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 .
Status Of Claims
This Office Action is in response to an amendment received 1/23/2026 in which Applicant lists claims 2 and 5 as being original, and claims 1, 3-4, 6-18 as being previously amended. It is interpreted by the examiner that claims 1-18 are pending.
If applicant is aware of any relevant prior art, or other co-pending application not already of record, they are reminded of their duty under 37 CFR 1.56 to disclose the same.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III in the reply filed on 1/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 2-3, 9-14, 16-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to at least one nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/23/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 2/27/2024, 5/23/2024 and 8/18/2025 was/were considered. It is noted that the crossed through references in the 5/23/2024 are duplicate reference submissions from the 2/27/2024 IDS.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “comprising plurality of rectangular slit apertures” should be changed to “comprising a plurality of rectangular slit apertures”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4-8, 11, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 18, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 4-8, 11 and 15 are rejected for inheriting the same indefiniteness of the claims from which they depend.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the flying platform”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that claim 15 may be corrected by amending “a platform flying along a trajectory” in claim 1 to be “a flying platform flying along a trajectory”.
Other Related Art
This prior art, made of record, but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure since the following references have similar structure and/or use similar optical elements to what is claimed and/or disclosed in the instant application:
WO 98/20301 A1, discloses a similar ariel imaging system including a focal plane shutter for forward motion compensation (see at least the abstract).
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, 4-8, 15, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pechatnikov et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2010/0277587 A1, of record (hereafter Pechatnikov) in view of Chang et al., U.S. Patent Number 5,371,358 (hereafter Chang).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, as best understood, Pechatnikov discloses an imaging system/method for imaging a surface on an astronomical body, from a flying platform flying along a trajectory (see at least the abstract), wherein a line of sight of the imaging system on the surface during the flight defines an along track direction (see at least figure 1, flight path legs 1-5 along line A-A), the imaging system comprises
a telescope comprising at least first and second curved mirrors wherein the second mirror is located downstream of the first mirror, relative to a propagation direction of imaged light (see at least figure 5, elements 520 (first mirror) and 530 (second mirror), para. [0067]),
a digital image sensor or a slit aperture (see at least figure 5, element 540, and claim 1), and
an actuator system arranged for tilting the second mirror or other curved mirror located downstream of the first curved mirror for scanning the line of sight of the imaging system in a scanning direction on the surface within a field of view of the imaging system (see at least elements 430 and 530, paras. [0067]-[0070]).
Pechatnikov does not specifically disclose that the digital image sensor or a slit aperture is arranged at the focal plane of the telescope.
However, Chang is related to Pechatnikov in that Chang is also drawn to a telescope imaging system for imaging a surface on an astronomical body, from a flying platform flying along a trajectory (see at least the abstract, figure 1, col. 13, lines 1-5 of Chang), wherein the imaging system includes a digital image sensor or a slit aperture arranged at the focal plane of the telescope (see at least element 60, col. 6, lines 12-15; fig. 4, elements 80, 96, 110, col. 2, lines 45-50 and col. 6, line 50 through col. 7, line 19; and figures 11-14, elements 344, 356, 320 and 328, col. 12, line 23 through col. 14, line 10 of Chang).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Pechatnikov to include the teachings of Chang so that the digital image sensor or a slit aperture is arranged at the focal plane of the telescope, for the purpose of using a known imaging structure to control the transmission of light through the imaging system while also effectively detecting an image.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Pechatnikov does not specifically disclose that the imaging system is configured to limit the field of view along a first direction on the surface of the astronomical body as compared with the field of view along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction.
However, Chang further discloses using an aperture to limit a field of view along a first direction on the surface of the astronomical body as compared with the field of view along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (see at least figures 3-4, element 60, col. 6, lines 12-15; figure 10, elements 302, 304, 306, 308 and 310, col. 11, line 42 through col. 12, line 22; and figures 11-14, elements 344, 356, 320 and 328, col. 12, line 23 through col. 14, line 10 of Chang).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Pechatnikov to include the further teachings of Chang so that the imaging system is configured to limit the field of view along a first direction on the surface of the astronomical body as compared with the field of view along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, for the purpose of using a known imaging structure to control the instantaneous field of view for increasing the resolution of an image.
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Pechatnikov does not specifically disclose that the first direction and the along track direction are the same or substantially the same.
