DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to Applicant Amendments and Remarks filed on 04/22/2026 for application number 18/055,570 filed on 11/15/2022, in which claims 1-20 were originally presented for examination. Claim(s) 1, 11 & 18 is/are currently amended, and no cancelled and/or new claim(s). Accordingly, Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 USC §119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. IN202211055953, filed on 09/29/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS(s)) submitted on 11/15/2022, 03/29/2024, 05/31/2025 & 09/16/2025 have been received and considered.
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission(s) filed on 04/22/2026 has/have been entered.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs (or columns and lines) in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP §2111.01.
Response to Arguments
Argument(s) filed on 04/22/2026 has/have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Regarding the Claim Interpretation under 35 USC §112(f): The interpretation of claim(s) under 35 USC §112(f), is/are maintained, as amended claim(s) filed on 01/07/2026 has/have failed to overcome the Claim Interpretation under §112(f) recited in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 10/07/2025.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC §101: The rejection(s) of claim(s) for being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more, is/are maintained, as the amended claims filed on 04/22/2026 has/have failed to overcome the rejection as recited in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 10/07/2025, and outlined below.
Applicant asserts that:
“the elements of the independent claims reflect specific technical improvements over existing systems for filtering information transfers between an external application and a component of a vehicle, such as communication between an electronic flight bag and an avionics line replaceable unit and then, based on this filtering, updating the component. …
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the arrangement of all of the claim features provides an improvement to the technology of the claims”
(see Remarks pages 7-8; emphasis added)
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that filtering data, also not positively claimed, between two entities is a mental process or step under broadest reasonable Interpretation (BRI).
In addition, Applicant's amendment(s) necessitated the new ground(s) of rejections under §101 presented below.
Regarding the Claim rejections under 35 USC §USC §103: Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of the claim(s) as being unpatentable over Bush as modified by Ebrahimifard have been fully considered. However, those arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that:
“Applicant submits that Bush fails to teach or suggest at least "generate, by the context analyzer, one or more updated rules by updating one or more rules of a rule base using the context data" or “update, by the controller, the component using the component formatted data” as recited by independent claim 1.”
(see Remarks pages 8-10; emphasis added)
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments are all focusing on new limitations added to the amended base claims 1, 11 & 18 apparently to overcome the current anticipation and obviousness rejections under §103 as recited in the Non-Final office action mailed on 10/07/2025.
Those arguments are rendered moot in light of the new grounds of rejection outlined below, which were necessitated by the applicant’s amendment, i.e., Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been addressed in the new rejection outlined below.
In addition, Examiner notes that Bush clearly discloses the processor is using on one or more filter rules with current system context, wherein filter rule(s) 429 is generated for each classified test network message. See Bush’s ¶¶80-88
For at least the foregoing reasons, and the rejections outlined below, the prior art rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §101
35 USC §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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See MPEP 2106 (III)
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), See MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: See MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP 2106.05
Claim 11, A controller-implemented method to filter a data transfer between an external software application and a component of a vehicle, the method comprising:
receiving, by a context analyzer [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module], context data associated with the vehicle [pre-solution activity (data gathering)];
generating, by the context analyzer [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module], one or more updated rules by updating one or more rules of a rule base using the context data [mental process/step];
processing, by a rules engine [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module] and based on the one or more updated rules, a data model from the external software application to determine the data model is valid [mental process/step];
parsing, by a schematic parser [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module], the data model based on one or more object models defined for the component of the vehicle [mental process/step];
providing, by a controller [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module] and to the component, component formatted data comprising the parsed data model in a suitable format for the component [mental process/step]; and
updating, by a controller [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module], the component using the component formatted data [mental process/step].
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method (and/or a system) implemented by a controller (or processor) that executes including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03
Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation steps for (1) generating … one or more updated rules by updating one or more rules of a rule base using the context data; (2) processing … based on the one or more updated rules, a data model from the external software application to determine the data model is valid; (3) parsing … the data model based on one or more object models defined for the component of the vehicle; (4) providing, …to the component, component formatted data comprising the parsed data model in a suitable format for the component, and (4) updating … the component using the component formatted data.
