitch angle between the telescope axis and the orbit axis and then capturing lineshaped images. The object is not mentioned in ¶0052, as also cited by the Office. Also, at
¶0021, as cited, Bamann merely describes the concept of a path axis. There is no indication that
the path axis of the object, specifically, is determined or used in the manner claimed. Consequently, as cited, there is no expressed indication that the "orbital direction" of the object
in Bamann is used to determine any line of apparent motion.” And “the line of apparent motion is a combination of vector representations of the respective orbital directions. The Office cites similar subject matter in rejecting Claim 8, which recites a combination of the orbit directions. Claim 8 is amended herein to further recite the combination is an addition. As explained above, in Bamann, as cited, there is no specific step disclosed for determining the line of apparent motion, much less determining the same based on the specific vectors now recited in Claim 1.” The examiner interprets that Bamann does teach the concept identifying orbital direction while the Xu reference teaches the concept of determining a line of apparent motion in Pg 5 ¶03, the details of the rejection below. The Examiner will maintain prior art Bamann and details of the rejection are below.
In response to Argument 4 and 5, Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/25/2026 with respect to the U.S.C 103 rejections of Claims 1-6 and 8-11 have been considered but are non-persuasive in view of the maintained rejection caused by the amendments. The rejection is maintained for claims 1-6 and 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Bamann et al (DE 102023005476 A1 using espace.net for translation, hereafter referred to as Bamann) in view of Xu et al ("Study of space optical dynamic push-broom imaging along the trace of targets." Optik 202 (2020): 163640., hereafter referred to as Xu).
The Examiner finds that Zu teaches on the amendment claim language “determining a line of apparent motion between the object in space and the image capture device based on a combination of a first vector representative and a second vector representative” in the amended claims 1.
Specifically, Xu teaches determining a line of apparent motion between the object in space and the image capture device in in Pg 5 ¶03 in which Xu discloses calculating the angular velocity to line up the imaging trace with the target, wherein the TDI imaging velocity is made consistent with the direction of the trace, based on a combination of the vectors as disclosed by Xu in Fig 8 and Pg 6 ¶02 discloses that the boresight vector and the observation vector must coincide to point to the target which further teaches a first vector and second vector representation and during prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation while reading claim language in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In construing the meaning of claims terms, caution must be taken not to import limitations from the specification as “[i]t is the claims that measure the invention.” See SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) The Examiner interprets that under broadest reasonable interpretation “first vector” and “second vector” has no special definition in the claims, and therefore can be interpreted as the combination of first and second vectors, in the form of the boresight vector and the observation vector taught by Xu. Applicant argues that “Xu merely discloses calculating angular velocity and yaw/roll attitude angles to align a TDI camera's imaging direction with the distribution trace of curve-distributed ground targets. The angular velocity calculation is apparently directed to matching the velocity to the ground target trace direction. This is a satellite attitude maneuver calculation for Earth observation of ground targets. This is irrelevant to the residual motion recited in Claim 1. That is, as cited, Xu does not disclose determining the motion of the image capture device sufficient to expose an object in space to sensors of the image capture device.” And “the Office's mapping of determining a residual motion to Xu's angular velocity calculation conflates two distinct concepts: (1) the satellite-level attitude velocity needed to align a camera with a target trace for Earth imaging, and (2) the camera-level residual rate needed to move an object across the sensors within the focal plane during an encounter window. These are technically and functionally distinct, whereby Xu is deficient. As such, the suggested combination of Bamann and Xu is also deficient.” In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., : (1) the satellite-level attitude velocity needed to align a camera with a target trace for Earth imaging, and (2) the camera-level residual rate needed to move an object across the sensors within the focal plane during an encounter window) are not recited in their entirety in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, the examiner interprets that Bamann does teach the concept identifying orbital direction while the Xu reference teaches the concept of determining a line of apparent motion the details of the rejection below. The Examiner will maintain prior art Bamann and Xu and details of the rejection are below.
In response to Argument 6, Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/25/2026 with respect to the U.S.C 103 rejections of Claims 7-12 have been considered but are unpersuasive in view of the maintained rejection caused by the amendments. The rejection is maintained for claims 7 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Bamann et al (DE 102023005476 A1 using espace.net for translation, hereafter referred to as Bamann) in view of Xu et al ("Study of space optical dynamic push-broom imaging along the trace of targets." Optik 202 (2020): 163640., hereafter referred to as Xu) in further view of Solanyk (US Patent Pub US 20190161212 A1, hereafter referred to as Solanyk).
