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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Upon further review of the amended limitations and prior art of record, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s remarks, see pages 8-10. Specifically, the applicant argues that prior art Jacobs “does not disclose recording data related to the RPD request, creating a report based on the recorded data and transferring the report to the DDS”, and that Jacobs is directed towards a method of a “ground station server receiving and archiving the flight data, which a user can then access”, such that the “user can query or access the flight data archived in the ground station server”, rather than directly receiving data from the aircraft health management unit (AHMU).
However, the combination of Jacobs in view of previously cited prior art Kimberly teaches the amended limitations. Prior art Kimberly, as previously cited in the 35 U.S.C. Rejection dated 12/03/2025, teaches, a “ground system” which sends a “downlink command”, or remote parameter display request, to the “onboard electronic distribution system”, where when the “onboard electronic distribution system” establishes a “connection to a ground device, onboard electronic distribution system 146 requests a list of commands queued or stored for aircraft”, such that the command, or request, is pending, where the command is created by “a user request to create a command” via “a user interface”, where the “onboard electronic distribution system” sends “downlink data” to the “ground system” (Para. 0109, 0155-0156, 0252), such that Kimberly teaches “the AHMU, on board the aircraft, receives the request from a user via the DDS, records data on the flight relating to the request, creates a report based on the recorded data, and then transmits the report to the DDS”, as taught by the pending limitations. Furthermore, in regards to the newly amended limitations relating to the specific process of “periodic checks”, Kimberly further teaches the onboard electronic distribution system which “polls the command queue on the proxy server application and retrieves each command for the aircraft one command at a time”, where the polling is known in the art to be a periodic process, and as evident in Kimberly, polling occurs even when “a command is not present” in the command queue of a “ground component”, or ground system (Para. 0174, 0492-0494). The rejection of the periodic check has been adjusted to more accurately reflect the amended claims. Based upon the limitations of Kimberly, the combination of prior arts Jacobs in view of Reznik, Kimberly, and Plante teaches the pending limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobs, et al., hereinafter Jacobs (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2012/0191273) in view of Reznik, et al., hereinafter Reznik (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2018/0270300), and further in view of Kimberly, et al., hereinafter Kimberly (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2010/0167723) and Plante (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2007/0219685).
Regarding Claim 1, Jacobs teaches: A health management system (HMS) for providing health status information about an aircraft to a user (Jacobs, Para. 0011, 0038, 0064, and 0074-0078 – “an aircraft data transmission system for transmitting data to a ground server station” which provides “data reports to designated users of the system”; where the data transmitted relates to “conditions that can indicate that the aircraft (10) is in an abnormal state or potential emergency situation”), comprising:
an aircraft health management unit (AHMU) on-board the aircraft configured for (i) monitoring the health status information when the aircraft is airborne or stationary (Jacobs, Para. 0008, 0037, 0055, 0064-0065, and 0074-0078 – an “airborne data processing unit”, or AMHU, that is “able to obtain flight data from the aircraft” during “operation” and is “mounted in an aircraft”; where the data processing unit “obtains flight data and other data that the data processing unit (12) may receive from the aircraft, analyzes/interprets this flight data” which may indicate “a potential emergency situation or actual emergency situation”) and (ii) recording data representative of the monitored health status information (Jacobs, Para. 0064-0065, and 0074-0078 – where the “data processing unit” obtains flight data from the aircraft and “stores/collects the flight data”; where the flight data indicates “a potential emergency situation or actual emergency situation”); and
a ground-based data delivery system (DDS) (Jacobs, Para. 0037 – “a ground station server”) configured for (i) establishing an Internet access portal for the AHMU to access webservice applications (Jacobs, Para. 0037-0038 – where the “ground station server” communicates with the “data processing unit” and “receives and archives the flight data and preferably may automatically provide data reports to designated users of the system” through a “workstation (16) with internet access”, or webservice application) and (ii) facilitating communication between the DDS and AHMU in accordance with protocols of the webservice applications (Jacobs, Para. 0037-0038, 0057, and 0060 – where the “ground station server” communicates with the “data processing unit” to provide data to users by internet access, by “a secure connection”, through a “workstation”; where communication between the “ground station server” and the “data processing unit” may utilize “communication protocols and handshaking” for security; and where files are transferred by “secure file transfer protocol (FTP(S))”);
wherein one of the webservice applications controls one session of the communication (Jacobs, Para. 0063 and 0084-0086 – where during a “current session”, data is transmitted from the “data processing unit” to the “ground station server”; and where the “ground station server” performs functions of “a web server” to “provide a web site (214) through which customer and third party interfaces can access the ground station server”, such that a session is opened when the site is interfaced)
wherein the file transfers include:where the “data processing unit” obtains flight data from the aircraft and “stores/collects the flight data”)(Jacobs, Para. 0038 and 0084-0093 – where flight data is recorded during the “current session” and transmitted from the “data processing unit” to the “ground station server” “over the internet (28) or other network”).
