DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This final office action is responsive to the amendments filed on 05/18/2026.
Claims 1-12, 14 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended independent claims 1, 9 and dependent claims 3, 10-11 to include new/old limitations in a form not previously presented necessitating new search and considerations. Claim 13 has been canceled by the Applicant.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 8, 11-12 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-- request for hardware and/or software resource -- should be -- request for said hardware and/or said software resource -- in claim 3 line 2.
-- a configuration server -- should be -- the configuration server -- in claim 8 line 2.
-- a plurality of configuration clients -- should be -- the plurality of configuration clients -- in claim 8 line 3
-- allocating hardware and/or software -- should be -- allocating said hardware and/or said software -- in claim 11 line 2.
-- a configuration client -- should be -- the configuration client -- in claim 11 lines 4, 5; claim 12 lines 2.
-- configuration profiles-- should be -- the configuration profiles -- in claim 12 line 4.
-- use configuration information -- should be -- use the configuration information -- in claim 12 line 4.
-- a configuration method -- should be -- the configuration method -- in claim 14 line 3.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. - An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
connection module, configuration module in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following claim language is not clearly understood:
Claim 1 lines 11-13 recites “module accessible by means of different system said configuration profiles received from said plurality of clients”. It is unclear if the system or said configuration profiles or both are received from the said plurality of clients.
Claim 1 line 14 recites “generate configuration information” without clearly reciting what constitute the configuration information.
Claim 9 recites elements similar to claim 1 and have similar deficiency as claim 1. Therefore, they are rejected for the same rational. Remaining dependent claims 2-8, 10-12, and 14 are also rejected due to similar deficiency inherited from the rejected independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Meulder (US 2021/0311713 A1) in view of Orf et al. (US 2009/0009363 A1, hereafter Orf), and further in view of Danielsson et al. (US 2013/0166271 A1, hereafter Danielsson).
Orf and Danielsson were cited in the last office action.
As per claim 1, De Meulder teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a configuration server for generating configuration information of a multi-system platform ([0004] centralized configuration server, aircraft computing devices and software system, settings of the various hardware and software systems [0001] computing devices related software systems in aircraft [0002] components and operation of the aircraft [0053] generate the configuration), said multi-system platform including hardware and software resources shared by different functional systems of an aircraft or spacecraft in which said multi-system platform is intended to be embedded ([0023] system and hardware of the aircraft, determine appropriate and acceptable software and hardware configurations for the aircraft, allowable hardware and software configuration ), characterised in that said configuration server includes (fig. 1 centralized configuration server 102):
- a connection module, adapted to establish a remote connection with a plurality of configuration clients and receive from said plurality of clients configuration profiles ([0022] centralized configuration server 102, communicatively coupled to one or more aircraft 104 [0053] acquire configuration data from the master server 300, acquire current configuration from certain aircraft 312; fig. 300 312 central configuration data store ),
- a storage unit adapted to store configuration information relating to the hardware and/or the software resources allocated to each functional system ([0059] set of current configuration data, sent, centralized configuration server 102, configuration data, include information related to one or more of hardware and/or software configurations fig. 3), and
- a system configuration module accessible by means of different system ([0025] centralized configuration server 102, communicate with various aircraft 104) said configuration profiles received from said plurality of clients and associated respectively with the different functional systems ([0022] configuration server 102, coupled, one or more aircraft 104 [0053] acquire configuration data from the master server 300, acquire current configuration from certain aircraft 312; fig. 300 312 central configuration data store), said system configuration module being adapted to generate configuration information ([0072] update package, centralized configuration server 102, software update, generated, manufacture, external entity related to the software /hardware [0023] information related to the various systems and hardware of the aircraft 104, determine appropriate and acceptable software and hardware configurations of the aircraft, determine appropriate and acceptable software and hardware configurations for the aircraft, regulatory /administrative agency; fig. 4 406) for a functional system associated with the system configuration profile received from a configuration client ([0001] computing devices related software systems in aircraft [0002] components and operation of the aircraft [0071] fig. 4 step 404: send configuration report 404 412, set of current configuration data, centralized configuration server 102, configuration of the aircraft 104 and the corresponding computer systems [0053] acquire configuration data from the master server 300, acquire current configuration from certain aircraft 312), according to the hardware and/or the software resources allocated to said functional system ([0071] configuration of the aircraft 104 corresponding computer systems, hardware present, types of software versions running on the computer hardware [0023] information related to the various systems and hardware of the aircraft 104, determine appropriate and acceptable software and hardware configurations of the aircraft, determine appropriate and acceptable software and hardware configurations for the aircraft, regulatory /administrative agency )
- said configuration server being further configured to make configuration information available to an integrator of the multi-system platform ([0004] centralized configuration server, communicatively coupled, onboard maintenance device [0026] aircraft 104, onboard maintenance device 114, coupled with the various other computing devices, various updates and configuration [0027] software update and configurations that are received from the centralized configuration server 102, install update and configurations).