In response to Argument 7, Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/25/2026 with respect to the U.S.C 103 rejections of Claims 13 have been considered but are unpersuasive in view of the maintained rejection caused by the amendments. The rejection is maintained for claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Bamann et al (DE 102023005476 A1 using espace.net for translation, hereafter referred to as Bamann) in view of Xu et al ("Study of space optical dynamic push-broom imaging along the trace of targets." Optik 202 (2020): 163640., hereafter referred to as Xu) in further view of Sheng et al ("Research on geometric calibration of spaceborne linear array whiskbroom camera." Sensors 18.1 (2018): 247, hereafter referred to as Sheng).
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the
plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification.
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. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Claim 12 recite “one or more of” then listing “a solar position relative to the image capture device; a relative velocity of the object in space; a required scan rate; and a relative distance between the image capture device and the object in space.” Since “one or more of” is disjunctive, any one of the elements found in the prior art is sufficient to reject the claim. While citations have been provided for completeness and rapid prosecution, only one element is required. Because, on balance, it appears the disjunctive interpretation enjoys the most specification support and for that reason the disjunctive interpretation (one of A, B OR C) is being adopted for the purposes of this Office Action. Applicant’s comments and/or amendments relating to this issue are invited to clarify the claim language and the prosecution history.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Bamann et al (DE 102023005476 A1 using espace.net for translation, hereafter referred to as Bamann) in view of Xu et al ("Study of space optical dynamic push-broom imaging along the trace of targets." Optik 202 (2020): 163640., hereafter referred to as Xu).
Regarding Claim 1, Bamann teaches a method of collecting a non-earth image of an object in space (Bamann ¶0001, ¶0009, ¶0011 ¶0051 discloses a method for imaging space objects in front of a star background) by an image capture device (Bamann ¶0011 discloses an imaging telescope sensor which is arranged and designed to generate images of space objects in front of the star background), the method comprising:
identifying a first orbital direction (Bamann ¶0021 discloses a path axis which describes the path of the object) of the object in space (Bamann ¶0001, ¶0009, ¶0011 ¶0051 discloses a method for imaging space objects in front of a star background);
identifying a second orbital direction (Bamann ¶0051-¶0052 discloses an orbit axis which moves in the direction relative to the path axis) of the image capture device (Bamann ¶0011 discloses an imaging telescope sensor which is arranged and designed to generate images of space objects in front of the star background);
of the identified first orbital direction (Bamann ¶0021 discloses a path axis which describes the path of the object)
of the identified second orbital direction (Bamann ¶0051-¶0052 discloses a telescope axis which moves in the pitch direction relative to the path axis);
across the image capture device (Bamann ¶0011 discloses an imaging telescope sensor which is arranged and designed to generate images of space objects in front of the star background);
assessing an encounter window (Bamann Fig 2, 112, ¶0034 disclose a field of view that is used to determine when the telescope can image the space object) between the image capture device (Bamann ¶0011 discloses an imaging telescope sensor which is arranged and designed to generate images of space objects in front of the star background) and the object in space (Bamann ¶0001, ¶0009, ¶0011 ¶0051 discloses a method for imaging space objects in front of a star background) ;
aligning sensors (Bamann ¶0045 discloses the satellite device can have an alignment device for the telescope, such that not the satellite device as such moves with respect to the orbit coordinate system) of the image capture device (Bamann ¶0011 discloses an imaging telescope sensor which is arranged and designed to generate images of space objects in front of the star background); and
when the object in space (Bamann ¶0001, ¶0009, ¶0011 ¶0051 discloses a method for imaging space objects in front of a star background) and the image capture device (Bamann ¶0011 discloses an imaging telescope sensor which is arranged and designed to generate images of space objects in front of the star background) are within the encounter window, (Bamann Fig 2, 112, ¶0034 disclose a field of view that is used to determine when the telescope can image the space object) by the image capture device (Bamann ¶0011 discloses an imaging telescope sensor which is arranged and designed to generate images of space objects in front of the star background).