While Jacobs teaches the webservice applications controls one session of the communication, Jacobs does not specifically teach wherein one of the webservice applications controls one session of the communication relating to periodic checks to determine whether a remote parameter display (RPD) request from the DDS is pending and another one of the webservice applications controls another session of the communication relating to file transfers of the health status information in response to the RPD request pending. Furthermore, Jacobs does not teach wherein the periodic checks include: the AHMU polling the DDS; and in response to polling the DDS, the AHMU receiving a response from the DDS; and the AHMU processing the response to determine whether an RPD request from the DDS is pending, and wherein the file transfers include: in response to the AHMU determining that an RPD request from the DDS is pending, the AHMU retrieving the RPD request, the AHMU recording data related to the RPD request, and the AHMU creating a report based on the recorded data and transferring the report to the DDS.
However, Reznik teaches wherein one of the webservice applications controls one session of the communication and another one of the webservice applications controls another session of the communication (Reznik, Fig. 3 and Para. 0091 – where two end users access an “application service provider” by each starting an individual “application session”, as seen in Fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
567
906
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reznik, Fig. 3
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the HMS of Jacobs to include wherein one of the webservice applications controls one session of the communication and another one of the webservice applications controls another session of the communication, as taught by Reznik, in order to allow for multiple users to access the recorded data of the aircraft to allow multiple users to monitor the health and prevent or account for failures.
Jacobs in view of Reznik does not teach one session of the communication relating to periodic checks from the DDS to determine whether a remote parameter display (RPD) request is pending and another session of the communication relating to file transfers of the health status information in response to the RPD request pending. Furthermore, Jacobs in view of Reznik does not teach wherein the periodic checks include: the AHMU polling the DDS; and in response to polling the DDS, the AHMU receiving a response from the DDS; and the AHMU processing the response to determine whether an RPD request from the DDS is pending, and wherein the file transfers include: in response to the AHMU determining that an RPD request from the DDS is pending, the AHMU retrieving the RPD request, the AHMU recording data related to the RPD request, and the AHMU creating a report based on the recorded data and transferring the report to the DDS.
Kimberly, et al., hereinafter Kimberly (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2010/0167723) teaches communication relating to periodic checks to determine whether a remote parameter display (RPD) request from the DDS is pending (Kimberly, Fig. 9 and Para. 0109, 0155-0156, 0174, 0492-0494 – where a “ground system” sends a “downlink command”, or remote parameter display request, to the “onboard electronic distribution system”; where when “onboard electronic distribution system” establishes a “connection to a ground device” and onboard electronic distribution system “polls a ground component 7702 for a command” from “a list of commands queued or stored for aircraft”, such that the command, or request, is pending),
communication relating to file transfers of the health status information in response to the RPD request pending (Kimberly, Fig. 9 and Para. 0139, 0155-0156 – where “File transfer system” sends “downlink data” through the “onboard electronic distribution system” to the “to ground system”; where data may be “the status of software on an aircraft”),
wherein the periodic checks include: the AHMU polling the DDS (Kimberly, Fig. 77 and Para. 0174, 0492-0494 – “onboard electronic distribution system 7704 polls on ground component 7702 for a command”, see Fig. 77, message T1); and in response to polling the DDS, the AHMU receiving a response from the DDS (Kimberly, Fig. 77 and Para. 0174, 0492-0494 – the “onboard electronic distribution system” receiving a “command”, or request, from the “ground component”, see Fig. 77 message T4); and the AHMU processing the response to determine whether an RPD request from the DDS is pending (Kimberly, Fig. 77 and Para. 0174, 0492-0494 – “Onboard electronic distribution system 7704 may then process and execute the command received in message T4”, where for example, the if there is a command, “a crated file containing the command” or “actual command itself” is received, and if “a command is not present, then a null value or some other indicator is returned”),
PNG
media_image2.png
354
678
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kimberly, Fig. 77
wherein the file transfers include: in response to the AHMU determining that an RPD request from the DDS is pending (Kimberly, Fig. 9 and Para. 0109, 0139, 0155-0156, 0174 – “onboard electronic distribution system 146 requests a list of commands queued or stored for aircraft 118” from the “ground device”, where the onboard electronic distribution system “polls the command queue on the proxy server application and retrieves each command for the aircraft one command at a time”, such that each command in the queue is pending), the AHMU retrieving the RPD request (Kimberly, Fig. 9 and Para. 0155-0156 – a “downlink command”, or request, “is sent to onboard electronic distribution system”), the AHMU recording data related to the RPD request (Kimberly, Fig. 9 and Para. 0155-0156 – the “onboard electronic distribution system” sends the “downlink command” to a “file transfer system” which provides the “onboard electronic distribution system” with “downlink data”, based on the downlink command), and the AHMU creating a report based on the recorded data and transferring the report to the DDS (Kimberly, Fig. 9 and Para. 0139, 0155-0156 – the “onboard electronic distribution system 802 crates and signs the downlink data” and then “sends the crate to ground system 800”; where “downlink data” may include “the status of software on an aircraft”).
