Art Rejection
1. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
2. Claims 1-3, 5-10, 13 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uthaman, U.S. pat. No. 11,171,720.
Per claim 1, Uthaman discloses a computer implemented method comprising:
a) receiving, at a satellite control system on a satellite and from a user terminal (131) over a user-to-terminal wireless communication link (1), a request from the user terminal for compute resources, the request comprising user data to be processed/computed, wherein the compute resources are configured on the satellite (see col 5, ln 28-31, 54-59);
b) generating output user data by executing a compute function without using any data obtained from a sensor on the satellite (see col 6, ln 5-8); and
c) transmitting the output user data to the user terminal (see col 6, ln 9-10).
Uthaman does not explicitly teach executing a specific application to process or compute user data. Uthman however teaches implementing a plurality of applications to perform various computing functions on the satellite (see col 14, ln 23-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize suitable application on the satellite to process user data in practicing Uthaman invention (see col 14, ln 23-32).
Per claim 2, Uthaman teaches that the compute resources on the satellite are provided in a multi-tenant hosted environment in which the resources are available for reservation and use by different private users at different times (see col 10, ln 20-53).
Per claims 3 and 10, Uthaman teaches that the compute resources on the satellite comprise a cloud service, data storage, computer processors, endpoint-to-endpoint communication channel, and user interface application module (see col 3, ln 3-19 and col 14, ln 23-41).
Per claims 5-6, Uthaman teaches identifying/verifying that compute resources being associated with an account of a user and authorizing access to the compute resources for a user (see col 24, ln 1-21).
Per claims 7-8, Uthaman teaches that the compute resources comprises hardware processor or a virtual machine, wherein a computing environment is configured as one of a plurality of computing environments on the satellite (see col 13, ln 59 – col 14, ln 15).
Per claim 9, Uthaman teaches the user input data comprises a media presentation, e.g., via graphical UI (see col 24, ln 12-21).
Per claim 13, Uthaman teaches that access to the compute resources is provided across a group of moving satellites in which a dynamic or static clustering of two or more satellites in the group of satellite provides the access to the compute resources over time (see col 3, ln 3-19 and col 5, ln 49-53).
Claim 45 is similar in scope as that of claim 1.
3. Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uthaman, in view of Ashrafi, U.S. pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2017/0105153.
Uthaman does not teach using a load balancing module operated to select a satellite among a plurality of satellite to provide the compute resources based on one of energy balance or orbital parameters. However, Ashrafi discloses a load balancing algorithm for use in the satellite system for selecting a satellite among a plurality of satellites to provide the compute resources based on one of energy balance or orbital parameters (see Ashrafi par 0101-0103).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Uthaman with Ashrafi teaching because it would have enabled leveraging computing resources of the satellite system more efficiently by selecting/switching to the most suitable satellite for handling user request in response to changing orbit and power conditions of the satellite.
4. Claims 21-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uthaman, in view of Ning, U.S. pat. No. 10,536,107.
Per claim 21, Uthaman does not disclose many specific components of a satellite. However, Ning discloses such satellite components including:
a) a satellite control system (202, fig. 2);
b) an antenna connected to the satellite control system (221, fig. 2 and col 6, ln 20-23);
c) a solar panel (253, fig. 2);
d) a battery (212, fig. 2 and col 3, ln 41-44);
e) a memory device (232, fig. 2);
f) a computing environment configured on the satellite (201, fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize such satellite components in Uthaman because it would have enabled the satellite operate properly.
Per claim 22, Uthaman teaches managing user access to the compute resources (see col 24, ln 1-21).
Per claim 23, Uthaman teaches providing a user interface module for providing to the satellite control system a user interface for transmission to the user terminal (see col 24, ln 12-21).
Per claim 24, Uthaman teaches that the satellite system comprises a plurality of computing environments (see col 10, ln 54-67).
Per claims 25-26, Uthaman teaches, when the user terminal requests the compute resources, a user account associated with the computing environment is used to determine that the computing environment is a chosen computing environment among a plurality of computing environments configured on the satellite (see col 11, ln 16-50).
Per claim 27, Uthaman teaches that the satellite is part of a group of satellites configured to provide the requested compute resources (see col 3, ln 3-19 and col 5, ln 49-53).
Per claims 28-29, Uthaman teaches managing a schedule of workloads across the plurality of compute resources of one or more satellites including routing a request to another computing environment when the requested resource is not available on a current computing environment (see col 6, ln 22-56).
Per claim 30, Uthaman teaches the computing environment is configured as a virtual environment (see col 13, ln 59 – col 14, ln 15).
Per claim 31, Uthaman teaches that the requested compute resource comprises media presentation, e.g., via graphical UI (see col 24, ln 12-21).
Response to Amendment
5. Applicant’s arguments filed March 6, 2026 with respect to claims 1-3, 5-13, 21-31 and 45 have been considered but are deemed moot in view of new grounds of rejection set forth above.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Viet Vu whose telephone number is 571-272-3977. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 8:00am to 6:00pm. The Group general information number is 571-272-2400. The Group fax number is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Emmanuel Moise, can be reached at 571-272-3865.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Viet D Vu/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
4/6/26