De Meulder doesn’t specifically teach platform is intended to be embedded, profile.
Orf, however, teaches configuration profile ([0175] fig. 4 configuration application 403 to configure avionic equipment 405, instance of profile data 404 [0008] profile data, used to configure one or more display fields, flight plans, map settings, navigation fields, communication transceiver spacing, date/time setup, displayed units of measure, timers, alarms, and/or other communication, navigation, or surveillance settings associated with avionic equipment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine the teachings of Orf with the teachings of De Meulder of configuration profile to improve customization efficiency and allow configuration profiles to the method of De Meulder as in the instant invention.
The combination of cited similar prior arts would have been obvious because applying the known method of using configuration profile as taught by Orf to gather configuration report/data as taught by De Meulder to yield expected result and improved customization and manageability.
De Meulder and Orf, in combination, don’t specifically teaches platform intended to be embedded.
Danielsson, however, teaches platform intended to be embedded ([0047] embedded distributed control computer environment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine the teachings of De Meulder and Orf with the teachings of Danielsson of embedded distributed control environment to improve efficiency and allow plurality of platforms to be embedded to the method of De Meulder and Orf as in the instant invention. The combination of cited similar prior arts would have been because applying the known method of integrating the functional module in an embedded environment as taught by Danielsson to the method of configuring avionics equipment using profile data as taught by De Meulder and Orf to yield expected results with improved efficiency.
As per claim 2, Orf teaches a platform configuration module for generating a multi-system platform model describing hardware and software resources that can be used by the functional systems ([0011] configuration application, uses, profile data), said platform configuration module being accessible by means of a platform configuration profile (fig. 4 profile data 404 configuration application 403 avionic equipment 405 ).
Danielsson teaches remaining claim elements of module for generating a multi-system platform model describing hardware and software resources that can be used by the functional systems ([0021] model module, provide plurality of physical models of the operating environment [0049] target platform specific functionality, replicated target environment, virtually tested in a simulated operated environment using models).
As per claim 3, Orf teaches wherein the system configuration module is adapted to generate a request for hardware and/or software resource allocation for a functional system associated with a system configuration profile used for connection between the connection module and a configuration client ([0011] instance, profile data, configure avionic equipment, identify units for display fields/ flight plans / map settings, communication settings), said configuration server including a supervision configuration module for allocating said hardware and/or said software resources according to the allocation requests, said supervision configuration module being accessible by means of a supervision configuration profile ([0011] configuration application uses the instance of the profile data to configure one or more display fields of the avionic equipment, identify units for one or more of the display fields, identify flight plans, define map settings, define communication transceiver spacing, define date/time setup, set navigation fields, timers, alarms, and/or other communication, navigation, or surveillance settings associated with avionic equipment, [0008] profile data, for use by administrators, pilots, or copilots).
Danielsson teaches remaining claim elements of generating resource request ([0017] plurality of request); allocating resources according to the request ([0017] partitioned application, arranged to provide, services, based on requests [0059] processing resource, processor, each of the nodes, divided by means of configuration into minor execution time frames); supervision ([0094] supervision and monitoring).