PNG
media_image3.png
571
832
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kimberly, Fig. 9
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the HMS including the above limitations of Jacobs in view of Reznik to include communication relating to periodic checks to determine whether a remote parameter display (RPD) request is pending and communication relating to file transfers of the health status information in response to the RPD request pending, wherein the periodic checks include: the AHMU polling the DDS; and in response to polling the DDS, the AHMU receiving a response from the DDS; and the AHMU processing the response to determine whether an RPD request from the DDS is pending, wherein the file transfers include: in response to the AHMU determining that an RPD request from the DDS is pending, the AHMU retrieving the RPD request, the AHMU recording data related to the RPD request, and the AHMU creating a report based on the recorded data and transferring the report to the DDS, as taught by Kimberly, in order to provide a method of allowing a ground station to obtain status information relating to an aircraft easily through wireless communications to reduce space usage and time spent (Kimberly, Para. 0008-0010).
Jacobs in view of Reznik and Kimberly does not specifically teach a session of the communication relating to periodic check and another session of the communication relating to file transfer.
Plante (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2007/0219685) teaches a session of the communication relating to periodic check (Plante, Para. 0029, 0070-0075, and 0081 – where prior art teaches “transmission of data on a predetermined time interval”, for example at “expiration of the predetermined time period”; where the invention of Plante continuously detects, or checks, for a “physical anomaly” and upon detection of a “trigger event”, “an integrated web server” performs “http transactions”, such as “http `GET` commands” and “http `POST` responses”, in order to “preserve all data associated with the incident or event”) and another session of the communication relating to file transfer (Plante, Para. 0081 – an embodiment including “a file transport protocol ftp server”, separate from the “integrated web server”, where the “vehicle event recorder ftp server operates to send and receive data files”, or communicate to transfer files).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the HMS including the above limitations of Jacobs in view of Reznik and Kimberly to include a session of the communication relating to periodic check and another session of the communication relating to file transfer, as taught by Plante, in order to provide a secure method of sending and receiving files by utilizing separate servers and optimizing resources.
In regards to Claim 2, Jacobs in view of Reznik, Kimberly, and Plante teaches the HMS of Claim 1, and Jacobs further teaches wherein the monitored information includes at least one of recorded parameters, events (Jacobs, Para. 0072-0078 – where the “data processing unit” receives flight data from the aircraft consisting of “relevant parameters of the aircraft” including “demand triggering events” that may indicate “a potential emergency situation or actual emergency situation”), and software logs; and wherein the recorded data is stored in a computer memory (Jacobs, Para. 0057-0059 – where the “ground station server” receives data and the data that is parsed and categorized by a “data parsing and dynamic storage module” is “stored in a database (209) for storage and later retrieval”).
In regards to Claim 3, Jacobs in view of Reznik, Kimberly, and Plante teaches the HMS of Claim 2, and Jacobs further teaches wherein the communication occurs via a wireless communications path (Jacobs, Para. 0065 – where communication between the “data processing unit” and the “ground station server” is by “satellite network (22) or other wireless transmission technology”).
In regards to Claim 4, Jacobs in view of Reznik, Kimberly, and Plante teaches the HMS of Claim 1, and Jacobs further teaches wherein the recorded data is parsed into digital files, each file representing a portion of the monitored health status information (Jacobs, Para. 0065 and 0072-0078 – where the “data processing unit” records data into “data files” which include “a flight data recorder file (FDR file) which includes all relevant flight data, or a summary file which includes only summary data of certain inputs”; where flight data includes “relevant parameters of the aircraft” including “demand triggering events” that may indicate “a potential emergency situation or actual emergency situation”).
In regards to Claim 5, Jacobs in view of Reznik, Kimberly, and Plante teaches the HMS of Claim 1, and Jacobs further teaches wherein the protocols include at least one from the group including file transfer protocol (FTP), hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP), hypertext transfer protocol secure (HTTPS), and general secure file transfer protocols (Jacobs, Para. 0060 – “reports may then be transmitted to the appropriate user (such as by an email or secure file transfer protocol” such as“(FTP(S))”).
In regards to Claim 6, Jacobs in view of Reznik, Kimberly, and Plante teaches the HMS of Claim 5, and Jacobs further teaches wherein the DDS includes two or more components separately communicating with the AHMU (Jacobs, Para. 0056 – where the “ground station server” includes “a number of modules, and even separate processors and computer devices, for receiving and managing information received from the data processing unit”, or AHMU).
In regards to Claim 7, Jacobs in view of Reznik, Kimberly, and Plante teaches the HMS of Claim 4, and Jacobs further teaches wherein the parsing allows the user to remotely request the recorded parameters, events, or software logs from any instance of time (Jacobs, Para. 0060-0064 and 0072-0078 – where a user can access “data reports” from “remote user workstations” to “securely pull data from the ground station server”; where the data reports are compiled from “collected/stored flight data” and where flight data includes “relevant parameters of the aircraft” including “demand triggering events” that may indicate “a potential emergency situation or actual emergency situation”).
