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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants’ remarks, filed January 2, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 8, 15 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Vasisht et al. (US 11,528,721).
Vasisht teaches identifying ground stations capable of communicating with the relevant satellite (Col. 7 lines 11 – 36); scheduling a time for the workload based on availability of the relevant satellite (Col. 9 lines 43 – 61, scheduling a time for the data based on the availability of the relevant satellites); predicting a location of the relevant satellite at the scheduled time (Cols. 6 lines 62 – 67, 7 lines 1 – 10); selecting, based on the predicted location, a ground station from the identified ground stations (Col. 9 lines 43 – 61, ground stations matched to the satellite); deploying the workload to the selected ground station associated with the relevant satellite at the scheduled time (Col. 9 lines 43 – 61, data is sent to the selected ground station); and determining, based on data from monitoring the relevant satellite and the selected ground station, whether to download results of processing the workload to the selected ground station (Col. 11 lines 47 – 57, acknowledgements are the results).
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, 2, 6, 8, 9, 13, 15, 16, 20 – 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman et al. (US 9,740,465) in view of Vasisht et al. (US 11,528,721)
Regarding Claim 1, Coleman teaches a computer-implemented method for orchestrating event-driven computing workloads in a satellite environment, the computer-implemented method comprising: receiving a workload from a client for deployment to a satellite in a plurality of satellites, wherein the workload includes requirements (Col. 5 lines 8 – 29, user input regarding deployment requirements are the workload requirements, Col. 1 lines 31 – 35, plurality of satellites); obtaining satellite data for each satellite in the plurality of satellites, wherein the satellite data includes a capability of the each satellite and a current status of the each satellite (Col. 5 lines 8 – 29, determination of satellites meeting the deployment requirements which comprises processing requirements, which is a capability and availability information, which is status information); determining, based on the satellite data, that a set of satellites from the plurality of satellites each have a capability that satisfies the requirements of the workload (Col. 5 lines 8 – 29, deployment options are sent to client upon determination that the deployment requirements can be met); identifying a relevant satellite in the set of satellites based on current statuses of each satellite in the set of satellites (Col. 5 lines 8 – 29, satellite or satellites that can support the workload of an application are identified).
Coleman does not teach identifying ground stations capable of communicating with the relevant satellite; scheduling a time for the workload based on availability of the relevant satellite; predicting a location of the relevant satellite at the scheduled time; selecting, based on the predicted location, a ground station from the identified ground stations; deploying the workload to the selected ground station associated with the relevant satellite at the scheduled time; and determining, based on data from monitoring the relevant satellite and the selected ground station, whether to download results of processing the workload to the selected ground station.
Vasisht, which also teaches the use of satellites, identifying ground stations capable of communicating with the relevant satellite (Col. 7 lines 11 – 36); scheduling a time for the workload based on availability of the relevant satellite (Col. 9 lines 43 – 61, scheduling a time for the data based on the availability of the relevant satellites); predicting a location of the relevant satellite at the scheduled time (Cols. 6 lines 62 – 67, 7 lines 1 – 10); selecting, based on the predicted location, a ground station from the identified ground stations (Col. 9 lines 43 – 61, ground stations matched to the satellite); deploying the workload to the selected ground station associated with the relevant satellite at the scheduled time (Col. 9 lines 43 – 61, data is sent to the selected ground station); and determining, based on data from monitoring the relevant satellite and the selected ground station, whether to download results of processing the workload to the selected ground station (Col. 11 lines 47 – 57, acknowledgements are the results).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Coleman with the above features of Vasisht for the purpose of effectively transmitting data to ground stations as taught by Vasisht.
Regarding Claim 8, Coleman teaches a computer system for orchestrating event-driven computing workloads in a satellite environment, the computer system comprising: one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories, and one or more computer-readable storage media; and program instructions, stored on at least one of the one or more computer-readable storage media for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more computer-readable memories (Figure 1, ground control system (177) would need to consist of a processor or processors that execute code stored in memory in order for said ground control system to conduct the various processing tasks that it needs to conduct (PLEASE NOTE: This particular statement applies to all of the claim limitations that claim-program instructions, stored on at least one of the one or more computer-readable storage media for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more computer-readable memories-and thus will be stated once and not repeated), the program instructions comprising: program instructions to receive a workload from a client for deployment to a satellite in a plurality of satellites, wherein the workload includes requirements (Col. 5 lines 8 – 29, user input regarding deployment requirements are the workload requirements); program instructions to obtain satellite data for each satellite in the plurality of satellites, wherein the satellite data includes a capability of the each satellite and a current status of the each satellite (Col. 5 lines 8 – 29, determination of satellites meeting the deployment requirements which comprises processing requirements, which is a capability and availability information, which is status information); program instructions to determine, based on the satellite data, that a set of satellites from the plurality of satellites each have a capability that satisfies the requirements of the workload (Col. 5 lines 8 – 29, deployment options are sent to client upon determination that the deployment requirements can be met); program instructions, to identify a relevant satellite in the set of satellites based on current statuses of each satellite in the set of satellites (Col. 5 lines 8 – 29, satellite or satellites that can support the workload of an application are identified).
Coleman does not teach program instructions to identify ground stations capable of communicating with the relevant satellite; program instructions to schedule a time for the workload based on availability of the relevant satellite; program instructions to predict a location of the relevant satellite at the scheduled time; program instructions to select, based on the predicted location, a ground station from the identified ground stations; program instructions to deploy the workload to the selected ground station associated with the relevant satellite at the scheduled time; and program instructions to determine, based on data from monitoring the relevant satellite and the selected ground station, whether to download results of processing the workload to the selected ground station.
Vasisht, which also teaches the use of satellites, program instructions to identify ground stations capable of communicating with the relevant satellite (Col. 7 lines 11 – 36); program instructions to schedule a time for the workload based on availability of the relevant satellite (Col. 9 lines 43 – 61, scheduling a time for the data based on the availability of the relevant satellites); program instructions to predict a location of the relevant satellite at the scheduled time (Cols. 6 lines 62 – 67, 7 lines 1 – 10); program instruction to select, based on the predicted location, a ground station from the identified ground stations (Col. 9 lines 43 – 61, ground stations matched to the satellite); program instructions to deploy the workload to the selected ground station associated with the relevant satellite at the scheduled time (Col. 9 lines 43 – 61, data is sent to the selected ground station); and program instructions to determine, based on data from monitoring the relevant satellite and the selected ground station, whether to download results of processing the workload to the selected ground station (Col. 11 lines 47 – 57, acknowledgements are the results).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Coleman with the above features of Vasisht for the purpose of effectively transmitting data to ground stations as taught by Vasisht.
Regarding Claim 15, Coleman teaches a computer program product for orchestrating event-driven computing workloads in a satellite environment, the computer program product comprising: one or more computer-readable storage media; and program instructions, stored on at least one of the one or more computer-readable storage media (Figure 1, ground control system (177) would need to consist of a processor or processors that execute code stored in memory in order for said ground control system to conduct the various processing tasks that it needs to conduct (PLEASE NOTE: This particular statement applies to all of the claim limitations that claim-program instructions, stored on at least one of the one or more computer-readable storage media-and thus will be stated once and not repeated), program instructions to receive a workload from a client for deployment to a satellite in a plurality of satellites, wherein the workload includes requirements (Col. 5 lines 8 – 29, user input regarding deployment requirements are the workload requirements); program instructions to obtain satellite data for each satellite in the plurality of satellites, wherein the satellite data includes a capability of the satellite and a current status of the satellite (Col. 5 lines 8 – 29, determination of satellites meeting the deployment requirements which comprises processing requirements, which is a capability and availability information, which is status information); program instructions to determine that the capability of the satellite satisfies the requirements of the workload (Col. 5 lines 8 – 29, deployment options are sent to client upon determination that the deployment requirements can be met); program instructions to identify a relevant satellite in the plurality of satellites based on the current status of the satellite (Col. 5 lines 8 – 29, satellite or satellites that can support the workload of an application are identified).
Coleman does not teach program instructions to identify ground stations capable of communicating with the relevant satellite; program instructions to schedule a time for the workload based on availability of the relevant satellite; program instructions to predict a location of the relevant satellite at the scheduled time; program instructions to select, based on the predicted location, a ground station from the identified ground stations; program instructions to deploy the workload to the selected ground station associated with the relevant satellite at the scheduled time; and program instructions to determine, based on data from monitoring the relevant satellite and the selected ground station, whether to download results of processing the workload to the selected ground station.
Vasisht, which also teaches the use of satellites, program instructions to identify ground stations capable of communicating with the relevant satellite (Col. 7 lines 11 – 36); program instructions to schedule a time for the workload based on availability of the relevant satellite (Col. 9 lines 43 – 61, scheduling a time for the data based on the availability of the relevant satellites); program instructions to predict a location of the relevant satellite at the scheduled time (Cols. 6 lines 62 – 67, 7 lines 1 – 10); program instruction to select, based on the predicted location, a ground station from the identified ground stations (Col. 9 lines 43 – 61, ground stations matched to the satellite); program instructions to deploy the workload to the selected ground station associated with the relevant satellite at the scheduled time (Col. 9 lines 43 – 61, data is sent to the selected ground station); and program instructions to determine, based on data from monitoring the relevant satellite and the selected ground station, whether to download results of processing the workload to the selected ground station (Col. 11 lines 47 – 57, acknowledgements are the results).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Coleman with the above features of Vasisht for the purpose of effectively transmitting data to ground stations as taught by Vasisht.
Regarding Claims 2, 9, 16, Coleman in view of Vasisht teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claims 1, 8, 15. Coleman further teaches downloading a workload result at a ground station from the identified ground station, wherein the workload result is generated by running the workload on the relevant satellite (Col. 4 lines 1 – 6, developer can receive information on state of application via the ground control system); and transmitting the workload result to the client (Col. 4 lines 1 – 6, developer can receive information on state of application via the ground control system).
Coleman does not teach a second ground station.
Vasisht, which also teaches ground stations, teaches a second ground station (Col. 7 lines 11 – 36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Coleman with the above features of Vasisht for the purpose of effectively transmitting data to ground stations as taught by Vasisht.
Regarding Claims 6, 13, 20, Coleman in view of Vasisht teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claims 1, 8, 15. Coleman further teaches receiving a notification from at least one of the identified ground stations that the workload cannot be deployed to the relevant satellite (Col. 8 lines 3 – 18, renders a scenario wherein the sensor is unavailable thus application requiring use of sensor cannot be uplink to the satellite housing said sensor); and updating the current status of the relevant satellite based on the notification (Col. 8 lines 3 – 18, status comprises sensor unavailability)
Regarding Claim 21, Coleman in view of Vasisht teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 1. Coleman does not teach wherein the determining whether to download the results of processing the workload to the selected ground station is based on a current location of the relevant satellite.
Vasisht, which also teaches ground stations, teaches wherein the determining whether to download the results of processing the workload to the selected ground station (Col. 11 lines 47 – 57, acknowledgements are the results) is based on a current location of the relevant satellite (Cols. 6 lines 62 – 67, 7 lines 1 – 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Coleman with the above features of Vasisht for the purpose of effectively transmitting data to ground stations as taught by Vasisht.
Regarding Claim 22, Coleman in view of Vasisht teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 1. Coleman does not teach wherein the determining whether to download the results of processing the workload to the selected ground station is based on an external factor detected by the monitoring.
Vasisht, which also teaches ground stations, teaches wherein the determining whether to download the results of processing the workload to the selected ground station is based on an external factor detected by the monitoring (Col. 11 lines 47 – 57, acknowledgements are the results, external factor is whatever prompts sending of the acknowledgements).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Coleman with the above features of Vasisht for the purpose of effectively transmitting data to ground stations as taught by Vasisht.
Regarding Claim 23, Coleman in view of Vasisht teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 22. Coleman does not teach in response to the detected external factor, downloading the results of processing the workload to a different ground station.
Vasisht, which also teaches ground stations, teaches in response to the detected external factor, downloading the results of processing the workload to a different ground station (Col. 11 lines 47 – 57, transmission is on the ground, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation, said transmission scheduler is a different ground station).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Coleman with the above features of Vasisht for the purpose of effectively transmitting data to ground stations as taught by Vasisht.
Claim(s) 3, 10, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman et al. (US 9,740,465) in view of Vasisht et al. (US 11,528,721), as applied to Claims 1, 8, 15 set forth above, and further in view of Desai et al. (US 2024/0334490)
Regarding Claims 3, 10, 17, Coleman in view of Vasisht teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claims 1, 8, 15. Coleman further teaches updating the current status of the first satellite (Col. 5 lines 51 – 54, updates of application operating in satellite platform is an update of the status of the satellite).
Coleman in view of Vasisht does not teach determining that the client does not have permission to access a first satellite from the set of satellites.
Desai, which also teaches the use of satellites, teaches determining that the client does not have permission to access the relevant satellite (Section 0063, authenticate device for access to satellite, if authentication process fails then no permission).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Coleman in view of Vasisht with the above features of Desai for the purpose of managing satellite network demand for emergency services as taught by Desai.
Claim(s) 4, 11, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman et al. (US 9,740,465) in view of Vasisht et al. (US 11,528,721), as applied to Claims 1, 8, 15 set forth above, and further in view of Herz (US 2015/0257126)
Regarding Claim 4, 11, 18, Coleman in view of Vasisht teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 1, 8, 15. Coleman further teaches wherein the current statuses include, a current location (Col. 5 lines 8 – 21, geographic areas of interest), a current workload status (Col. 5 lines 8 – 21, processing requirements) and a workload schedule (Col. 5 lines 8 – 21, times of interest) and the identifying the relevant satellite comprises: for each satellite in the set of satellites, determining an availability of the satellite from the current workload status and the workload schedule (Col. 5 lines 8 – 21, availability); and identifying the relevant satellite in the set of satellites based on the availability of the satellite (Col. 5 lines 8 – 21).
Coleman in view of Vasisht does not teach an orbital path, for each satellite in the set of satellites, calculating a predicted location of the satellite at a time of the availability using the current location and the orbital path; and identifying the relevant satellite in the set of satellites based on the predicted location of the satellite and the availability of the satellite.
Herz, which also teaches the use of satellites, teaches an orbital path, for each satellite in the set of satellites, calculating a predicted location of the satellite at a time of the availability using the current location and the orbital path (Section 0032, satellite ephemeris provides orbital path and thus locations of the satellite); and identifying the relevant satellite in the set of satellites based on the predicted location of the satellite (Section 0032).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Coleman in view of Vasisht with the above features of Herz for the purpose of providing real-time notifications of satellite imaging opportunities as taught by Herz.
Claim(s) 7, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman et al. (US 9,740,465) in view of Vasisht et al. (US 11,528,721), as applied to Claims 1, 8 as set forth above, and further in view of Stevenson et al. (US 2020/0019435)
Regarding Claims 7, 14, Coleman in view of Vasisht teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claims 1, 8. Coleman in view of Vasisht does not teach wherein the identifying the relevant satellite uses a machine learning model that predicts the relevant satellite for the workload based on the satellite data obtained in prior workloads.
Stevenson, which also teaches the use of satellites, teaches teach wherein the identifying the relevant satellite uses a machine learning model that predicts the relevant satellite for the workload based on the satellite data obtained in prior workloads (Section 0015, ML is used for tasking of satellites).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Coleman in view of Vasisht with the above features of Stevenson for the purpose of providing an optimization schedule to algorithmically and automatically generate an updated optimized satellite constellation schedule in near real-time given limited resources, priority-constraints, and tasking timing constraints as taught by Stevenson.
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 RAYMOND S DEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7877. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 6:00-2:30, EST.
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, Anthony S Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/RAYMOND S DEAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645 Raymond S. Dean
March 19, 2026