DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 Amendment
2. The Applicant filed Amendments on 02/04/2026. Claims 1-10, 12-18, and 20-22 are pending and are rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. Claims 1-10, 12-18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
5. Analysis:
Step 1: Statutory Category?: (is the claim(s) directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?) - YES: In the instant case, claims 1-10, 21-22 are directed to an orbital data storage system (i.e., machine), claims 12-18 are directed to a method (i.e., process), and claim 20 is directed to a computer program product (i.e., machine).
Regarding independent claim 1:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 1 recites the at least following limitations of “… communicate to store financial data ….” These recited limitations of the claim, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities/business relations for storing financial transaction data). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 1 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “a first computing device located on a planet”, “a first database located on the planet”, “a plurality of satellites orbiting the planet”, “a second computing device”, “a second database”, “a battery”, and “a solar panel”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a first computing device located on a planet”, “a first database located on the planet”, “a plurality of satellites orbiting the planet”, “a second computing device”, “a second database”, “a battery”, and “a solar panel” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more - See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Regarding independent claim 12:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 12 recites the at least following limitations of “… storing financial transaction data, comprising: receiving a request to process a financial transaction; processing the financial transaction; and storing data related to the financial transaction ….” These recited limitations of the claim, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities/business relations for processing a financial transaction and storing a financial transaction data). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 12 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “a first database located on a planet”, “a plurality of second databases”, and “a satellite orbiting the planet”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a first database located on a planet”, “a plurality of second databases”, and “a satellite orbiting the planet” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more - See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Regarding independent claim 20:
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?: (is the claim(s) recited a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) – YES: Independent claim 20 recites the at least following limitations of “… to receive a request to process a financial transaction; … process the financial transaction; … store data related to the financial transaction …; and … verify that data stored … relating to the financial transaction is identical to data stored … related to the financial transaction….” These recited limitations of the claim, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of the limitations in commercial interactions (including sales activities/business relations for processing a financial transaction and storing a financial transaction data). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception) - NO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 20 further to the abstract idea includes additional elements of “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium”, “program instructions stored on the non-transitory computer readable storage medium”, “a first database located on a planet”, “a plurality of second databases”, and “a unique satellite orbiting the planet”. However, the additional elements recite generic computer components such as a computer, computing devices, a server, and/or software programing that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?: (is the claim(s) recited additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception) - NO: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium”, “program instructions stored on the non-transitory computer readable storage medium”, “a first database located on a planet”, “a plurality of second databases”, and “a unique satellite orbiting the planet” evaluated individually and in combination do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, or are not more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more - See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). None of the additional elements taken individually or when taken as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is patent-ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-10, 13-18, and 21-22 have been given the full two-part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held to be patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claim 2: simply provides further definition to “the solar panel” recited in independent claim 1. Simply stating that wherein the solar panel is operatively arranged to power the second computing device and/or the second database amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., the solar panel, the second computing device and/or the second database).Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 3: simply provides further definition to “the solar panel” recited in independent claim 1. Simply stating that wherein: the solar panel is operatively arranged to charge the battery; and the battery is operatively arranged to power the second computing device and/or the second database amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., the solar panel, the battery, the second computing device and/or the second database).Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 4: simply refines the abstract idea because they recite limitations (e.g., further comprising: one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media; and program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer readable storage media, the program instructions comprising: program instructions to receive a request to process a financial transaction; program instructions to process the financial transaction; and program instructions to store data related to the financial transaction in the first database and the second database), that fall under the category of organizing human activity as described above in independent claim 1. Additionally, merely stating that these process steps are performed by one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media; program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer readable storage media, the first database and the second database amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components (i.e., one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media; program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer readable storage media, the first database and the second database) to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 5 and 13: simply provide further definition to “the program instructions” recited in claims 4, 12. Simply stating that wherein the program instructions further comprise: program instructions to verify that data stored in the first database and relating to the financial transaction is identical to data stored in the second database and related to the financial transaction amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., the program instructions, the first database, the second database).Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 6 and 14: simply provide further definition to “the program instructions” recited in claims 4, 12. Simply stating that wherein the program instructions further comprise: program instructions to determine that the data stored in the first database and relating to the financial transaction is identical to the data stored in the second database and related to the financial transaction; and program instructions to provide an indication that there is no error related to the financial transaction amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., the program instructions, the first database, the second database).Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 7 and 15: simply provide further definition to “the program instructions” recited in claims 4, 12. Simply stating that wherein the program instructions further comprise: program instructions to determine that the data stored in the first database and relating to the financial transaction is not identical to the data stored in the second database and related to the financial transaction; and program instructions to provide an indication that there is an error related to the financial transaction amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., the program instructions, the first database, the second database).Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 8 and 16: simply provide further definition to “the request to process the financial transaction” recited in claims 4, 12. Simply stating that wherein the request to process the financial transaction comprises a request for currency exchange do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 9 and 17: simply provide further definition to “the program instructions” recited in claims 8, 16. Simply stating that wherein the program instructions further comprise: program instructions to retrieve a plurality of exchange rates, wherein each exchange rate of the plurality of exchange rates relates to a different currency; and program instructions to determine a new currency exchange rate amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., the program instructions).Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claims 10 and 18: simply provide further definition to “the program instructions” recited in claims 9, 17. Simply stating that wherein the program instructions to determine a new currency exchange rate comprises: program instructions to calculate the sum of the exchange rates; and program instructions to divide the sum of the exchange rates by the total number of exchange rates amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components and/or software programing to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., the program instructions).Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 21: simply refines the abstract idea because they recite limitations (e.g., further comprising a graphical user interface displaying mining capacity), that fall under the category of organizing human activity as described above in independent claim 1. Additionally, merely stating that these process steps are performed by a graphical user interface amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components (i.e., a graphical user interface) to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Dependent claim 22: simply refines the abstract idea because they recite limitations (e.g., further comprising a graphical user interface displaying satellite remaining life), that fall under the category of organizing human activity as described above in independent claim 1. Additionally, merely stating that these process steps are performed by a graphical user interface amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components (i.e., a graphical user interface) to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 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.
7. 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 of this title, 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.
8. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
9. Claims 1-10, 12-18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOUDGAL et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0264407), hereinafter, “MOUDGAL”, in view of Metzger et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20190289018), hereinafter, “Metzger”.
Claim 1 –
MOUDGAL disclose:
an orbital data storage system, comprising: a first computing device located on a planet; a first database located on the planet; and a plurality of satellites orbiting the planet, wherein each satellite of the plurality of satellites comprises: a second computing device; a second database; wherein the first computing device and the second computing device are operatively arranged to communicate to store financial data on the first database and the second database a system for maintaining data integrity and security during data transfer between electronic devices, the system comprising (MOUDGAL, Abstract, [0027], [0069], [0097], “Systems and methods for space-based transactions are disclosed … a network of space-based devices (e.g., satellites, space stations, or other vehicles) in space that can transact with one another. The devices can communicate using radio waves, laser beams, and other space-compatible communication mechanisms. These communications may be translated into transactions, monetary or otherwise, that may be processed on, for example, a distributed ledger network … if the first space-based device transacts with a second space-based device for imaging data, the second space-based device may provide a hash of the imaging data in exchange for the payment (e.g., the hash may be used to unlock the image stored off-chain), by providing a token that may be used to access the data, etc. … the processing machine executes the instructions that are stored in the memory or memories to process data. This processing of data may be in response to commands by a user or users of the processing machine, in response to previous processing, in response to a request by another processing machine and/or any other input, for example”, see also Figures 1-3)
MOUDGAL do not explicitly disclose:
[[a battery; and a solar panel]]
Metzger disclose [[a battery; and a solar panel]] (See at least Metzger [0066], “Processing system 1003 includes processing circuitry 1005 and memory device 1006 that stores operating software 1007. Computing system 1000 may include other well-known components such as a battery, solar panels, and enclosure that are not shown for clarity”, see also Figure 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of MOUDGAL to include a battery and a solar panel as taught by Metzger, in order for a plurality of satellites to communicate to store financial data (see Metzger Paragraphs [0066], Figure 10).
