DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to RCE filed on 3/19/2026.
Claims 1, 9, 18, 19 and 21 are amended.
Claims 1 – 5 and 7 – 21 are pending.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/19/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 5, 7, 8 and 18 – 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perumala et al (US 20230082680, hereinafter Perumala), in view of Fang (US 20180359670, prior art part of IDS dated 5/31/2023), and further in view of Roth et al (US 20190199726, hereinafter Roth).
As per claim 1, Perumala discloses: A [device] comprising: a plurality of abstracted hardware components; at least one processor; and a memory storing data thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
Receive, from a [first node] a request via [an interface]; (Perumala figure 4 and [0056] – [0057]: “the computing device receives (block 401) a request to execute a computing task... The request may be received (block 401) via a user interface”.)
utilize a processing layer to access, based on the request, one or more computation modules linked to the processing layer, wherein the one or more computation modules are instructed to perform a task based on the request; provision, on the [device] and based on the request, the one or more computation modules to handle the request; (Perumala figure 4 and [0060] – [0062]: “The computing device identifies (block 402) a set of nodes from a pool of registered nodes amongst which the computing task is to be distributed. Those registered nodes that are identified (block 402), and to which the computing task is to be assigned may be referred to as assigned nodes… Such identification (block 402) is based on the parameters for the computing task… As such, the computing device identifies those from the registered pool that are capable of performing the computing task as defined by the parameters in the request and selects a number of these registered nodes to complete the task… The computing device may then transmit (block 403) to each of the selected assigned nodes, a computing assignment of the computing task”; [0048]: “management layer (80) may provide the functions described below. Resource provisioning (81) provides dynamic procurement of computing resources and other resources that are utilized to perform tasks within the cloud computing environment. ”. Examiner notes that the cloud computing environment 50 of figure 1 and [0044] is mapped to claimed processing layer.)
generate, with the one or more computation modules performing the [device]-based task, a result; and forward, to the [first node], information describing the result. (Perumala figure 4 and [0063]: “Each of the assigned nodes then completes the assigned computing task. Upon completion of a task, the computing device receives (block 404) an associated completed computing assignment. That is, each assigned node is assigned a computing assignment to complete. When completed, the assigned node sends the completed assignment back to the computing device”.)
Perumala did not explicitly disclose:
Wherein the device comprises satellite deployed in orbit;
Wherein the first node comprises a terrestrial node,
wherein the interface comprises a satellite interface that uses a protocol for transmission of communications and information between the terrestrial node and space;
wherein the request including information identifying a tenant;
determine, based on the information identifying the tenant, one or more computation modules on the satellite that are available to the tenant;
and wherein the forwarding comprises to a ground node via the satellite interface using the protocol.
However, Fang teaches:
wherein the device comprises satellite deployed in orbit; (Fang [0025].)
wherein the first node comprises a terrestrial node, (Fang figure 1)
wherein the interface comprises a satellite interface that uses a protocol for transmission of communications and information between the terrestrial node and space; (Fang figure 1 and [0027]: “Ground communication interface 306 can be a wireless RF or optical receiver/transmitter known in the art for communicating between satellites and ground stations (such as gateways and subscriber terminals)”.)
and wherein the forwarding comprises to a ground node via the satellite interface using the protocol. (Fang [0027])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Fang into that of Perumala in order to have the interface comprises a satellite interface and wherein the forwarding comprises to a ground node via the satellite interface. Fang [0037] – [0038] teaches the satellite network can be implemented via software defined cloud technique using virtualization, one of ordinary skill in the art can easily see applicants have merely claimed the application of virtualization technology into a specific technology area (satellites), and is therefore rejected under 35 UCS 103.