These limitation, as drafted, are simple processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “analyzer, “engine(s)” ”, “parser”, “controller”, and/or “processor(s)”. That is, other than reciting “analyzer, “engine(s)” ”, “parser”, “controller”, and/or “processor(s)” nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the controller(s)/ processor(s) modulars language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. The mere nominal recitation of by a controller/ processor and/or computer does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s), i.e., (a) context analyzer, (b) rules engine, (c) schematic parser and (d) controller and/or processor(s), and step(s) for receiving … context data associated with the vehicle. The receiving step(s) by the elements of context analyzer and/or rules engine are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and driver information for use in the processing and determining steps), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The elements (a)-(d) merely describes how to generally and merely automates the processing and determining steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea and/ or “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose processor, i.e. a computer. The processor and/or controller of the claimed system is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the processing and determining steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra- solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving and/or sending steps and the engines elements were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The Specification does not provide any indication that the said elements (a)-(d), i.e., context analyzer, rules engine, schematic parser and controller and/or processor(s) are anything other than a conventional computer within the said vehicle (See PG Pub ¶¶58-72). MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), , indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network, i.e., database is/are a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the identify, calculate and receive steps and the online database, memory, processor elements is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-17 & 19-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amounts to mere input and/or output data manipulation. Therefore, dependent claims 2-10, 12-17, 19 & 20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Thus, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC §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.
The following is a quotation of 35 USC §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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over PG Pub. No. US-2018/0375747-A1 to Bush et al. (hereinafter “Bush”) in view of PG Pub. No. US-2021/0183360-A1 to Ebrahimifard et al. (hereinafter “Ebrahimifard”), which is found in the IDS submitted on 03/29/2024
As per claim 1, Bush discloses a system to filter a data transfer between an external application and a software component of a vehicle (Bush, in at least Title, Abstract, Fig. 2 [reproduced here for convenience] and ¶¶6, 38-42, 65 & 80-88, discloses system(s)/method(s) for context aware network filtering within an aviation network, and techniques or mechanisms for context aware message content filtering of functional network flows for e-Enabled aviation platforms and infrastructures. Bush further discloses, in Fig. 2, Application 204 of e-Enabled aircraft 202, i.e., source avionic device, have multiple entities communicating with it for each application, including other airplanes, such as airplane 220, i.e., destination avionic device, and unmanned aircraft 222, e-commerce merchants, airplane manufacturers, onboard equipment suppliers, airlines, aeronautical and other network service providers, servicers (for maintenance), air traffic control (ATC) centers, and regulatory agencies, e.g., the Federal Aviation Administration), the system comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
600
912
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bush’s Fig. 2
(i) a failsafe validation engine (Bush, in at least Fig. 5, discloses the Processor 501), comprising: a rules engine (Bush, in at least Abstract, Fig(s). 4A & 5 and ¶¶80-88, discloses the Processor 501, wherein (steps 405-411) the acceptability of the network message within the current system context is determined, by the processor, based on one or more filter rules that specify what attributes are allowed within a particular system context), a context analyzer (Bush, in at least Abstract, Fig(s). 4A & 5 and ¶¶80-88, discloses the Processor 501, wherein (step 403) establishing, by the processor, a current system context based on monitoring one or more avionic devices in the aviation network, wherein the one or more filter rules specify what attributes are allowed within a particular system context), and
(ii) a controller to control the failsafe validation engine (Bush, in at least Fig. 5 and ¶¶21 & 41, discloses Processor 501 connected to memory, wherein a variety of bridges and controllers reside between the processor and memory), the system configured to:
receive, by the context analyzer, context data associated with the vehicle (Bush, in at least Abstract, Fig(s). 4A & 5 and ¶¶80-88, discloses establishing, by the processor, a current system context based on monitoring one or more avionic devices in the aviation network (step 403), wherein the one or more filter rules specify what attributes are allowed within a particular system context);
generate, by the context analyzer, one or more updated rules by updating one or more rules of a rule base using the context data (Bush, in at least Abstract, Fig(s). 4A & 5 and ¶¶80-88, discloses the acceptability of the network message within the current system context is determined (steps 405-411), by the processor, based on one or more filter rules [i.e., one or more updated rules] that specify what attributes are allowed within a particular system context, wherein filter rule 429 is generated for each classified test network message [i.e., updating one or more rules]);
process, by the rules engine and based on the one or more updated rules, a data model from the external software application to determine the data model is valid (Bush, in at least Abstract, Fig(s). 4A & 5 and ¶¶80-88, discloses the acceptability of the network message within the current system context is determined (steps 405-411), by the processor, based on one or more filter rules [i.e., one or more updated rules] that specify what attributes are allowed within a particular system context);
Bush is silent on a schematic parser, parse, by the schematic parser, the data model based on one or more object model defined for the component of the vehicle; provide, by the controller and to the component, component formatted data comprising the parsed data model in a suitable format for the component to cause an update to data of the component; and update, by the controller, the component using the component formatted data.
PNG
media_image2.png
698
1038
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ebrahimifard’s Fig. 1
Ebrahimifard teaches, in at least Fig. 1 and ¶44 that is was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of aircraft communication systems, a schematic parser, and to parse, by the schematic parser, the data model based on one or more object models defined for the component of the vehicle (Ebrahimifard, in at least Fig. 1 [reproduced here for convenience] and ¶44, teaches the sentence parser 112 parses the text string to identify which data type objects need to be built by air traffic controller (ATC) Builder 114, wherein ATC Builder 114 is an application programming interface (APT) that works with parser 112 to construct data type objects 118 from the text string, wherein data type objects 118 are specialized data structures that can be utilized by onboard flight computer 126 to control the actions/movements of the aircraft);
provide, by the controller and to the component, component formatted data comprising the parsed data model in a suitable format for the component (Ebrahimifard, in at least Abstract, Fig(s). 1 & 19 and ¶¶5, 44 & 75, teaches the ATC Builder 114 is an application programming interface (APT) that works with parser 112 to construct data type objects 118 from the text string, wherein data type objects 118 are specialized data structures [i.e., a suitable format] that is utilized by onboard flight computer 126 to control the actions/movements of the aircraft. Ebrahimifard further discloses the one or more data structures are stored in a conversation memory); and
update, by the controller, the component using the component formatted data (Ebrahimifard, in at least Abstract, Fig(s). 1 & 19 and ¶¶5, 44 & 75, teaches the onboard flight computer 126 utilizes data type objects 118, i.e., specialized data structures [i.e., a suitable format] to control the actions/movements of the aircraft. Thus, in order to automate communication with the aircraft, the system needs to transform the ATC communication into executable objects and processes [i.e., update, by the controller, the component using the component formatted data] that control the movement of the aircraft).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bush in view of Ebrahimifard with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor - aircraft communication systems - and the combination would automate communication with the aircraft upon determine if the communication is directed to the correct aircraft using aircraft (see at least Ebrahimifard’s ¶¶41-44).
As per claim 2, Bush as modified by Ebrahimifard teaches the system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Bush is silent on claim 2 limitation, however Ebrahimifard further teaches comprising an output processor, wherein the output processor includes:
a common object model to store the one or more object models, and a data encoder to receive the parsed data model from the failsafe validation engine, and encode, using the one or more object models stored in the common object model, the parsed data model into the component formatted data (Ebrahimifard, in at least Abstract, Fig(s). 1 & 19 and ¶¶5, 44 & 75, teaches the ATC Builder 114 is an application programming interface (APT) that works with parser 112 to construct data type objects 118 from the text string, wherein data type objects 118 are specialized data structures [i.e., a suitable format] that can be utilized by onboard flight computer 126 to control the actions/movements of the aircraft. Ebrahimifard further discloses the one or more data structures are stored in a conversation memory).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bush in view of Ebrahimifard with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor - aircraft communication systems - and the combination would automate communication with the aircraft upon determine if the communication is directed to the correct aircraft using aircraft (see at least Ebrahimifard’s ¶¶41-44).
As per claim 3, Bush as modified by Ebrahimifard teaches the system of claim 2, accordingly, the rejection of claim 2 above is incorporated. Bush further discloses comprising an input processor, wherein the input processor includes:
an interface handler to coordinate communication between the system and one or more of an external application or the component of the vehicle,
a data decoder to format data received by the interface handler into a suitable form for processing by the failsafe validation engine, and
a file handler to store one or more of data received by the interface handler or data formatted by the data decoder (Bush, in at least Fig. 5 and ¶¶25, 66 & 89-90 & 92, discloses computers 102 and/or 106 are/is specialized avionic devices that include configurable controls and interface systems for operating in a networked aviation system, platform, and/or architecture, wherein the interface 511 is typically configured to send and receive data packets or data segments over a network, such as network 104, wherein a wireless data load function includes operations to exchange data files between loadable targets, wherein program instructions include both machine code, such as produced by a compiler, and files containing higher level code that is executed by the computer using an interpreter).
As per claim 4, Bush as modified by Ebrahimifard teaches the system of claim 3, accordingly, the rejection of claim 3 above is incorporated. Bush further discloses comprising:
an external data database to store external context data (Bush, in at least Fig. 5 and ¶85, discloses the one or more sources may include local storage or global databases accessed through a global network).
As per claim 5, Bush as modified by Ebrahimifard teaches the system of claim 4, accordingly, the rejection of claim 4 above is incorporated. Bush further discloses wherein the context analyzer is configured to receive the external context data from the external data database as the context data (Bush, in at least Abstract, Fig(s). 4A & 5 and ¶¶80-88, discloses Processor 501, wherein (step 403) establishing, by the processor, a current system context based on monitoring one or more avionic devices in the aviation network, wherein the one or more filter rules specify what attributes are allowed within a particular system context. Bush further discloses the one or more sources include local storage or global databases accessed through a global network).
