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 .
Claims 1-12, 14 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10 -11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-- the hardware and/or software -- should be -- the hardware and/or the software -- in claim 1 line 14.
-- allocating hardware and/or software -- should be -- allocating said hardware and/or said software -- in claim 3 line 6. Similar deficiency exists in other claims e.g. claim 10 line 4, claim 11 line 8.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawing
The drawings are objected to because of the following minor informalities:
Arrow pointing to nowhere from block - S22 - in figs. 3-4.
Iterations in the fig. 4 is missing the label / direction for iteration and lack clarity.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 line 4 recites “platform is intended to be embedded “. It is unclear if the platform is embedded or not.
Claim 1 lines 10-11 recites “configuration profile”. It is unclear configuration profile is part of the system configuration module or stored in the storage unit or is part of the functional system.
Claim 1 lines 1-2 recites “configuration server for generating configuration information of a multi-system platform”. It is unclear if the server is connected to the multi-system platform or is part of the multi-platform system.
Claim 1 lines 10-15 recites “generate …configuration profile used for connection between the connection module and a configuration client, according to the hardware and/or software resources allocated to the functional system”. It is unclear if the configuration information is generated based on the profile or allocated resources or both.
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.
* Applicant is advised to at least indicate support present in the specification for further defining/clarifying the claim language in case Applicant believe amendments would unduly narrow the scope of the claim.
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 Orf et al. (US 2009/0009363 A1, hereafter Orf) in view of Danielsson et al. (US 2013/0166271 A1, hereafter Danielsson).
As per claim 1, Orf teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a configuration server ([0174] fig. 4 system 400 memory processor) for generating configuration information of a multi-system platform ([0174] fig. 4 system 400 to configure avionic equipment [0008] display field, flight plans, map settings, communication, navigation, surveillance settings associated with avionic equipment [0003] electronic devices, controls, displays, and applications, form, avionics equipment ), said multi-system platform including hardware and software resources shared by different functional systems of an aircraft or spacecraft ([0018] avionic equipment, electronic devices, control dials, flight displays and software/firmware, aircraft [0003] electronic devices, controls, displays, and applications, form, avionics equipment) in which said multi-system platform is intended to be embedded, characterised in that said configuration server includes ([0174] fig. 4 system 400 memory processor; avionic equipment 405):
a connection module, adapted to establish a remote connection with a plurality of configuration clients ([0176] fig. 4 input interface application 402, administrator/pilot, locally/remotely acquire [0026] network e.g. wireless, physical connection, communication with a PDA, cell phone [0172] network connection can be wireless or a physical connection. Network can include a portable electronic device docked to or in near proximity to the avionic equipment. Alternative, the network can include remote computing devices, such as remote servers, websites, and/or portal),
a storage unit adapted to store configuration information relating to the hardware and/or software resources allocated to each functional system ([0176] store, specific instance of the profile data 404 [0008] storage, 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), and
a system configuration module accessible by means of different system configuration profiles associated respectively with the different functional systems ([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 i.e. could create as many instance for different functional modules), adapted to generate configuration information for a functional system associated with the system configuration profile used for connection between the connection module and a configuration client, according to the hardware and/or software resources allocated to said functional system ([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, unique identifier, specific administrators/pilot/copilots [0026] identifier associated with an instance of profile data, administrator, pilot, select, particular identifier, avionics equipment [0028] instance of profile data, configuration include communication frequency, other communication settings).
Orf doesn’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 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 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 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 hardware and/or 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.
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
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.
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