Roth teaches:
wherein the request including information identifying a tenant; determine, based on the information identifying the tenant, one or more computation modules on the satellite that are available to the tenant; (Roth [0014]: “a user wanting to utilize at least a portion of the resources 114 can submit a request that is received to an interface layer 108 of the multi-tenant environment 106… A resource manager 110 receiving the request can perform tasks such as to authenticate an identity of the user submitting the request, as well as to determine whether that user has an existing account, or is associated with a customer having an existing account, with the resource provider,… If the user has an account with the appropriate permissions, status, etc., the resource manager can determine whether there are adequate resources available to suit the user's request, and if so can provision the resources or otherwise grant access to the corresponding portion of those resources for use by the user for an amount specified by the request.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Roth into that of Perumala and Wardell in order to have the request including information identifying a tenant; determine, based on the information identifying the tenant, one or more computation modules available with the tenant. Roth [0014] has shown the claimed limitations are merely commonly known steps for authenticating users and determining their access rights, applicants have thus merely claimed the combination of known parts in the field to achieve predictable results and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 2, the combination of Perumala, Fang and Roth further teach:
The satellite of claim 1, wherein the processing layer is linked to the one or more computation modules via a wireless interface. (Fang [0028])
As per claim 3, the combination of Perumala, Fang and Roth further teach:
The satellite of claim 1, further comprising: a solar panel. (Fang [0020])
As per claim 5, the combination of Perumala, Fang and Roth further teach:
The satellite of claim 1, wherein the one or more computation modules include a computational cluster. (Perumala [0030])
As per claim 7, the combination of Perumala, Fang and Roth further teach:
The satellite of claim 1, further comprising: an expandable satellite bus. (Fang [0020])
As per claim 8, the combination of Perumala, Fang and Roth further teach:
The satellite of claim 7, wherein the expandable satellite bus is accessible by a command and control Application Programming Interface (API). (Fang [0031])
As per claim 18, it is the method variant of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 19, the combination of Perumala, Fang and Roth further teach:
The method of claim 18, wherein the set of satellite resources that execute the first satellite-based computation comprise edge computing resources. (Fang figure 1.)
As per claim 20, the combination of Perumala, Fang and Roth further teach:
The method of claim 18, wherein the set of satellite resources comprise abstracted hardware components. (Perumala figure 4 and [0060] – [0062])
As per claim 21, the combination of Perumala, Fang and Roth further teach:
The satellite of claim 1, wherein the one or more computation modules available to the tenant are unavailable to one or more other tenants. (Roth [0014])
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perumala, Fang and Roth, and further in view of Harper et al (US 20170168907, hereinafter Harper).
As per claim 4, the combination of Perumala, Fang and Wardell did not teach:
The satellite of claim 3, wherein the solar panel abstracted, and wherein the solar panel is accessible to the at least one processor via a power monitoring controller to retrieve information from the solar panel.
However, Harper teaches:
The satellite of claim 3, wherein the solar panel abstracted, and wherein the solar panel is accessible to the at least one processor via a power monitoring controller to retrieve information from the solar panel. (Harper [0058])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Harper into that of Perumala, Fang and Roth in order to have the solar panel abstracted, and wherein the solar panel is accessible to the at least one processor via a power monitoring controller to retrieve information from the solar panel. Fang [0020] teaches the satellite comprises solar panel while Harper [0058] shows the concept of virtualize resources and allocate virtualized resource based on actual resource usage is commonly known and used in the field, applicants have thus merely claimed the combination of known parts in the field to achieve predictable results and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
Claim(s) 9 – 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perumala, Fang and Roth, and further in view of Sharon et al (US 20210256845, hereinafter Sharon)
As per claim 9, Permuala discloses: An autonomous [device], comprising: a plurality of abstracted hardware components on the device; at least one processor; and a memory storing data thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
receive, from a [first node] and via [an interface], a computation request; (Perumala figure 4 and [0056] – [0057]: “the computing device receives (block 401) a request to execute a computing task... The request may be received (block 401) via a user interface”.)
determine, a first set of abstracted hardware components from the plurality of abstracted hardware components that are available to the sender of the computation request; schedule the first set of abstracted hardware components to perform one or more [device] -based tasks in accordance with the computation request; (Perumala figure 4 and [0060] – [0062]: “The computing device identifies (block 402) a set of nodes from a pool of registered nodes amongst which the computing task is to be distributed. Those registered nodes that are identified (block 402), and to which the computing task is to be assigned may be referred to as assigned nodes… Such identification (block 402) is based on the parameters for the computing task… As such, the computing device identifies those from the registered pool that are capable of performing the computing task as defined by the parameters in the request and selects a number of these registered nodes to complete the task… The computing device may then transmit (block 403) to each of the selected assigned nodes, a computing assignment of the computing task”. Examiner notes that the cloud computing environment 50 of figure 1 and [0044] is mapped to claimed processing layer.)
and autonomously enable the first set of abstracted hardware components to perform the one or more [device] -based tasks in accordance with the computation request. (Perumala figure 4 and [0063]: “Each of the assigned nodes then completes the assigned computing task. Upon completion of a task, the computing device receives (block 404) an associated completed computing assignment. That is, each assigned node is assigned a computing assignment to complete. When completed, the assigned node sends the completed assignment back to the computing device”.)
Perumala did not explicitly disclose:
Wherein the device comprises satellite deployed in orbit;
Wherein the first node comprises a terrestrial node,
wherein the interface comprises a secure communication link that uses a protocol for transmission of communications and information between the terrestrial node and space;
identify, based on the computation request, an identity of a sender of the computation request;
wherein the first set of abstracted hardware component are associated with and available the sender of the computational request;
wherein the enabling comprises recording, using a sensor on the satellite, one or more measurements.