Regarding Claim 8, Jacobs teaches: A method for providing health status of an aircraft to a user (Jacobs, Para. 0007, 0011, 0038, 0064, and 0074-0078 – a method “transmitting flight data from an aircraft to a ground station server using an airborne data processing unit” which provides “data reports to designated users of the system”; where the data transmitted relates to “conditions that can indicate that the aircraft (10) is in an abnormal state or potential emergency situation”), comprising:
monitoring, via an aircraft health management unit (AHMU) on-board the aircraft, information indicative of the health status when the aircraft is airborne or stationary(Jacobs, Para. 0008, 0037, 0055, 0064-0065, and 0074-0078 – an “airborne data processing unit”, or AMHU, that is “able to obtain flight data from the aircraft” during “operation” and is “mounted in an aircraft”; where the data processing unit “obtains flight data and other data that the data processing unit (12) may receive from the aircraft, analyzes/interprets this flight data” which may indicate “a potential emergency situation or actual emergency situation”);
recording data representative of the monitored information in a memory of the AHMU (Jacobs, Para. 0064-0065, and 0074-0078 – where the “data processing unit” obtains flight data from the aircraft and “stores/collects the flight data”; where the flight data indicates “a potential emergency situation or actual emergency situation”);
establishing, via a ground-based data delivery system (DDS), an Internet access portal for the AHMU to access webservice applications (Jacobs, Para. 0037-0038 – where the “ground station server” communicates with the “data processing unit” and “receives and archives the flight data and preferably may automatically provide data reports to designated users of the system” through a “workstation (16) with internet access”, or webservice application) and facilitating communication between the DDS and AHMU based upon protocols of the webservice applications (Jacobs, Para. 0037-0038, 0057, and 0060 – where the “ground station server” communicates with the “data processing unit” to provide data to users by internet access, by “a secure connection”, through a “workstation”; where communication between the “ground station server” and the “data processing unit” may utilize “communication protocols and handshaking” for security; and where files are transferred by “secure file transfer protocol (FTP(S))”);
wherein one of the webservice applications controls one session of the communication (Jacobs, Para. 0063 and 0084-0086 – where during a “current session”, data is transmitted from the “data processing unit” to the “ground station server”; and where the “ground station server” performs functions of “a web server” to “provide a web site (214) through which customer and third party interfaces can access the ground station server”, such that a session is opened when the site is interfaced)
wherein the file transfers include:where the “data processing unit” obtains flight data from the aircraft and “stores/collects the flight data”)where flight data is recorded during the “current session” and transmitted from the “data processing unit” to the “ground station server” “over the internet (28) or other network”).
While Jacobs teaches the webservice applications controls one session of the communication, Jacobs does not specifically teach wherein one of the webservice applications controls one session of the communication relating to periodic checks to determine whether a remote parameter display (RPD) request from the DDS is pending and another one of the webservice applications controls another session of the communication relating to file transfers of the health status information in response to the RPD request pending. Furthermore, Jacobs does not teach wherein the periodic checks include: the AHMU polling the DDS; and in response to polling the DDS, the AHMU receiving a response from the DDS; and the AHMU processing the response to determine whether an RPD request from the DDS is pending, and wherein the file transfers include: in response to the AHMU determining that an RPD request from the DDS is pending, the AHMU retrieving the RPD request, the AHMU recording data related to the RPD request, and the AHMU creating a report based on the recorded data and transferring the report to the DDS.
However, Reznik teaches wherein one of the webservice applications controls one session of the communication and another one of the webservice applications controls another session of the communication (Reznik, Fig. 3 and Para. 0091 – where two end users access an “application service provider” by each starting an individual “application session”, as seen in Fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
567
906
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reznik, Fig. 3
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Jacobs to include wherein one of the webservice applications controls one session of the communication and another one of the webservice applications controls another session of the communication, as taught by Reznik, in order to allow for multiple users to access the recorded data of the aircraft to allow multiple users to monitor the health and prevent or account for failures.
Jacobs in view of Reznik does not teach one session of the communication relating to periodic checks from the DDS to determine whether a remote parameter display (RPD) request is pending and another session of the communication relating to file transfers of the health status information in response to the RPD request pending. Furthermore, Jacobs in view of Reznik does not teach wherein the periodic checks include: the AHMU polling the DDS; and in response to polling the DDS, the AHMU receiving a response from the DDS; and the AHMU processing the response to determine whether an RPD request from the DDS is pending, and wherein the file transfers include: in response to the AHMU determining that an RPD request from the DDS is pending, the AHMU retrieving the RPD request, the AHMU recording data related to the RPD request, and the AHMU creating a report based on the recorded data and transferring the report to the DDS.
