Detailed Action
This is a Final Office action in response to communications received on 4/28/2026. Claims 1, 6, 12 and 17 were amended. 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed 4/28/2026, to claim(s) 6 and 17 correcting the claim to omit “the receiving” are sufficient to overcome the rejection to the aforementioned claim(s). Accordingly, the rejection of claim(s) 6 and 17 under 112, second paragraph, as filed in (6) of the Non-Final Office action filed 1/28/2026, is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 of the claims under Metzger (WO 2018170462 A1) have been considered, but are moot because the new ground of rejection necessitated from amending the independent claims 1 and 12. The instant rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically argued in the Applicant's response.
Consequently, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 is presented as below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-10 and 12-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzger (WO 2018170462 A1) in view of Cella (US 20210358032 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; [0035]: operation 300 on satellite 110 identifies (301) a request to store a data object (i.e., request for service); In storing the data object, as depicted in expanded view 200 of satellite 110, the satellite may include a distributed data storage pool that permits processes on the satellite to store data objects across a plurality of satellites (i.e., distributed ledger network))
wherein the request for service comprises a policy concerning the service, wherein the policy concerning the service comprises a set of instructions defining how the service is fulfilled, and (Metzger; [0035]: In determining the storage location for the particular object in the storage pool, operation 300 may be configured to consider various factors to identify the storage location within the storage pool. These factors may include processing that is required on the data object, the orbital location of each of the satellites, the type of data object, the size of the data object, or any other similar factor, including combinations thereof (i.e., defining how the particular object is fulfilled))
obtaining, by the first satellite payload, a service response from the second satellite payload and an indication of compliance with the policy concerning the service, (Metzger; [0035]: In determining the storage location for the particular object in the storage pool, operation 300 may be configured to consider various factors to identify the storage location within the storage pool. These factors may include processing that is required on the data object, the orbital location of each of the satellites, the type of data object, the size of the data object, or any other similar factor, including combinations thereof (i.e., a service response from the second satellite payload and an indication of compliance with the 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))
Metzger does not teach the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
wherein the providing comprises publishing the request on the distributed ledger network;
wherein the obtaining comprises obtaining the service response as published on the distributed ledger network;
However, in the same field of endeavor, Cella discloses the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
wherein the providing comprises publishing the request on the distributed ledger network; (Cella; [0206]: set of services to publish a crowdsourcing request. Publishing services may be provided by a platform or system, without limitation. In certain embodiments, without limitation, publishing services may be performed by a smart contract, wherein the crowdsourcing request is published or publication is initiated by the smart contract (i.e., publishing the request on the distributed ledger network))
wherein the obtaining comprises obtaining the service response as published on the distributed ledger network; (Cella; [1824]: a crowdsourcing publishing circuit configured to publish the crowdsourcing request to a group of information suppliers; and a crowdsourcing communications circuit structured to collect and process at least one response from the group of information suppliers, and to provide a reward to at least one of the group of information suppliers in response to a successful information supply event (i.e., obtaining the service response as published on the distributed ledger network))
Cella is combinable with Metzger because all are from the same field of endeavor of blockchain coordination in systems including satellites. 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 the system of Metzger to incorporate publishing requests to a blockchain network in the form of smart contracts as in Cella in order to improve the security of the system by providing a means by which requests may be stored and fulfilled in a blockchain network.