However, Fang teaches:
wherein the device comprises satellite deployed in orbit; (Fang [0025].)
wherein the first node comprises a terrestrial node, (Fang figure 1)
wherein the interface comprises a secure communication link that uses a protocol for transmission of communications and information between the terrestrial node and space; (Fang [0027] and [0044])
identify, based on the computation request, an identity of a sender of the computation request; (Fang [0060]: authenticate the aircraft, make sure the aircraft is authorized.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Fang into that of Perumala in order to have the interface comprises a secure communication link and identify, based on the computation request, an identity of a sender of the computation request. Fang [0037] – [0038] teaches the satellite network can be implemented via software defined cloud technique using virtualization, one of ordinary skill in the art can easily see applicants have merely claimed the application of virtualization technology into a specific technology area (satellites), and is therefore rejected under 35 UCS 103.
Ross teaches:
wherein the first set of abstracted hardware component are associated with and available the sender of the computational request; (Roth [0014]: “a user wanting to utilize at least a portion of the resources 114 can submit a request that is received to an interface layer 108 of the multi-tenant environment 106… A resource manager 110 receiving the request can perform tasks such as to authenticate an identity of the user submitting the request, as well as to determine whether that user has an existing account, or is associated with a customer having an existing account, with the resource provider,… If the user has an account with the appropriate permissions, status, etc., the resource manager can determine whether there are adequate resources available to suit the user's request, and if so can provision the resources or otherwise grant access to the corresponding portion of those resources for use by the user for an amount specified by the request.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Roth into that of Perumala and Wardell in order to have the request including information identifying a tenant; determine, based on the information identifying the tenant, one or more computation modules available with the tenant. Roth [0014] has shown the claimed limitations are merely commonly known steps for authenticating users and determining their access rights, applicants have thus merely claimed the combination of known parts in the field to achieve predictable results and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
Sharon teaches:
wherein the enabling comprises recording, using a sensor on the satellite, one or more measurements. (Sharon [0061])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Sharon into that of Perumala, Fang and Roth in order to record, using a sensor on the satellite, one or more measurements. Sharon [0061] has shown that the claimed limitation is merely commonly known functions and components of a satellite, and applicants have thus merely claimed the combination of known parts in the field to achieve predictable results and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 10, the combination of Perumala, Fang, Roth and Sharon further teach:
The satellite of claim 9, wherein the secure communication link comprises a satellite link, and wherein the at least one processor is communicably coupled with an antenna that establishes the satellite link. (Fang [0020])
As per claim 11, the combination of Perumala, Fang, Roth and Sharon further teach:
The satellite of claim 9, wherein the identity of the sender of the computation request is determined within an operating system of the satellite. (Fang [0051] and [0053]: authentication/authorization.)
As per claim 12, the combination of Perumala, Fang, Roth and Sharon further teach:
The satellite of claim 9, further comprising: a controller that manages at least one aspect of the plurality of abstracted hardware components. (Perumala figure 4 and [0060] – [0062]
As per claim 13, the combination of Perumala, Fang, Roth and Sharon further teach:
The satellite of claim 9, further comprising: an Application Programming Interface (API); one or more core controllers; and one or more edge processors coupled to the one or more core controllers via the API, wherein the one or more core controllers exchange control signals with the one or more edge processors via the API. (Fang figure 1.)
As per claim 14, the combination of Perumala, Fang, Roth and Sharon further teach:
The satellite of claim 13, further comprising at least one of: a reaction wheel; a navigation module; an inertial measurement unit; a camera; and a software-defined radio. (Fang [0017])
As per claim 15, the combination of Perumala, Fang, Roth and Sharon further teach:
The satellite of claim 9, wherein the first set of abstracted hardware components comprise cloud-based computation nodes. (Perumala figure 1.)
As per claim 16, the combination of Perumala, Fang, Roth and Sharon further teach:
The satellite of claim 9, wherein the first set of abstracted hardware components are containerized. (Perumala [0002])
As per claim 17, the combination of Perumala, Fang, Roth and Sharon further teach:
The satellite of claim 9, further comprising a payload provided as part of a server architecture, wherein the at least one processor executes an operating system that communicates with the server architecture via an Application Programming Interface (API). (Perumala [0020])
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 5 and 7 – 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES M SWIFT whose telephone number is (571)270-7756. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 7PM.
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, April Blair can be reached at 5712701014. 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.
/CHARLES M SWIFT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2196
Prosecution Insights