Kimberly, et al., hereinafter Kimberly (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2010/0167723) teaches communication relating to periodic checks to determine whether a remote parameter display (RPD) request from the DDS is pending (Kimberly, Fig. 9 and Para. 0109, 0155-0156, 0174, 0492-0494 – where a “ground system” sends a “downlink command”, or remote parameter display request, to the “onboard electronic distribution system”; where when “onboard electronic distribution system” establishes a “connection to a ground device” and onboard electronic distribution system “polls a ground component 7702 for a command” from “a list of commands queued or stored for aircraft”, such that the command, or request, is pending),
communication relating to file transfers of the health status information in response to the RPD request pending (Kimberly, Fig. 9 and Para. 0139, 0155-0156 – where “File transfer system” sends “downlink data” through the “onboard electronic distribution system” to the “to ground system”; where data may be “the status of software on an aircraft”),
wherein the periodic checks include: the AHMU polling the DDS (Kimberly, Fig. 77 and Para. 0174, 0492-0494 – “onboard electronic distribution system 7704 polls on ground component 7702 for a command”, see Fig. 77, message T1); and in response to polling the DDS, the AHMU receiving a response from the DDS (Kimberly, Fig. 77 and Para. 0174, 0492-0494 – the “onboard electronic distribution system” receiving a “command”, or request, from the “ground component”, see Fig. 77 message T4); and the AHMU processing the response to determine whether an RPD request from the DDS is pending (Kimberly, Fig. 77 and Para. 0174, 0492-0494 – “Onboard electronic distribution system 7704 may then process and execute the command received in message T4”, where for example, the if there is a command, “a crated file containing the command” or “actual command itself” is received, and if “a command is not present, then a null value or some other indicator is returned”),
PNG
media_image2.png
354
678
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kimberly, Fig. 77
wherein the file transfers include: in response to the AHMU determining that an RPD request from the DDS is pending (Kimberly, Fig. 9 and Para. 0109, 0139, 0155-0156, 0174 – “onboard electronic distribution system 146 requests a list of commands queued or stored for aircraft 118” from the “ground device”, where the onboard electronic distribution system “polls the command queue on the proxy server application and retrieves each command for the aircraft one command at a time”, such that each command in the queue is pending), the AHMU retrieving the RPD request (Kimberly, Fig. 9 and Para. 0155-0156 – a “downlink command”, or request, “is sent to onboard electronic distribution system”), the AHMU recording data related to the RPD request (Kimberly, Fig. 9 and Para. 0155-0156 – the “onboard electronic distribution system” sends the “downlink command” to a “file transfer system” which provides the “onboard electronic distribution system” with “downlink data”, based on the downlink command), and the AHMU creating a report based on the recorded data and transferring the report to the DDS (Kimberly, Fig. 9 and Para. 0139, 0155-0156 – the “onboard electronic distribution system 802 crates and signs the downlink data” and then “sends the crate to ground system 800”; where “downlink data” may include “the status of software on an aircraft”).
PNG
media_image3.png
571
832
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kimberly, Fig. 9
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method including the above limitations of Jacobs in view of Reznik to include communication relating to periodic checks to determine whether a remote parameter display (RPD) request is pending and communication relating to file transfers of the health status information in response to the RPD request pending, wherein the periodic checks include: the AHMU polling the DDS; and in response to polling the DDS, the AHMU receiving a response from the DDS; and the AHMU processing the response to determine whether an RPD request from the DDS is pending, wherein the file transfers include: in response to the AHMU determining that an RPD request from the DDS is pending, the AHMU retrieving the RPD request, the AHMU recording data related to the RPD request, and the AHMU creating a report based on the recorded data and transferring the report to the DDS, as taught by Kimberly, in order to provide a method of allowing a ground station to obtain status information relating to an aircraft easily through wireless communications to reduce space usage and time spent (Kimberly, Para. 0008-0010).
Jacobs in view of Reznik and Kimberly does not specifically teach a session of the communication relating to periodic check and another session of the communication relating to file transfer.
Plante (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2007/0219685) teaches a session of the communication relating to periodic check (Plante, Para. 0029, 0070-0075, and 0081 – where prior art teaches “transmission of data on a predetermined time interval”, for example at “expiration of the predetermined time period”; where the invention of Plante continuously detects, or checks, for a “physical anomaly” and upon detection of a “trigger event”, “an integrated web server” performs “http transactions”, such as “http `GET` commands” and “http `POST` responses”, in order to “preserve all data associated with the incident or event”) and another session of the communication relating to file transfer (Plante, Para. 0081 – an embodiment including “a file transport protocol ftp server”, separate from the “integrated web server”, where the “vehicle event recorder ftp server operates to send and receive data files”, or communicate to transfer files).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method including the above limitations of Jacobs in view of Reznik and Kimberly to include a session of the communication relating to periodic check and another session of the communication relating to file transfer, as taught by Plante, in order to provide a secure method of sending and receiving files by utilizing separate servers and optimizing resources.
In regards to Claim 9, Jacobs in view of Reznik, Kimberly, and Plante teaches the method of Claim 8, and Jacobs further teaches wherein the communication occurs via a wireless communications path (Jacobs, Para. 0065 – where communication between the “data processing unit” and the “ground station server” is by “satellite network (22) or other wireless transmission technology”).
In regards to Claim 10, Jacobs in view of Reznik, Kimberly, and Plante teaches the method of Claim 8, and Jacobs further teaches wherein the recorded data is parsed into digital files, each file representing a portion of the monitored health status information (Jacobs, Para. 0065 and 0072-0078 – where the “data processing unit” records data into “data files” which include “a flight data recorder file (FDR file) which includes all relevant flight data, or a summary file which includes only summary data of certain inputs”; where flight data includes “relevant parameters of the aircraft” including “demand triggering events” that may indicate “a potential emergency situation or actual emergency situation”).