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; [0035]: operation 300 on satellite 110 identifies (301) a request to store a data object (i.e., request for service); In storing the data object, as depicted in expanded view 200 of satellite 110, the satellite may include a distributed data storage pool that permits processes on the satellite to store data objects across a plurality of satellites (i.e., distributed ledger network))
wherein the request for service comprises a policy concerning the service, wherein the policy concerning the service comprises a set of instructions defining how the service is fulfilled, and (Metzger; [0035]: In determining the storage location for the particular object in the storage pool, operation 300 may be configured to consider various factors to identify the storage location within the storage pool. These factors may include processing that is required on the data object, the orbital location of each of the satellites, the type of data object, the size of the data object, or any other similar factor, including combinations thereof (i.e., defining how the particular object is fulfilled))
obtaining, by the first satellite payload, a service response from the second satellite payload and an indication of compliance with the policy concerning the service, (Metzger; [0035]: In determining the storage location for the particular object in the storage pool, operation 300 may be configured to consider various factors to identify the storage location within the storage pool. These factors may include processing that is required on the data object, the orbital location of each of the satellites, the type of data object, the size of the data object, or any other similar factor, including combinations thereof (i.e., a service response from the second satellite payload and an indication of compliance with the 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))
Metzger does not teach the limitations of claim 12 as follows:
wherein the providing comprises publishing the request on the distributed ledger network;
wherein the obtaining comprises obtaining the service response as published on the distributed ledger network;
However, in the same field of endeavor, Cella discloses the limitations of claim 12 as follows:
wherein the providing comprises publishing the request on the distributed ledger network; (Cella; [0206]: set of services to publish a crowdsourcing request. Publishing services may be provided by a platform or system, without limitation. In certain embodiments, without limitation, publishing services may be performed by a smart contract, wherein the crowdsourcing request is published or publication is initiated by the smart contract (i.e., publishing the request on the distributed ledger network))
wherein the obtaining comprises obtaining the service response as published on the distributed ledger network; (Cella; [1824]: a crowdsourcing publishing circuit configured to publish the crowdsourcing request to a group of information suppliers; and a crowdsourcing communications circuit structured to collect and process at least one response from the group of information suppliers, and to provide a reward to at least one of the group of information suppliers in response to a successful information supply event (i.e., obtaining the service response as published on the distributed ledger network))
Cella is combinable with Metzger because all are from the same field of endeavor of blockchain coordination in systems including satellites. 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 the system of Metzger to incorporate publishing requests to a blockchain network in the form of smart contracts as in Cella in order to improve the security of the system by providing a means by which requests may be stored and fulfilled in a blockchain network.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Metzger and Cella teach the limitations of claims 1 and 12.
Metzger and Cella teach 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 and Cella teach the limitations of claims 1 and 12.
Metzger and Cella teach 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 and Cella teach the limitations of claims 3 and 14.
Metzger and Cella teach 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 and Cella teach the limitations of claims 1 and 12.
Metzger and Cella teach 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 and Cella teach the limitations of claims 1 and 12.
Metzger and Cella teach the limitations of claims 6 and 17 as follows:
wherein the service response as published on the distributed ledger network comprises the service response published on the distributed ledger network in partly encrypted form, whereby the service response is assessable as complying with the instructions defining how the service is fulfilled without revealing the service response. (Cella; [0206], [0280]: set of services to publish a crowdsourcing request. Publishing services may be provided by a platform or system, without limitation. In certain embodiments, without limitation, publishing services may be performed by a smart contract, wherein the crowdsourcing request is published or publication is initiated by the smart contract; a smart contract circuit or robotic process automation system may perform encryption of information or control of access to information for one or more of the parties and process appropriate tasks for encryption or control of access of information (i.e., published on the distributed ledger network in partly encrypted form))
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Metzger and Cella teach the limitations of claims 1 and 12.
Metzger and Cella teach 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 and Cella teach the limitations of claims 1 and 12.
Metzger and Cella teach 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 and Cella teach the limitations of claims 1 and 12.
Metzger and Cella teach 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 and Cella teach the limitations of claims 1 and 12.
Metzger and Cella teach 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))
Claims 11 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzger (WO 2018170462 A1) in view of Cella (US 20210358032 A1), as applied to independent claims, in view of Favarolo (US 10742313 B1).
Regarding claims 11 and 22, Metzger and Cella teach the limitations of claims 1 and 12.
Metzger and Cella do 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 and Cella 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 and Cella 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
For the above-stated reasons, claims 1-22 are rejected.
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 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
Prosecution Insights