Bamann does not explicitly teach determining a line of apparent motion between the object in space and the image capture, device based on a combination of a first vector representative and a second vector representative scanning at least the object in space and along the line of apparent motion and along the line of apparent motion.
Xu is in the same field of orbital imaging using satellites. Further, Xu teaches determining a line of apparent motion between the object in space and the image capture (Xu Pg 5 ¶03 discloses calculating the angular velocity to line up the imaging trace with the target, wherein the TDI imaging velocity is made consistent with the direction of the trace) device based on a combination (Xu Fig 8 and Pg 6 ¶02 discloses that the boresight vector and the observation vector must coincide to point to the target) of a first vector representative (Xu Fig 8, and Pg 6 ¶02 discloses an observation vector rst which is a connection between the satellite and target, in which the satellite is capturing the image) and a second vector representative (Xu Fig 8 and Pg 6 ¶02 discloses an a boresight vector which is directed to the direction of the imaging satellite and the target) scanning at least the object in space (Xu Pg 9 ¶02 discloses scanning the object in space using a dynamic push broom scanning method) along the line of apparent motion (Xu Pg 5 ¶03 discloses calculating the angular velocity to line up the imaging trace with the target, wherein the TDI imaging velocity is made consistent with the direction of the trace) and along the line of apparent motion (Xu Pg 5 ¶03 discloses calculating the angular velocity to line up the imaging trace with the target, wherein the TDI imaging velocity is made consistent with the direction of the trace).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Bamann by incorporating push broom scanning method and combining two vectors to determine the location of the satellite in relation to the object in space as taught by Xu, wherein Xu further teaches computing the TDI imaging velocity to match the motion of the target across the trace (Xu, Abstract; Pg 5 ¶02-¶03), thereby determining the residual motion rate necessary to expose all sensor rows to obtain a more accurate representation of the objects; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since there is a need to increase imaging efficiency while also improving the temporal resolution as demonstrated by the four-times improvement achieved by Xu’s method. (Xu, Abstract).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 2, Bamann in view of Xu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein assessing the encounter window (Bamann Fig 2, 112, ¶0034 disclose a field of view that is used to determine when the telescope can image the space object) comprises determining a time at which a distance between the object in space and the image capture (Xu Pg 5 ¶02-¶03 and Pg 7 ¶11 discloses calculating the distance between the object to be imaged and the imaging satellite) device is appropriate (Bamann ¶0025, ¶0058 discloses defined points in time including exposure time and/or positions along the orbit so the focus can be directed to space objects in defined path heights and/or space objects of other size and/or brightness classes) to perform the scanning of the object in space (Xu Pg 9 ¶02 discloses scanning the object in space using a dynamic push broom scanning method) by the image capture device (Bamann ¶0011 discloses an imaging telescope sensor which is arranged and designed to generate images of space objects in front of the star background). See Claim 1 for rationale (its parent claim).
Regarding Claim 3, Bamann in view of Xu teaches the method of claim 1, further determining a scanning time (Xu Pg 11 ¶03 and Fig 15 discloses adjusting the imaging time based on the area to be covered) of the object in space (Bamann ¶0011 discloses an imaging telescope sensor which is arranged and designed to generate images of space objects in front of the star background) based on the assessed encounter window (Bamann Fig 2, 112, ¶0034 disclose a field of view that is used to determine when the telescope can image the space object) . See Claim 1 for rationale (its parent claim).
Regarding Claim 4, Bamann in view of Xu teaches the method of claim 3, further comprising determining an orientation of the image capture device (Bamann ¶0038, ¶0043 discloses that the satellite device is moved in such a way that the telescope axis can be pivoted by 180° between a first orientation and a second orientation as a function of a sun phase angle by means of the Yaw movement, such that the field of view can be oriented as a function of a sun phase angle) based on the determined scanning time (Xu Pg 11 ¶03 and Fig 15 discloses adjusting the imaging time based on the area to be covered). See Claim 1 for rationale (its parent claim).