However, Chang further discloses using an aperture to limit a field of view along a first direction, the first direction and the along track direction are the same or substantially the same (see at least figures 3-4, element 60, col. 6, lines 12-15; figure 10, elements 302, 304, 306, 308 and 310, col. 11, line 42 through col. 12, line 22; and figures 11-14, elements 344, 356, 320 and 328, col. 12, line 23 through col. 14, line 10 of Chang).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Pechatnikov to include the further teachings of Chang so that the first direction and the along track direction are the same or substantially the same, for the purpose of using a known imaging technique to capture images while compensating for the forward movement generated from the flight path.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Pechatnikov does not specifically disclose that the slit aperture is arranged to generate the limited field of view in the first direction.
However, Chang further discloses that the slit aperture is arranged to generate the limited field of view in the first direction (see at least figures 3-4, element 60, col. 6, lines 12-15; figure 10, elements 302, 304, 306, 308 and 310, col. 11, line 42 through col. 12, line 22; and figures 11-14, elements 344, 356, 320 and 328, col. 12, line 23 through col. 14, line 10 of Chang).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Pechatnikov to include the further teachings of Chang so that the slit aperture is arranged to generate the limited field of view in the first direction, for the purpose of using a known imaging technique to capture images while compensating for the forward movement generated from the flight path.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Pechatnikov does not specifically disclose that the slit aperture is rectangular and is arranged so that the first direction of the field of view is imaged along a shortest dimension of the slit aperture.
However, Chang further discloses that the slit aperture is rectangular and is arranged so that the first direction of the field of view is imaged along a shortest dimension of the slit aperture (see at least figures 3-4, element 60, col. 6, lines 12-15; figure 10, elements 302, 304, 306, 308 and 310, col. 11, line 42 through col. 12, line 22; and figures 11-14, elements 344, 356, 320 and 328, col. 12, line 23 through col. 14, line 10 of Chang).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Pechatnikov to include the further teachings of Chang so that the slit aperture is rectangular and is arranged so that the first direction of the field of view is imaged along a shortest dimension of the slit aperture, for the purpose of using a known imaging technique to capture images while compensating for the forward movement generated from the flight path.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Pechatnikov further discloses that the image sensor has a rectangular sensor area (see at least claim 6), but does not specifically disclose that the image sensor has a rectangular sensor area and where the image sensor is arranged so that the first direction of the field of view is imaged along a shortest dimension of the sensor area.
However, Chang further discloses that the image sensor has a rectangular sensor area and where the image sensor is arranged so that the first direction of the field of view is imaged along a shortest dimension of the sensor area (see at least figures 10-14 and 17, col. 12, line 16 through col. 14, line 10 of Chang).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Pechatnikov to include the further teachings of Chang so that the image sensor has a rectangular sensor area and where the image sensor is arranged so that the first direction of the field of view is imaged along a shortest dimension of the sensor area, for the purpose of using a known imaging technique to capture high resolution images while compensating for the forward movement generated from the flight path.
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Pechatnikov in view of Chang discloses that the flying platform is a satellite, a manned or unmanned aircraft, an aerostats or other airborne system (see at least the abstract of Pechatnikov and figure 10, element 300 and col. 1, lines 43-66 of Chang).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pechatnikov et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2010/0277587 A1, of record (hereafter Pechatnikov) in view of Chang et al., U.S. Patent Number 5,371,358 (hereafter Chang) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Van Amerongen et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0319026 A1.
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Pechatnikov in view of Chang does not specifically disclose a plurality of rectangular slit apertures arranged so that the first direction of the field of view is imaged along the short dimensions of the slit apertures.
However, Van Amerongen is related to Pechatnikov in that Van Amerongen is also drawn to a telescope imaging system for imaging a surface on an astronomical body, from a flying platform flying along a trajectory (see at least figure 1, element 100, para. [0015] of Van Amerongen), wherein the imaging system includes a plurality of slit apertures arranged to limit a field of view along a first direction (see at least elements A1 and A2, paras. [0016]-[0018], [0028]-[0029] of Van Amerongen).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Pechatnikov in view of Chang to include the teachings of Van Amerongen so that the imaging system has a plurality of rectangular slit apertures arranged so that the first direction of the field of view is imaged along the short dimensions of the slit apertures, for the purpose of allowing multiple imaging branches to perform multiple forms of imaging and/or to image multiple fields of view.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEREK S. CHAPEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8042. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6pm.
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, Stephone B. Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/Derek S. Chapel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 3/12/2026
Derek S. CHAPEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872