Claim 2 –
MOUDGAL/Metzger disclose the orbital data storage system as recited in claim 1, as shown above.
MOUDGAL further disclose:
wherein the solar panel is operatively arranged to power the second computing device and/or the second database (MOUDGAL, [0027], “a network of space-based devices (e.g., satellites, space stations, or other vehicles) in space that can transact with one another. The devices can communicate using radio waves, laser beams, and other space-compatible communication mechanisms. These communications may be translated into transactions, monetary or otherwise, that may be processed on, for example, a distributed ledger network”, see also Figures 1-3).
Claim 3 –
MOUDGAL/Metzger disclose the orbital data storage system as recited in claim 1, as shown above.
MOUDGAL further disclose:
wherein: the solar panel is operatively arranged to charge the battery; and the battery is operatively arranged to power the second computing device and/or the second database (MOUDGAL, [0027], “a network of space-based devices (e.g., satellites, space stations, or other vehicles) in space that can transact with one another. The devices can communicate using radio waves, laser beams, and other space-compatible communication mechanisms. These communications may be translated into transactions, monetary or otherwise, that may be processed on, for example, a distributed ledger network”, see also Figures 1-3).
Claim 4 –
MOUDGAL/Metzger disclose the orbital data storage system as recited in claim 1, as shown above.
MOUDGAL further disclose:
further comprising: one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media; and program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer readable storage media, the program instructions comprising: program instructions to receive a request to process a financial transaction; program instructions to process the financial transaction; and program instructions to store data related to the financial transaction in the first database and the second database (MOUDGAL, [0069], [0087], “if the first space-based device transacts with a second space-based device for imaging data, the second space-based device may provide a hash of the imaging data in exchange for the payment (e.g., the hash may be used to unlock the image stored off-chain), by providing a token that may be used to access the data, etc. … the first space-based user may conduct a transaction with the second space-based user, or another space-based user, using the currency received as a result of the foreign exchange transaction”, see also Figures 1-3).
Claim 5 –
MOUDGAL/Metzger disclose the orbital data storage system as recited in claim 4, as shown above.
MOUDGAL further disclose:
wherein the program instructions further comprise: program instructions to verify that data stored in the first database and relating to the financial transaction is identical to data stored in the second database and related to the financial transaction (MOUDGAL, [0027], [0095], “a network of space-based devices (e.g., satellites, space stations, or other vehicles) in space that can transact with one another. The devices can communicate using radio waves, laser beams, and other space-compatible communication mechanisms. These communications may be translated into transactions, monetary or otherwise, that may be processed on, for example, a distributed ledger network … The at least one memory stores a set of instructions. The instructions may be either permanently or temporarily stored in the memory or memories of the processing machine. The processor executes the instructions that are stored in the memory or memories in order to process data”, see also Figures 1-3).
Claim 6 –
MOUDGAL/Metzger disclose the orbital data storage system as recited in claim 4, as shown above.
MOUDGAL further disclose:
wherein the program instructions further comprise: program instructions to determine that the data stored in the first database and relating to the financial transaction is identical to the data stored in the second database and related to the financial transaction; and program instructions to provide an indication that there is no error related to the financial transaction (MOUDGAL, [0027], [0095], “a network of space-based devices (e.g., satellites, space stations, or other vehicles) in space that can transact with one another. The devices can communicate using radio waves, laser beams, and other space-compatible communication mechanisms. These communications may be translated into transactions, monetary or otherwise, that may be processed on, for example, a distributed ledger network … The at least one memory stores a set of instructions. The instructions may be either permanently or temporarily stored in the memory or memories of the processing machine. The processor executes the instructions that are stored in the memory or memories in order to process data”, see also Figures 1-3).
Claim 7 –
MOUDGAL/Metzger disclose the orbital data storage system as recited in claim 4, as shown above.