Regarding Claim 5, Bamann in view of Xu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein aligning the sensors (Bamann ¶0045 discloses the satellite device can have an alignment device for the telescope, such that not the satellite device as such moves with respect to the orbit coordinate system, but rather the telescope) of the image capture device (Bamann ¶0011 discloses an imaging telescope sensor which is arranged and designed to generate images of space objects in front of the star background) along the line of apparent motion (Xu Pg 5 ¶03 discloses calculating the angular velocity to line up the imaging trace with the target, wherein the TDI imaging velocity is made consistent with the direction of the trace) comprises aligning the sensors in a direction substantially perpendicular (Bamann ¶0069 and Fig 1 and 2 disclose that the pitch axis is perpendicular to the image plane which includes the telescope axis) to the line of apparent motion (Xu Pg 5 ¶03 discloses calculating the angular velocity to line up the imaging trace with the target, wherein the TDI imaging velocity is made consistent with the direction of the trace). See Claim 1 for rationale (its parent claim).
Regarding Claim 6, Bamann in view of Xu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the sensors (Bamann ¶0011 discloses an imaging telescope sensor which is arranged and designed to generate images of space objects in front of the star background) comprise an elongated array of sensors (Xu Pg 2 ¶02 and Pg 5 ¶03 discloses TDI scanning camera which is a type of linear detector array). See Claim 1 for rationale (its parent claim).
Regarding Claim 8, Bamann in view of Xu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the combination (Xu Fig 8 and Pg 6 ¶02 discloses that the boresight vector and the observation vector must coincide to point to the target) of the first vector (Xu Fig 8, and Pg 6 ¶02 discloses an observation vector rst which is a connection between the satellite and target, in which the satellite is capturing the image) and the second vector (Xu Fig 8 and Pg 6 ¶02 discloses an a boresight vector which is directed to the direction of the imaging satellite and the target) includes an addition (Xu Pg 5 ¶02-¶03 discloses calculating the angular velocity to line up the imaging trace with the target, wherein the TDI imaging velocity is made consistent with the direction of the trace) of the first vector and the second vector (Xu Fig 8 and Pg 6 ¶02 discloses that the boresight vector and the observation vector must coincide to point to the target). See Claim 1 for rationale (its parent claim).
Regarding Claim 9, Bamann in view of Xu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein scanning the object in space (Xu Pg 9 ¶02 discloses scanning the object in space using a dynamic push broom scanning method) by the image capture device (Bamann ¶0011 discloses an imaging telescope sensor which is arranged and designed to generate images of space objects in front of the star background) along the line of apparent motion (Xu Pg 5 ¶03 discloses calculating the angular velocity to line up the imaging trace with the target, wherein the TDI imaging velocity is made consistent with the direction of the trace) comprises contemporaneously scanning the object in space (Xu Pg 9 ¶02 discloses scanning the object in space using a dynamic push broom scanning method) in a first direction and in a second direction (Bamann ¶0038- ¶0039 discloses the satellite device is characterized in that the control device is configured to control the satellite device in such a way that the telescope axis can be pivoted by 180° between a first orientation and a second orientation as a function of a sun phase angle by means of the Yaw movement, such that the field of view can be oriented as a function of a sun phase angle allowing for two different view of the object based on sun exposure). See Claim 1 for rationale (its parent claim).
Regarding Claim 10, Bamann in view of Xu teaches the method of claim 9 wherein:
scanning the object in space (Xu Pg 9 ¶02 discloses scanning the object in space using a dynamic push broom scanning method) in the first direction comprises rotating the image capture device along a first axis (Bamann ¶0038- ¶0039 discloses the satellite device is characterized in that the control device is configured to control the satellite device in such a way that the telescope axis can be pivoted by 180° between a first orientation and a second orientation as a function of a sun phase angle by means of the Yaw movement); and
scanning the object in space (Xu Pg 9 ¶02 discloses scanning the object in space using a dynamic push broom scanning method) in the second direction comprises rotating the image capture device along a second axis (Bamann ¶0044 discloses that when moving the pitch movement, the position control unit is in particular designed to provide the satellite device with a single pulse, so that the satellite device rotates continuously with respect to the inertial system on account of the essentially non-present friction in the world and the constant pitch angle is thus established between the track axis and the telescopic axis, with the track axis being the second axis). See Claim 1 for rationale (its parent claim).
Regarding Claim 11, Bamann in view of Xu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein scanning at least the object in space (Xu Pg 9 ¶02 discloses scanning the object in space using a dynamic push broom scanning method) comprises scanning a co-orbital second object in space (Bamann Fig 2 116 and 116' discloses a first and second space object to be imaged). See Claim 1 for rationale (its parent claim).