As per claim 4, Orf teaches wherein the supervision configuration profile allows access to all the configuration information of the multi-system platform ([0011] configuration application uses the instance of the profile data to configure one or more display fields of the avionic equipment, identify units for one or more of the display fields, identify flight plans, define map settings, define communication transceiver spacing, define date/time setup, set navigation fields, timers, alarms, and/or other communication, navigation, or surveillance settings associated with avionic equipment).
As per claim 5, Orf teaches wherein each system configuration profile allows access to the configuration information of the functional system associated with said system configuration profile ([0008] profile data is used to configure one or more display fields, flight plans, map settings, navigation fields, communication transceiver spacing, date/time setup, displayed units of measure, timers, alarms, and/or other communication, navigation, or surveillance settings associated with avionic equipment; profile instance associated with unique identifier), but does not allow access to the configuration information associated with other functional systems ([0008] profile data, instances, created, modified, stored, retrieved, associated with unique identifier [0023] each instance includes a unique identifier that distinguishes it from other instance).
As per claim 6, Orf teaches a centralised version management module ([0159] instances of profile data, created, activated, modified, saved, [0173] create, modify, retrieve, and use the profile data structure).
As per claim 7, Orf teaches an administration module for managing the configuration profiles ([0023] administrator, interface application, profile data instance, change to a different profile data instance or modify the default profile data instance ).
Claim 8 recites a configuration system for elements similar to claim 1 and part of claim 3. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationales.
Claim 9 recites a configuration method for elements similar to claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationales.
Claim 10 recites elements similar to claims 1 and 2.therefore, it is rejected for the same rationales.
Claim 11 recites elements similar to claim 3. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationales.
As per claim 12, Orf teaches establishing a connection with a configuration client by means of an administration profile ([0021] profile data, schema, attributes, tags/fields, set by an administrator, restricted, to only authorized users, such as administrator, authentication credentials to modify schema [0008] profile data, unique, identifier, configure communication frequency, and/or other communication ),
- managing configuration profiles authorised to generate and/or use configuration information of the multi-system platform, by means of the configuration client connected with the administration profile ( [0021] profile data, schema, attributes, tags/fields, set by an administrator, restricted, to only authorized users, such as administrator, authentication credentials to modify schema [0008] profile data, unique, identifier, configure communication frequency, and/or other communication).
Claim 14 recites non-transitory computer-readable storage medium on which a set of program code instructions is stored which, when they are executed by a processor, configure said processor to implement a configuration method for elements similar to claim 9. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationales.
Response to Argument
The previous objections to the claims have been withdrawn.
The previous drawing objections have been withdrawn.
The previous interpretation of claims under 35 USC 112 (f) have been maintained.
The previous 112(b) objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Examiners Note
Applicant is further reminded of that the cited paragraphs and in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant(s) and although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of 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 from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider all of 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Davis; Terry L. et al. (US 20140075506 A1) teaches extensible and scalable distributed computing and communication remote services platform for telemetry collection adaptive data driven application hosting, and control services
Krishnamoorthy; Shobana et al. (US 20170286080 A1) teaches policy driven flight management
McCready; Arthur Kirk (US 9063800 B2) teaches Automated method for decoupling avionics application software in an IMA system
McMickell; Brett et al. (US 20150329222 A1) teaches configurable space station momentum
PERIKALA; Kiran et al. (US 20210280070 A1) teaches system and mechanism for a connected aircraft crowd sourced augmented reality processed cloud ceiling information
Authorization for Internet Communication
Applicant is encouraged to submit an authorization to communicate with the Examiner via the internet by making the following statement (MPEP 502.03)
“Recognizing that internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only by submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner’s Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABU ZAR GHAFFARI whose telephone number is (571)270-3799. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9:00 - 17:00 Hrs.
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, Aimee Lee can be reached on 571-272-4169. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/ABU ZAR GHAFFARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195
Prosecution Insights