MOUDGAL further disclose:
wherein the program instructions further comprise: program instructions to determine that the data stored in the first database and relating to the financial transaction is not identical to the data stored in the second database and related to the financial transaction; and program instructions to provide an indication that there is an error related to the financial transaction (MOUDGAL, [0027], [0095], “a network of space-based devices (e.g., satellites, space stations, or other vehicles) in space that can transact with one another. The devices can communicate using radio waves, laser beams, and other space-compatible communication mechanisms. These communications may be translated into transactions, monetary or otherwise, that may be processed on, for example, a distributed ledger network … The at least one memory stores a set of instructions. The instructions may be either permanently or temporarily stored in the memory or memories of the processing machine. The processor executes the instructions that are stored in the memory or memories in order to process data”, see also Figures 1-3).
Claim 8 –
MOUDGAL/Metzger disclose the orbital data storage system as recited in claim 4, as shown above.
MOUDGAL further disclose:
wherein the request to process the financial transaction comprises a request for currency exchange (MOUDGAL, [0069], [0087], “if the first space-based device transacts with a second space-based device for imaging data, the second space-based device may provide a hash of the imaging data in exchange for the payment (e.g., the hash may be used to unlock the image stored off-chain), by providing a token that may be used to access the data, etc. … the first space-based user may conduct a transaction with the second space-based user, or another space-based user, using the currency received as a result of the foreign exchange transaction”, see also Figures 1-3).
Claim 9 –
MOUDGAL/Metzger disclose the orbital data storage system as recited in claim 8, as shown above.
MOUDGAL further disclose:
wherein the program instructions further comprise: program instructions to retrieve a plurality of exchange rates, wherein each exchange rate of the plurality of exchange rates relates to a different currency; and program instructions to determine a new currency exchange rate (MOUDGAL, [0069], [0087], “if the first space-based device transacts with a second space-based device for imaging data, the second space-based device may provide a hash of the imaging data in exchange for the payment (e.g., the hash may be used to unlock the image stored off-chain), by providing a token that may be used to access the data, etc. … the first space-based user may conduct a transaction with the second space-based user, or another space-based user, using the currency received as a result of the foreign exchange transaction”, see also Figures 1-3).
Claim 10 –
MOUDGAL/Metzger disclose the orbital data storage system as recited in claim 9, as shown above.
MOUDGAL further disclose:
wherein the program instructions to determine a new currency exchange rate comprises: program instructions to calculate the sum of the exchange rates; and program instructions to divide the sum of the exchange rates by the total number of exchange rates (MOUDGAL, [0084], “one or both of the first space-based user and the second space-based user may retrieve the foreign exchange rate from an oracle, such as a third space-based user; in another embodiment, the e first space-based user and the second space-based user may reach a bilateral agreement on the foreign exchange rate; in another embodiment, the foreign exchange rate may be programmatically determined based on, for example, supply and demand of one or both of the currencies”, see also Figures 1-3).
Claim 12 –
MOUDGAL disclose:
a method of storing financial transaction data, comprising: receiving a request to process a financial transaction; processing the financial transaction; and storing data related to the financial transaction in a first database located on a planet and a plurality of second databases, wherein each second database of the plurality of second databases is arranged on a satellite orbiting the planet (MOUDGAL, Abstract, [0027], [0069], [0097], “Systems and methods for space-based transactions are disclosed … a network of space-based devices (e.g., satellites, space stations, or other vehicles) in space that can transact with one another. The devices can communicate using radio waves, laser beams, and other space-compatible communication mechanisms. These communications may be translated into transactions, monetary or otherwise, that may be processed on, for example, a distributed ledger network … if the first space-based device transacts with a second space-based device for imaging data, the second space-based device may provide a hash of the imaging data in exchange for the payment (e.g., the hash may be used to unlock the image stored off-chain), by providing a token that may be used to access the data, etc. … the processing machine executes the instructions that are stored in the memory or memories to process data. This processing of data may be in response to commands by a user or users of the processing machine, in response to previous processing, in response to a request by another processing machine and/or any other input, for example”, see also Figures 1-3).