Claims 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Bamann in view of Xu in further view of Solanyk (US Patent Pub US 20190161212 A1, hereafter referred to as Solanyk).
Regarding Claim 7, Bamann in view of Xu teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the elongated array of sensors (Xu Pg 2 ¶02 and Pg 5 ¶03 discloses TDI scanning camera which is a type of linear detector array).
Bamann in view of Xu does not explicitly teach comprises a plurality of multi-spectrum sensors and at least one panchromatic sensor therebetween.
Solanyk is in the same field of orbital imaging using satellites. Further, Solanyk teaches comprises a plurality of multi-spectrum sensors (Solanyk ¶0002, ¶ discloses multispectral VNIR sensors) and at least one panchromatic sensor therebetween (Solanyk ¶0002, ¶ discloses panchromatic sensors also being included in the backs of the multispectral sensors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Bamann in view of Xu by incorporating multi spectrum sensors and panchromatic sensors with a scan rate into the push broom imaging as taught by Solanyk, to make an invention that captures multiple overlaying bands of the object creating a complete image; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since an a need to increase the amount of imagery that can be collected over a short period of time and increase the quality of the images (Solanyk, Abstract and ¶0031).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 12, Bamann in view of Xu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the method comprises assessing the encounter window (Bamann Fig 2, 112, ¶0034 disclose a field of view that is used to determine when the telescope can image the space object) based on one or more of:
a solar position relative to the image capture device (Bamann ¶0038- ¶0039 discloses the satellite device is characterized in that the control device is configured to control the satellite device in such a way that the telescope axis can be pivoted by 180° between a first orientation and a second orientation as a function of a sun phase angle by means of the Yaw movement);
a relative velocity (Xu Pg 5 ¶03 discloses calculating the angular velocity to line up the satellite and imaging trace) of the object in space (Bamann ¶0001, ¶0009, ¶0011 ¶0051 discloses a method for imaging space objects in front of a star background);
a relative distance between the image capture device and the object in space (Xu Pg 5 ¶02-¶03 and Pg 7 ¶11 discloses calculating the distance between the object to be imaged and the imaging satellite).
Bamann in view of Xu does not explicitly teach a required scan rate.
Solanyk is in the same field of orbital imaging using satellites. Further, Solanyk teaches a required scan rate (Solanyk ¶0005 discloses a scan rate for the imaging exposure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Bamann in view of Xu by incorporating multi spectrum sensors and panchromatic sensors with a scan rate into the push broom imaging as taught by Solanyk, to make an invention that captures multiple overlaying bands of the object creating a complete image; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since an a need to increase the amount of imagery that can be collected over a short period of time and increase the quality of the images (Solanyk, Abstract and ¶0031).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Bamann in view of Xu in further view of Sheng et al ("Research on geometric calibration of spaceborne linear array whiskbroom camera." Sensors 18.1 (2018): 247, hereafter referred to as Sheng).
Regarding Claim 13, Bamann in view of Xu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a resolution (Xu Pg 10 ¶01 and Pg 11 ¶03 discloses the resolution of the images taken by the camera) of the non-earth image of the object in space (Bamann ¶0001, ¶0009, ¶0011 ¶0051 discloses a method for imaging space objects in front of a star background).
Bamann in view of Xu does not explicitly teach is about 2.5 cm.
Sheng is in the same field of orbital imaging using satellites. Further, Sheng teaches is about 2.5 cm (Sheng Section 3.2 discloses calibration of the camera to where the resolution is better than 2.5 pixels).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Bamann in view of Xu by incorporating the 2.5 cm per pixel resolution of the images as taught by Sheng, to make an invention that captures minute detail of the object being imaged; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since an a need to increase imaging accuracy by using positioning data (Sheng, Abstract).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Reference Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US-12384561-B1 to Warren discloses a method for satellite cross-track scanning and image capture in satellite to satellite images.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL ROBERTS whose telephone number is (571)272-6413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7:30am- 5:00pm.
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, Oneal Mistry can be reached on (313) 446-4912. 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.
/RACHEL L ROBERTS/Examiner, Art Unit 2674
/ONEAL R MISTRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2674
Prosecution Insights