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 .
Detailed Action
The response filed 02/03/2026 has been received in which claims claims 1-6 & 8-16 are elected for examination.
Claims 1-6 & 8-16 are presenting for examination.
35 U.S.C. 102 Rejection
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, and 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Govindhasamy [US2023/0140573].
As to claim 1, Govindhasamy teaches a system for a satellite 104 {Fig 1, [0103]}, lines 1-3], comprising: three or more distributed computes {tenants, [0082], lines 1-5]} that interact with one another in a cloud environment [satellite environment] and at least one of which is in communication with a remote resource {satellite resource such as the payloads 132, [} via a cloud connection, wherein each of the three or more distributed computes [tenants] are configured to receive information from the remote resource and/or provide commands executable by the remote resource [payload 13], the abstract, lines 6-7, [0006], lines 3-5, [0032], [0035], [0044], lines 9-10, [0051], [0055], lines 7-11, [0104], lines 10-13, [0109], lines 1-4, lines 7-9, [0163], [0177], [0178], lines 10-14, [0179].
In summary the distributed computes (tenants) are in communication with the remote resources payloads 132 via the satellite 104 and the tenants receive information and/or provide commands executed by the remote resource (payload 132).
As to claim 6, the cloud environment 108 is executed on satellite 104, [0103], lines 1-3.
As to claim 8, at least one of the three or more distributed computes (tenants) are virtualized (logical), [0082], lines 1-2.
As to claim 9, all of the three or more distributed computes (tenants) are virtualized (logical), [0082], lines 1-2.
As to claim 10, the three or more distributed computes (tenants) comprise at least one of a micro controller, a micro-processor, a payload server, and an edge server, [0082], lines 1-4.
As to claim 11, communication with the remote resource [payload 132] is facilitated by at least one of a physical input output hardware abstraction layer (IO-HAL) and an application hardware abstraction layer (AHAL), [1004], lines 10-13, [0109], lines 1-9, [0110], lines 1-3, [0153], lines 6-10.
As to claim 12, wherein the IO-HAL comprises an abstracted physical communication
interface, [1004], lines 10-13, [0109], lines 1-9, [0110], lines 1-3, [0153], lines 6-10.
As to claim 13, the AHAL comprises an abstracted application layer of a physical communication interface, [1004], lines 10-13, [0109], lines 1-9, [0110], lines 1-3, [0153], lines 6-10.
As to claim 14, the communication with the remote resource [payload] is facilitated by transmitting one or more JSON files (that support the programming API), [1004], lines 10-13, [0109], lines 1-9, [0110], lines 1-3, [0153], lines 6-10.
As to claim 15, the one or more JSON files define at least one of a current API execution time, a timing dependent API, a relative execution time, an execution mode, and a number of arguments, [1004], lines 10-13, [0109], lines 1-9, [0110], lines 1-3, [0153], lines 6-10.
As to claim 16, the one or more JSON files are converted into one or more API calls, [1004], lines 10-13, [0109], lines 1-9, [0110], lines 1-3, [0153], lines 6-10.
Therefore, it can be seen from paragraphs 5-15 that Govindhasamy anticipates claims 1, 6, and 8-16.
35 U.S.C. 103 rejection
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.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Govindhasamy [US2023/0140573] in view of Lee [US 2018/0129761].
As to claim 2, Govindhasamy teaches a satellite system as been discussed in paragraph 5 above. However, Govindhasamy doesn’t teach the remote source (payload 132) is a simulated resource [ Govindhasamy teaches a hardware resource such as a hardware sensor].
Lee teaches the use of simulated sensor [simulated resource], see Lee simulated sensor 24 of Fig 1, simulated sensor 240 of Figs 2 & 6.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the simulated sensor of Lee instead the hardware sensor of Govindhasamy in order to measure the data about the position and direction of the satellite 104 of Govindhasamy, see Lee, [0071], lines 4-6.
As to claim 3, Lee teaches the simulated resource comprises a simulated sensor 24 of Fig 1 and the simulated sensor 240 of Figs 2 & 6.
As to claim 4, the combination of Govindhasamy and Lee teaches the simulated sensor comprises a sensor configured for use on the satellite 104, see Govindhasamy, [0111], lines 1-3.
As to claim 5, the combination of Govindhasamy and Lee teaches simulated hardware (hardware sensor of Govindhasamy) and Lee teaches the simulated sensor, see paragraph 18 above.
Therefore, it can be seen from paragraphs 18-21 that the combination of Govindhasamy and Lee teaches the limitations of claims 2-5.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Moustafa M Meky whose telephone number is (571)272-4005. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/MOUSTAFA M MEKY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
05/29/2026
Prosecution Insights