Claim 13 –
MOUDGAL/Metzger disclose the method of storing financial transaction data as recited in claim 12, as shown above.
MOUDGAL further disclose:
further comprising: verifying that data stored in the first database and relating to the financial transaction is identical to data stored in the second database and related to the financial transaction (MOUDGAL, [0027], [0095], “a network of space-based devices (e.g., satellites, space stations, or other vehicles) in space that can transact with one another. The devices can communicate using radio waves, laser beams, and other space-compatible communication mechanisms. These communications may be translated into transactions, monetary or otherwise, that may be processed on, for example, a distributed ledger network … The at least one memory stores a set of instructions. The instructions may be either permanently or temporarily stored in the memory or memories of the processing machine. The processor executes the instructions that are stored in the memory or memories in order to process data”, see also Figures 1-3).
Claim 14 –
MOUDGAL/Metzger disclose the method of storing financial transaction data as recited in claim 12, as shown above.
MOUDGAL further disclose:
further comprising: determining that the data stored in the first database and relating to the financial transaction is identical to the data stored in the second database and related to the financial transaction; and providing an indication that there is no error related to the financial transaction (MOUDGAL, [0027], [0095], “a network of space-based devices (e.g., satellites, space stations, or other vehicles) in space that can transact with one another. The devices can communicate using radio waves, laser beams, and other space-compatible communication mechanisms. These communications may be translated into transactions, monetary or otherwise, that may be processed on, for example, a distributed ledger network … The at least one memory stores a set of instructions. The instructions may be either permanently or temporarily stored in the memory or memories of the processing machine. The processor executes the instructions that are stored in the memory or memories in order to process data”, see also Figures 1-3).
Claim 15 –
MOUDGAL/Metzger disclose the method of storing financial transaction data as recited in claim 12, as shown above.
MOUDGAL further disclose:
further comprising: determining that the data stored in the first database and relating to the financial transaction is not identical to the data stored in the second database and related to the financial transaction; and providing an indication that there is an error related to the financial transaction (MOUDGAL, [0027], [0095], “a network of space-based devices (e.g., satellites, space stations, or other vehicles) in space that can transact with one another. The devices can communicate using radio waves, laser beams, and other space-compatible communication mechanisms. These communications may be translated into transactions, monetary or otherwise, that may be processed on, for example, a distributed ledger network … The at least one memory stores a set of instructions. The instructions may be either permanently or temporarily stored in the memory or memories of the processing machine. The processor executes the instructions that are stored in the memory or memories in order to process data”, see also Figures 1-3).
Claim 16 –
MOUDGAL/Metzger disclose the method of storing financial transaction data as recited in claim 12, as shown above.
MOUDGAL further disclose:
wherein the request to process the financial transaction comprises a request for currency exchange (MOUDGAL, [0069], [0087], “if the first space-based device transacts with a second space-based device for imaging data, the second space-based device may provide a hash of the imaging data in exchange for the payment (e.g., the hash may be used to unlock the image stored off-chain), by providing a token that may be used to access the data, etc. … the first space-based user may conduct a transaction with the second space-based user, or another space-based user, using the currency received as a result of the foreign exchange transaction”, see also Figures 1-3).
Claim 17 –
MOUDGAL/Metzger disclose the method of storing financial transaction data as recited in claim 16, as shown above.
MOUDGAL further disclose:
further comprising: retrieving a plurality of exchange rates, wherein each exchange rate of the plurality of exchange rates relates to a different currency; and determining a new currency exchange rate (MOUDGAL, [0069], [0087], “if the first space-based device transacts with a second space-based device for imaging data, the second space-based device may provide a hash of the imaging data in exchange for the payment (e.g., the hash may be used to unlock the image stored off-chain), by providing a token that may be used to access the data, etc. … the first space-based user may conduct a transaction with the second space-based user, or another space-based user, using the currency received as a result of the foreign exchange transaction”, see also Figures 1-3).