In regards to Claim 11, Jacobs in view of Reznik, Kimberly, and Plante teaches the method of Claim 10, and Jacobs further teaches wherein the parsing allows the user to remotely request the recorded parameters, events, or software logs from any instance of time (Jacobs, Para. 0060-0064 and 0072-0078 – where a user can access “data reports” from “remote user workstations” to “securely pull data from the ground station server”; where the data reports are compiled from “collected/stored flight data” and where flight data includes “relevant parameters of the aircraft” including “demand triggering events” that may indicate “a potential emergency situation or actual emergency situation”).
In regards to Claim 12, Jacobs in view of Reznik, Kimberly, and Plante teaches the method of Claim 8, and Jacobs further teaches wherein the protocols include at least one from the group including file transfer protocol (FTP), hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP), hypertext transfer protocol secure (HTTPS), and general secure file transfer protocols (Jacobs, Para. 0060 – “reports may then be transmitted to the appropriate user (such as by an email or secure file transfer protocol” such as“(FTP(S))”).
In regards to Claim 13, Jacobs in view of Reznik, Kimberly, and Plante teaches the method of Claim 8, and Jacobs further teaches wherein the DDS includes two or more components separately communicating with the AHMU (Jacobs, Para. 0056 – where the “ground station server” includes “a number of modules, and even separate processors and computer devices, for receiving and managing information received from the data processing unit”, or AHMU).
Regarding Claim 14, Jacobs teaches: A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon computer executable instructions that, if executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to perform a method (Jacobs, Para. 0019 – “a computer readable memory having thereon statements and instructions for execution by a data processing unit to carry out a method described herein”) for providing health status information about an aircraft to a user (Jacobs, Para. 0007, 0011, 0038, 0064, and 0074-0078 – a method “transmitting flight data from an aircraft to a ground station server using an airborne data processing unit” which provides “data reports to designated users of the system”; where the data transmitted relates to “conditions that can indicate that the aircraft (10) is in an abnormal state or potential emergency situation”), comprising:
monitoring, via an aircraft health management unit (AHMU) on-board the aircraft, information indicative of the health status when the aircraft is airborne or stationary (Jacobs, Para. 0008, 0037, 0055, 0064-0065, and 0074-0078 – an “airborne data processing unit”, or AMHU, that is “able to obtain flight data from the aircraft” during “operation” and is “mounted in an aircraft”; where the data processing unit “obtains flight data and other data that the data processing unit (12) may receive from the aircraft, analyzes/interprets this flight data” which may indicate “a potential emergency situation or actual emergency situation”)
recording data representative of the monitored information in a memory of the AHMU (Jacobs, Para. 0064-0065, and 0074-0078 – where the “data processing unit” obtains flight data from the aircraft and “stores/collects the flight data”; where the flight data indicates “a potential emergency situation or actual emergency situation”);
establishing, via a ground-based data delivery system (DDS), an Internet access portal for the AHMU to access webservice applications (Jacobs, Para. 0037-0038 – where the “ground station server” communicates with the “data processing unit” and “receives and archives the flight data and preferably may automatically provide data reports to designated users of the system” through a “workstation (16) with internet access”, or webservice application); and
facilitating communication between the DDS and AHMU based upon protocols of the webservice applications (Jacobs, Para. 0037-0038, 0057, and 0060 – where the “ground station server” communicates with the “data processing unit” to provide data to users by internet access, by “a secure connection”, through a “workstation”; where communication between the “ground station server” and the “data processing unit” may utilize “communication protocols and handshaking” for security; and where files are transferred by “secure file transfer protocol (FTP(S))”); and
wherein one of the webservice applications controls one session of the communication (Jacobs, Para. 0063 and 0084-0086 – where during a “current session”, data is transmitted from the “data processing unit” to the “ground station server”; and where the “ground station server” performs functions of “a web server” to “provide a web site (214) through which customer and third party interfaces can access the ground station server”, such that a session is opened when the site is interfaced)
wherein the file transfers include:where the “data processing unit” obtains flight data from the aircraft and “stores/collects the flight data”)where flight data is recorded during the “current session” and transmitted from the “data processing unit” to the “ground station server” “over the internet (28) or other network”).
While Jacobs teaches the webservice applications controls one session of the communication, Jacobs does not specifically teach wherein one of the webservice applications controls one session of the communication relating to periodic checks to determine whether a remote parameter display (RPD) request from the DDS is pending and another one of the webservice applications controls another session of the communication relating to file transfers of the health status information in response to the RPD request pending. Furthermore, Jacobs does not teach wherein the periodic checks include: the AHMU polling the DDS; and in response to polling the DDS, the AHMU receiving a response from the DDS; and the AHMU processing the response to determine whether an RPD request from the DDS is pending, and wherein the file transfers include: in response to the AHMU determining that an RPD request from the DDS is pending, the AHMU retrieving the RPD request, the AHMU recording data related to the RPD request, and the AHMU creating a report based on the recorded data and transferring the report to the DDS.
However, Reznik teaches wherein one of the webservice applications controls one session of the communication and another one of the webservice applications controls another session of the communication (Reznik, Fig. 3 and Para. 0091 – where two end users access an “application service provider” by each starting an individual “application session”, as seen in Fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
567
906
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reznik, Fig. 3
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Jacobs to include wherein one of the webservice applications controls one session of the communication and another one of the webservice applications controls another session of the communication, as taught by Reznik, in order to allow for multiple users to access the recorded data of the aircraft to allow multiple users to monitor the health and prevent or account for failures.
Jacobs in view of Reznik does not teach one session of the communication relating to periodic checks from the DDS to determine whether a remote parameter display (RPD) request is pending and another session of the communication relating to file transfers of the health status information in response to the RPD request pending. Furthermore, Jacobs in view of Reznik does not teach wherein the periodic checks include: the AHMU polling the DDS; and in response to polling the DDS, the AHMU receiving a response from the DDS; and the AHMU processing the response to determine whether an RPD request from the DDS is pending, and wherein the file transfers include: in response to the AHMU determining that an RPD request from the DDS is pending, the AHMU retrieving the RPD request, the AHMU recording data related to the RPD request, and the AHMU creating a report based on the recorded data and transferring the report to the DDS.
Kimberly, et al., hereinafter Kimberly (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2010/0167723) teaches communication relating to periodic checks to determine whether a remote parameter display (RPD) request from the DDS is pending (Kimberly, Fig. 9 and Para. 0109, 0155-0156, 0174, 0492-0494 – where a “ground system” sends a “downlink command”, or remote parameter display request, to the “onboard electronic distribution system”; where when “onboard electronic distribution system” establishes a “connection to a ground device” and onboard electronic distribution system “polls a ground component 7702 for a command” from “a list of commands queued or stored for aircraft”, such that the command, or request, is pending),
communication relating to file transfers of the health status information in response to the RPD request pending (Kimberly, Fig. 9 and Para. 0139, 0155-0156 – where “File transfer system” sends “downlink data” through the “onboard electronic distribution system” to the “to ground system”; where data may be “the status of software on an aircraft”),
wherein the periodic checks include: the AHMU polling the DDS (Kimberly, Fig. 77 and Para. 0174, 0492-0494 – “onboard electronic distribution system 7704 polls on ground component 7702 for a command”, see Fig. 77, message T1); and in response to polling the DDS, the AHMU receiving a response from the DDS (Kimberly, Fig. 77 and Para. 0174, 0492-0494 – the “onboard electronic distribution system” receiving a “command”, or request, from the “ground component”, see Fig. 77 message T4); and the AHMU processing the response to determine whether an RPD request from the DDS is pending (Kimberly, Fig. 77 and Para. 0174, 0492-0494 – “Onboard electronic distribution system 7704 may then process and execute the command received in message T4”, where for example, the if there is a command, “a crated file containing the command” or “actual command itself” is received, and if “a command is not present, then a null value or some other indicator is returned”),
PNG
media_image2.png
354
678
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kimberly, Fig. 77
wherein the file transfers include: in response to the AHMU determining that an RPD request from the DDS is pending (Kimberly, Fig. 9 and Para. 0109, 0139, 0155-0156, 0174 – “onboard electronic distribution system 146 requests a list of commands queued or stored for aircraft 118” from the “ground device”, where the onboard electronic distribution system “polls the command queue on the proxy server application and retrieves each command for the aircraft one command at a time”, such that each command in the queue is pending), the AHMU retrieving the RPD request (Kimberly, Fig. 9 and Para. 0155-0156 – a “downlink command”, or request, “is sent to onboard electronic distribution system”), the AHMU recording data related to the RPD request (Kimberly, Fig. 9 and Para. 0155-0156 – the “onboard electronic distribution system” sends the “downlink command” to a “file transfer system” which provides the “onboard electronic distribution system” with “downlink data”, based on the downlink command), and the AHMU creating a report based on the recorded data and transferring the report to the DDS (Kimberly, Fig. 9 and Para. 0139, 0155-0156 – the “onboard electronic distribution system 802 crates and signs the downlink data” and then “sends the crate to ground system 800”; where “downlink data” may include “the status of software on an aircraft”).
PNG
media_image3.png
571
832
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kimberly, Fig. 9
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method including the above limitations of Jacobs in view of Reznik to include communication relating to periodic checks to determine whether a remote parameter display (RPD) request is pending and communication relating to file transfers of the health status information in response to the RPD request pending, wherein the periodic checks include: the AHMU polling the DDS; and in response to polling the DDS, the AHMU receiving a response from the DDS; and the AHMU processing the response to determine whether an RPD request from the DDS is pending, wherein the file transfers include: in response to the AHMU determining that an RPD request from the DDS is pending, the AHMU retrieving the RPD request, the AHMU recording data related to the RPD request, and the AHMU creating a report based on the recorded data and transferring the report to the DDS, as taught by Kimberly, in order to provide a method of allowing a ground station to obtain status information relating to an aircraft easily through wireless communications to reduce space usage and time spent (Kimberly, Para. 0008-0010).
Jacobs in view of Reznik and Kimberly does not specifically teach a session of the communication relating to periodic check and another session of the communication relating to file transfer.
Plante (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2007/0219685) teaches a session of the communication relating to periodic check (Plante, Para. 0029, 0070-0075, and 0081 – where prior art teaches “transmission of data on a predetermined time interval”, for example at “expiration of the predetermined time period”; where the invention of Plante continuously detects, or checks, for a “physical anomaly” and upon detection of a “trigger event”, “an integrated web server” performs “http transactions”, such as “http `GET` commands” and “http `POST` responses”, in order to “preserve all data associated with the incident or event”) and another session of the communication relating to file transfer (Plante, Para. 0081 – an embodiment including “a file transport protocol ftp server”, separate from the “integrated web server”, where the “vehicle event recorder ftp server operates to send and receive data files”, or communicate to transfer files).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method including the above limitations of Jacobs in view of Reznik and Kimberly to include a session of the communication relating to periodic check and another session of the communication relating to file transfer, as taught by Plante, in order to provide a secure method of sending and receiving files by utilizing separate servers and optimizing resources.
In regards to Claim 15, Jacobs in view of Reznik, Kimberly, and Plante teaches the computer readable medium of Claim 14, and Jacobs further teaches wherein the recorded data is parsed into digital files, each file representing a portion of the monitored health status information (Jacobs, Para. 0065 and 0072-0078 – where the “data processing unit” records data into “data files” which include “a flight data recorder file (FDR file) which includes all relevant flight data, or a summary file which includes only summary data of certain inputs”; where flight data includes “relevant parameters of the aircraft” including “demand triggering events” that may indicate “a potential emergency situation or actual emergency situation”).
In regards to Claim 16, Jacobs in view of Reznik, Kimberly, and Plante teaches the computer readable medium of Claim 15, and Jacobs further teaches wherein the parsing allows the user to remotely request the recorded parameters, events, or software logs from any instance of time (Jacobs, Para. 0060-0064 and 0072-0078 – where a user can access “data reports” from “remote user workstations” to “securely pull data from the ground station server”; where the data reports are compiled from “collected/stored flight data” and where flight data includes “relevant parameters of the aircraft” including “demand triggering events” that may indicate “a potential emergency situation or actual emergency situation”).
In regards to Claim 17, Jacobs in view of Reznik, Kimberly, and Plante teaches the computer readable medium of Claim 14, and Jacobs further teaches wherein the protocols include at least one from the group including file transfer protocol (FTP), hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP), hypertext transfer protocol secure (HTTPS), and general secure file transfer protocols (Jacobs, Para. 0060 – “reports may then be transmitted to the appropriate user (such as by an email or secure file transfer protocol” such as“(FTP(S))”); and wherein the facilitating communication includes communicating with two or more components of the DDS, each separately communicating with the AHMU (Jacobs, Para. 0056 – where the “ground station server” includes “a number of modules, and even separate processors and computer devices, for receiving and managing information received from the data processing unit”, or AHMU).
In regards to Claim 18, Jacobs in view of Reznik, Kimberly, and Plante teaches the computer readable medium of Claim 17, and Jacobs further teaches wherein the recorded data is delivered to the DDS during one of the sessions of communication (Jacobs, Para. 0038 and 0084-0093 – where flight data is recorded during the “current session” and transmitted from the “data processing unit” to the “ground station server” “over the internet (28) or other network”).
In regards to Claim 19, Jacobs in view of Reznik, Kimberly, and Plante teaches the computer readable medium of Claim 18, and Jacobs further teaches wherein an FTP connection is established during another of the sessions of communication (Jacobs, Para. 0060 – where a user can access reports on “application software” on “the ground station server (14), or on remote user workstations (16)” and where the “reports may then be transmitted to the appropriate user (such as by an email or secure file transfer protocol (FTP(S)”; where the use of FTP implies the opening of a session).
In regards to Claim 20, Jacobs in view of Reznik, Kimberly, and Plante teaches the computer readable medium of Claim 19, and Jacobs does not teach wherein an HTTPS post request is sent during another of the sessions of communication.
However, Reznik teaches wherein an HTTPS post request is sent during another of the sessions of communication (Reznik, Para. 0122 – where an application may have content which is published and retrieved by enabling “publishing with POST https://icn.appname.com/publish (e.g., a POST/publish over an HTTPS session to host icn.appname.com)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computer readable medium including the above limitations of Jacobs in view of Reznik to further include wherein an HTTPS post request is sent during another of the sessions of communication, as taught by Reznik, in order to provide a secure method of sending data to a server over the internet.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bruno (U.S. Patent No. 7,313,143) teaches aircrafts which are supported by diversity site groups comprising ground stations, where each aircraft is repetitively polled to obtain time of arrival (TOA) and signal quality information to intelligently manage contiguous communication handoffs of aircraft from one ground station to another ground station.
Harnish, et al., hereinafter Harnish (U.S. Patent No. 2009/0138385) teaches a computer implemented method, apparatus, and computer program product for processing aircraft software parts including providing downlink data related to the status of software on an aircraft, where onboard electronic distribution system polls the command queue on the proxy server application.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 HELEN LI whose telephone number is (703)756-4719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 9am to 5pm eastern.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665