As per claim 6, Bush as modified by Ebrahimifard teaches the system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Bush further discloses comprising:
one or more of a slot or a Universal Serial Bus port, wherein the one or more of the slot or the Universal Serial Bus port is configured to communicate with the component of the vehicle (Bush, in at least Abstract, Fig(s). 4A & 5 and ¶90, discloses interfaces supports include Ethernet interfaces, frame relay interfaces, cable interfaces, DSL interfaces, token ring interfaces, and the like).
As per claim 7, Bush as modified by Ebrahimifard teaches the system of claim 6, accordingly, the rejection of claim 6 above is incorporated. Bush further discloses wherein the context analyzer is configured to receive component context data from a component broadcaster as the context data (Bush, in at least Abstract, Fig(s). 4A, 4B & 5 and ¶¶39 & 43, discloses a network message is transmitted between devices in a system, such as system 100 and/or 101, via one or more network packets within a network flow, wherein a functional network flow may be a sequence of packets from a source to a destination, which may be a host, a multicast group, or a broadcast domain).
As per claim 8, Bush discloses a data adapter (Bush, in at least Abstract, Fig(s). 1B and ¶¶26-33, discloses router(s) 116, and data loader, wherein the data flows are either a temporal or protocol exchange) comprising:
the system of claim 7 (Bush as modified by Ebrahimifard teaches the system of claim 7, accordingly, the rejection of claim 7 above is incorporated).
As per claim 9, Bush discloses a gateway (Bush, in at least Abstract, Fig(s). 1B and ¶¶26-33, discloses system 110 made up of a Flight Management Computer 120 (FMC) and an On Board Network System 122 (ONS) communicating through a router 116. System 114 is made up of three LRUs including a Central Maintenance computer 124 (CMC), Maintenance Laptop 126 (ML) and a Printer 130 communicating through a router 128) comprising:
the data adapter of claim 8 (Bush as modified by Ebrahimifard teaches the system of claim 8, accordingly, the rejection of claim 8 above is incorporated).
As per claim 10, Bush as modified by Ebrahimifard teaches the system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Bush further discloses wherein the vehicle is an aircraft, the system is provided in the aircraft, the component is an avionics component, the external software application is an Electronic Flight Bag, the context data is a flight phase of the aircraft, and the data model includes new data and a request from the Electronic Flight Bag to update the avionics component with the new data (Bush, in at least Title, Abstract, Fig. 2 and ¶¶6 & 38-42, 46 & 80-88, discloses a system (and a method) for context aware network filtering within an aviation network, wherein techniques or mechanisms for context aware message content filtering of functional network flows for e-Enabled aviation platforms and infrastructures. Bush further discloses, in Fig. 2, Application 204 of e-Enabled aircraft 202, i.e., source avionic device, have multiple entities communicating with it for each application, including other airplanes, such as airplane 220, i.e., destination avionic device, and unmanned aircraft 222, e-commerce merchants, airplane manufacturers, onboard equipment suppliers, airlines, aeronautical and other network service providers, servicers (for maintenance), air traffic control (ATC) centers, and regulatory agencies (e.g., the Federal Aviation Administration), wherein the data sources carry information corresponding to loadable software (e.g., navigation databases, electronic flight bag, weather reports), health data (e.g., wireless sensor and tag data, diagnostics), and traffic control data (e.g., traffic beacons). Bush also discloses the pilots may finalize the FMS and auto flight parameters by obtaining an update on weather conditions and runway utilization through the Airport Terminal Information Service (ATIS)).
As per claims 11-17, the claims are directed towards controller-implemented methods that recite similar limitations performed by the systems of claims 1-10. The cited portions of Bush and Ebrahimifard used in the rejection of claims 1-10 teach the same steps of the methods of claims 11-17. Therefore, claims 11-17 are rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claims 1-10 as outlined above.
As per claims 18-20, the claims are directed towards non-transitory computer readable mediums storing instructions that recite similar limitations performed by the methods of claims 11-17. The cited portions of Bush and Ebrahimifard used in the rejection of claims 1-10 teach the same steps of the methods of claims 18-20. Therefore, claims 18-20 are rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claims 1-10 as outlined above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See previously mailed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tarek Elarabi whose telephone number is (313)446-4911. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 6:00 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Nolan can be reached on (571)270-7016. 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.
/Tarek Elarabi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights