Detailed Action
This is a Non-final Office action in response to communications received on 7/29/2024. Claims 1-22 are pending and are examined.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings, filed 7/29/2024, are acknowledged.
Preliminary Amendments
The preliminary amendments, filed 7/29/2024 are acknowledged.
Provisional Priority
The provisional priority date of 2/3/2022 is acknowledged.
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 6 and 17 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.
Claims 6 and 17 recite the limitation "…wherein the receiving comprises…". There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the receiving” in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10 and 12-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Metzger (WO 2018170462 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Metzger teaches the limitations of claim 1 substantially as follows:
A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by an electronic processor, configures the electronic processor to perform a method of communicating between a first satellite payload in an electronic distributed ledger network and a second satellite payload in the electronic distributed ledger network, by performing actions comprising: (Metzger; Abstract: a satellite platform includes a plurality of satellites, wherein a first satellite of the platform is configured to identify a request for a ledger entry for a blockchain maintained by the satellite platform and, in response to the request, distribute the ledger entry to one or more other satellites of the satellite platform, wherein the one or more other satellites comprise full nodes for the blockchain (i.e., communicating between a first satellite payload in an electronic distributed ledger network and a second satellite payload in the electronic distributed ledger network))
providing, by the first satellite payload and to the distributed ledger network, a request for a service; (Metzger; [0003]: wherein a first satellite of the platform is configured to identify a request for a ledger entry for a blockchain maintained by the satellite platform and, in response to the request, distribute the ledger entry to one or more other satellites of the satellite platform, wherein the one or more other satellites comprise full nodes for the blockchain)
obtaining, by the first satellite payload, a service response from the second satellite payload and an indication of compliance with a policy concerning the service; (Metzger; [0003]: wherein a first satellite of the platform is configured to identify a request for a ledger entry for a blockchain maintained by the satellite platform and, in response to the request, distribute the ledger entry to one or more other satellites of the satellite platform, wherein the one or more other satellites comprise full nodes for the blockchain. Once distributed, the one or more other satellites each determine whether the ledger entry is verified and, when the ledger entry is verified, enters the ledger entry in a ledger for the satellite (i.e., a service response from the second satellite payload and an indication of compliance with a policy concerning the service))
determining, by the first satellite payload, and based on the indication of compliance, whether the service response conforms to the policy concerning the service; and (Metzger; [0003]: wherein a first satellite of the platform is configured to identify a request for a ledger entry for a blockchain maintained by the satellite platform and, in response to the request, distribute the ledger entry to one or more other satellites of the satellite platform, wherein the one or more other satellites comprise full nodes for the blockchain. Once distributed, the one or more other satellites each determine whether the ledger entry is verified and, when the ledger entry is verified, enters the ledger entry in a ledger for the satellite (i.e., whether the service response conforms to the policy concerning the service))
acting on the service response, by the first satellite payload, based on the determining. (Metzger; [0003]: Once distributed, the one or more other satellites each determine whether the ledger entry is verified and, when the ledger entry is verified, enters the ledger entry in a ledger for the satellite (i.e., acting on the service response))
Regarding claim 12, Metzger teaches the limitations of claim 12 substantially as follows:
A method of communicating between a first satellite payload in an electronic distributed ledger network and a second satellite payload in the electronic distributed ledger network, the method comprising: (Metzger; Abstract: a satellite platform includes a plurality of satellites, wherein a first satellite of the platform is configured to identify a request for a ledger entry for a blockchain maintained by the satellite platform and, in response to the request, distribute the ledger entry to one or more other satellites of the satellite platform, wherein the one or more other satellites comprise full nodes for the blockchain (i.e., communicating between a first satellite payload in an electronic distributed ledger network and a second satellite payload in the electronic distributed ledger network))
providing, by the first satellite payload and to the distributed ledger network, a request for a service; (Metzger; [0003]: wherein a first satellite of the platform is configured to identify a request for a ledger entry for a blockchain maintained by the satellite platform and, in response to the request, distribute the ledger entry to one or more other satellites of the satellite platform, wherein the one or more other satellites comprise full nodes for the blockchain)
obtaining, by the first satellite payload, a service response from the second satellite payload and an indication of compliance with a policy concerning the service; (Metzger; [0003]: wherein a first satellite of the platform is configured to identify a request for a ledger entry for a blockchain maintained by the satellite platform and, in response to the request, distribute the ledger entry to one or more other satellites of the satellite platform, wherein the one or more other satellites comprise full nodes for the blockchain. Once distributed, the one or more other satellites each determine whether the ledger entry is verified and, when the ledger entry is verified, enters the ledger entry in a ledger for the satellite (i.e., a service response from the second satellite payload and an indication of compliance with a policy concerning the service))
determining, by the first satellite payload, and based on the indication of compliance, whether the service response conforms to the policy concerning the service; and (Metzger; [0003]: wherein a first satellite of the platform is configured to identify a request for a ledger entry for a blockchain maintained by the satellite platform and, in response to the request, distribute the ledger entry to one or more other satellites of the satellite platform, wherein the one or more other satellites comprise full nodes for the blockchain. Once distributed, the one or more other satellites each determine whether the ledger entry is verified and, when the ledger entry is verified, enters the ledger entry in a ledger for the satellite (i.e., whether the service response conforms to the policy concerning the service))
acting on the service response, by the first satellite payload, based on the determining. (Metzger; [0003]: Once distributed, the one or more other satellites each determine whether the ledger entry is verified and, when the ledger entry is verified, enters the ledger entry in a ledger for the satellite (i.e., acting on the service response))
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Metzger teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 12.
Metzger teaches the limitations of claims 2 and 13 as follows:
wherein the determining comprises determining that the service response conforms to the policy concerning the service, and wherein the acting on the service comprises processing the service response by the first satellite payload. (Metzger; [0062]: the blockchain may apply a public key for the ledger entry to determine whether the entry is verified (i.e., determining that the service response conforms to the policy concerning the service). If verified, satellite may add the entry to ledger, however, if the entry is not verified, the ledger entry will not be added to the ledger (i.e., acting on the service comprises processing the service response by the first satellite payload))
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Metzger teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 12.
Metzger teaches the limitations of claims 3 and 14 as follows:
wherein the determining comprises determining that the service response does not conform to the policy concerning the service, and (Metzger; [0062]: the blockchain may apply a public key for the ledger entry to determine whether the entry is verified. If verified, satellite may add the entry to ledger, however, if the entry is not verified, the ledger entry will not be added to the ledger (i.e., the service response does not conform to the policy concerning the service))
wherein the acting on the service comprises sending, by the first satellite payload and to at least one node in the electronic distributed ledger network, a request to validate non-conformance of the service response to the policy concerning the service. (Metzger; [0061]: Once the ledger entry is identified, the satellite will distribute (802) the ledger entry to other satellites in the platform that provide a node for the blockchain (e.g. other satellites that provide a process for the application in the platform). Once received, each of the satellites that provide the nodes for the blockchain, may verify (803) the ledger entry (i.e., sending, by the first satellite payload and to at least one node in the electronic distributed ledger network, a request to validate non-conformance of the service response to the policy concerning the service) and store the entry in a local ledger for the satellite when verified store the entry in a local ledger for the node)
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Metzger teaches the limitations of claims 3 and 14.
Metzger teaches the limitations of claims 4 and 15 as follows:
wherein the actions further comprise: receiving, by the first satellite payload and from at least one node in the electronic distributed ledger network, a consensus indication of non-conformance of the service response to the policy concerning the service, and refusing entry of the service response to the first satellite payload. (Metzger; [0063]: the nodes may be required to form a majority before the block will be added (i.e., a consensus indication of non-conformance of the service response to the policy concerning the service))
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Metzger teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 12.
Metzger teaches the limitations of claims 5 and 16 as follows:
wherein the electronic distributed ledger network comprises one of a blockchain network or a directed acyclic graph network. (Metzger; Abstract: a satellite platform includes a plurality of satellites, wherein a first satellite of the platform is configured to identify a request for a ledger entry for a blockchain maintained by the satellite platform and, in response to the request, distribute the ledger entry to one or more other satellites of the satellite platform, wherein the one or more other satellites comprise full nodes for the blockchain (i.e., distributed ledger network comprises one of a blockchain network))
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Metzger teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 12.
Metzger teaches the limitations of claims 6 and 17 as follows:
wherein the receiving comprises retrieving the indication of compliance with the policy concerning the service from the electronic distributed ledger network. (Metzger; [0003]: wherein a first satellite of the platform is configured to identify a request for a ledger entry for a blockchain maintained by the satellite platform and, in response to the request, distribute the ledger entry to one or more other satellites of the satellite platform, wherein the one or more other satellites comprise full nodes for the blockchain. Once distributed, the one or more other satellites each determine whether the ledger entry is verified and, when the ledger entry is verified, enters the ledger entry in a ledger for the satellite (i.e., indication of compliance with the policy concerning the service from the electronic distributed ledger network))
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Metzger teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 12.
Metzger teaches the limitations of claims 7 and 18 as follows:
wherein the first satellite payload and the second satellite payload are hosted payloads present on a same satellite, and (Metzger; [0046]: one or more processes (i.e., the first satellite payload and the second satellite payload are hosted payloads) executing on each of satellites 510-513 (i.e., present on a same satellite) are configured to manage a blockchain corresponding to blocks)
wherein the sending is performed over an electronic bus. (Metzger; [0049]: This distribution may occur via a direct link between satellite 510 and satellite 512 or may occur using satellites 511 and 513 or another satellite (not illustrated) (i.e., the sending is performed over an electronic bus))
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Metzger teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 12.
Metzger teaches the limitations of claims 8 and 19 as follows:
wherein the first satellite payload is present on a first satellite and the second satellite payload is present on a second satellite different from the first satellite, and (Metzger; [0046]: one or more processes (i.e., the first satellite payload and the second satellite payload are hosted payloads) executing on each of satellites 510-513 (i.e., present on a first and a second satellite) are configured to manage a blockchain corresponding to blocks)
wherein the sending is performed over a wireless communication channel. (Metzger; [0020]: Satellites 110-113 and satellites 120-123 communicate via wireless communication links 130-132)
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Metzger teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 12.
Metzger teaches the limitations of claims 9 and 20 as follows:
wherein the service comprises at least one of: computation time, data storage, or sensor data acquisition. (Metzger; [0003]: Once distributed, the one or more other satellites each determine whether the ledger entry is verified and, when the ledger entry is verified, enters the ledger entry in a ledger for the satellite (i.e., data storage))
Regarding claims 10 and 21, Metzger teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 12.
Metzger teaches the limitations of claims 10 and 21 as follows:
wherein the actions further comprise: obtaining, by the first satellite payload and from the electronic distributed ledger network, an indication of past compliance by the second satellite payload. (Metzger; [0003]: Once distributed, the one or more other satellites each determine whether the ledger entry is verified and, when the ledger entry is verified, enters the ledger entry in a ledger for the satellite (i.e., indication of past compliance))
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.
Claims 11 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzger (WO 2018170462 A1), as applied to independent claims, in view of Favarolo (US 10742313 B1).
Regarding claims 11 and 22, Metzger teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 12.
Metzger does not teach the limitations of claims 11 and 22 as follows:
wherein the actions further comprise: advertising in a data and services marketplace, by the first satellite payload, a service that it is capable of providing and that is available for request.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Favarolo discloses the limitations of claims 11 and 22 as follows:
wherein the actions further comprise: advertising in a data and services marketplace, by the first satellite payload, a service that it is capable of providing and that is available for request.(Favarolo; Col. 11, Lines 29-33: The distributed resource/service manager matches the request of resources or services by a node with supply from other nodes (i.e., advertising in a data and services marketplace, by the first satellite payload, a service that it is capable of providing and that is available for request))
Favarolo is combinable with Metzger because all are from the same field of endeavor of blockchain coordination in satellite systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified system of Metzger to incorporate managing and matching of services to resources in a blockchain network as in Favarolo in order to optimize allocation and usage of resources, goods, and services.
Prior Art Considered But Not Relied Upon
Richarte (US 20230231699 A1) which teaches implementing cryptographic and security-in-depth techniques on-board spacecrafts or satellites.
Balaraman (US 20190164157 A1) which teaches a system which allows registered transaction account holders and merchants to interact and complete transactions according to workflows enforced by smart contracts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE ISAAC NARRAMORE whose telephone number is (303)297-4357. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 0700-1700 MT.
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, Taghi T Arani can be reached on (571) 272-3787. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BLAKE I NARRAMORE/Examiner, Art Unit 2438