Claim 18 –
MOUDGAL/Metzger disclose the method of storing financial transaction data as recited in claim 17, as shown above.
MOUDGAL further disclose:
wherein the step of determining a new currency exchange rate comprises: calculating the sum of the exchange rates; and dividing the sum of the exchange rates by the total number of exchange rates (MOUDGAL, [0084], “one or both of the first space-based user and the second space-based user may retrieve the foreign exchange rate from an oracle, such as a third space-based user; in another embodiment, the e first space-based user and the second space-based user may reach a bilateral agreement on the foreign exchange rate; in another embodiment, the foreign exchange rate may be programmatically determined based on, for example, supply and demand of one or both of the currencies”, see also Figures 1-3).
Claim 20 –
MOUDGAL disclose:
a computer program product for securely storing financial transaction data, comprising: a non-transitory computer readable storage medium and program instructions stored on the non-transitory computer readable storage medium, the program instructions comprising: program instructions to receive a request to process a financial transaction ;program instructions to process the financial transaction; program instructions to store data related to the financial transaction in a first database located on a planet and a plurality of second databases, wherein each of second databases is arranged on a unique satellite orbiting the planet; and program instructions to verify that data stored in the first database and relating to the financial transaction is identical to data stored in the second database and related to the financial transaction (MOUDGAL, Abstract, [0027], [0069], [0097], “Systems and methods for space-based transactions are disclosed … a network of space-based devices (e.g., satellites, space stations, or other vehicles) in space that can transact with one another. The devices can communicate using radio waves, laser beams, and other space-compatible communication mechanisms. These communications may be translated into transactions, monetary or otherwise, that may be processed on, for example, a distributed ledger network … if the first space-based device transacts with a second space-based device for imaging data, the second space-based device may provide a hash of the imaging data in exchange for the payment (e.g., the hash may be used to unlock the image stored off-chain), by providing a token that may be used to access the data, etc. … the processing machine executes the instructions that are stored in the memory or memories to process data. This processing of data may be in response to commands by a user or users of the processing machine, in response to previous processing, in response to a request by another processing machine and/or any other input, for example”, see also Figures 1-3).
Claim 21 –
MOUDGAL/Metzger disclose the orbital data storage system as recited as recited in claim 1, as shown above.
MOUDGAL further disclose:
further comprising a graphical user interface displaying mining capacity (MOUDGAL, [0109], “the user interface is any device that provides communication between a user and a processing machine. The information provided by the user to the processing machine through the user interface may be in the form of a command, a selection of data, or some other input”, see also Figure 1).
Claim 22 –
MOUDGAL/Metzger disclose the orbital data storage system as recited as recited in claim 1, as shown above.
MOUDGAL further disclose:
further comprising a graphical user interface displaying satellite remaining life (MOUDGAL, [0109], “the user interface is any device that provides communication between a user and a processing machine. The information provided by the user to the processing machine through the user interface may be in the form of a command, a selection of data, or some other input”, see also Figure 1).
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
10. 35 U.S.C. §102 Rejections: Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended 1-10, 12-18, and 20-22 that are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MOUDGAL et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0264407), hereinafter, “MOUDGAL”, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection (See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Pages 2-11).
Examiner notes that the new prior art Metzger teach the claim limitations of independent claim 1 “a battery; and a solar panel” as in (See at least Metzger [0066], “Processing system 1003 includes processing circuitry 1005 and memory device 1006 that stores operating software 1007. Computing system 1000 may include other well-known components such as a battery, solar panels, and enclosure that are not shown for clarity”, see also Figure 10). See details of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 of claims 2-10, 12-18, and 20-22 in the section above.
Relevant Prior Art
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Holmes et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,337,142) teach multiple exchange rate tracking in a financial transaction manager.
Conclusion
12. 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 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 date of this final action.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Liz Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-5414. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 8:00 A.M to 5:00 P.M.
14. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart, can be reached on (571) 272-3955. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
15. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center system (visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (USA or CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/LIZ P NGUYEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights