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 office action is in response to amendments filed 5/22/2026.
The instant application having application No. 18/366,129 filed on August 7, 2023, presents claims 1-20 for examination. The instant application is a continuation of the application having application No. 17/940,288 (now issued patent US 11,746,708 B2) filed on September 8, 2022 which is a continuation of the application having application No. 16/839111 (now issued patent US 11,441,489 B2), and claims priority to the provisional application having application No. 62/835,169 filed on April 17, 2019.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/17/2026 was filed before the mailing date of the Final Office Action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended, claims 2, 9, and 16 are canceled, claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
Regarding art rejection: In regards to pending claims Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive; further, Applicant's amendments necessitated new grounds of rejections presented in the following art rejection.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their 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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Interpretation
Claim limitations in claims 1 and 15 have been interpreted not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because, “a communication interface configured to …” in claim 1, and “the engine control configured to …” in claim 15 when read in light of the specification connoted sufficient, definite structures to one of ordinary skill in the art (refer to spec para [0028, 0031]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The amended claim 1 recites “block access of the offboard system from reading or writing to memory of the engine control based on a validation failure of the digital signature detected at the engine control”. The claimed features “based on a validation failure of the digital signature detected at the engine control” is not described in the specification of the application. Applicant provided para [0033, 0039, 0041] as support for the amendments. After reading the paragraphs, none discloses the above feature. Para [0032] discloses “… If user authentication fails, for instance, by user credentials not being recognized with respect to user authentication data, then the communication adapter 102 can block access of the offboard systems 106 from reading from or writing to the memory system 212.” The amended claims 8 and 15 recite those same features as in amended claim1, and are rejected for the same reason. Dependent claims 3-7, 10-14, and 17-20 are rejected for the same reason because of their dependency from their respective independent claim 1, 8, or 15.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 6, 8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butz et al (US 20040056766 A1, hereinafter “Butz” cited from IDS filed on 8/7/2023) in view of Adibhatla (US 20170234224 A1, hereinafter, “Adibhatla”), ADAMS et al (WO 2005106624 A1, hereinafter, “ADAMS”, refer to attached NPL copy), Rao et al. (US 20190384587 A1, hereinafter, “Rao”) and Bhella et al. (US 20200195424 A1, hereinafter, “Bhella”).
With respect to claim 1 (Currently Amended), Butz teaches A communication adapter of a gas turbine engine of an aircraft, the communication adapter comprising:
a communication interface configured to wirelessly communicate with an offboard system and to communicate with an engine control of the gas turbine engine (para [0017], “…The wireless communication means includes a remote communication unit 34 and a local communication unit 36 connected by a wireless communication link 38….”), [wherein the communication adapter is mounted on a portion of the gas turbine engine];
a memory system (para [0015], “…engine and aircraft data are collected in a fault report that is stored in the ECU's memory”); and
processing circuitry (para [0015], “The system 10 includes an electronic control unit (ECU) 14 such as a full authority digital engine control (FADEC) although other controllers can be used….”) configured to:
transfer the one or more configuration items [with the digital signature] to the engine control [after applying the cryptographic algorithm and verifying the digital signature] (para [0019], “The system 10 is also capable of transmitting (i.e., uploading and/or downloading) engine control data between the airline operator or a data service provider and the ECU 14 using the wireless communication means. …For example, when the wireless communication link 38 is established between the remote communication unit 34 and the local communication unit 36, data messages containing ECU data, such as ECU software updates, can be sent to the local communication unit 36 by the airline operator or data service provider….” Wherein engine control data read on configuration items);
Butz does not appear to explicitly teach
…, wherein the communication adapter is mounted on a portion of the gas turbine engine;
receive one or more configuration items from the offboard system through the communication interface of the communication adapter;
apply a cryptographic algorithm using one or more parameters received and cryptographic information to decrypt the one or more configuration items, wherein the cryptographic information includes a combination of received cryptographic information and previously stored cryptographic information;
verify a digital signature of the one or more configuration items from the offboard system;
(transfer the one or more configuration items) with the digital signature (to the engine control) after applying the cryptographic algorithm and verifying the digital signature;
receive a confirmation message from the engine control based on validation of the digital signature by the engine control prior to updating the engine control;
transmit a data state of the engine control and a configuration of the engine control to the offboard system with an update completion confirmation of the engine control from the communication adapter to the offboard system based on the confirmation message from the engine control;
block access of the offboard system from reading or writing to memory of the engine control based on a verification failure of the digital signature detected at the communication adapter; and
block access of the offboard system from reading or writing to memory of the engine control based on a validation failure of the digital signature detected at the engine control.
However, in analogous art, Adibhatla teaches
…, wherein the communication adapter is mounted on a portion of the gas turbine engine (e.g. Fig. 1 shows a schematic illustration of an exemplary gas turbine engine including a modulated turbine cooling (MTC) control system, Fig. 2, shows a schematic diagram illustrating the MTC control system as shown in FIG. 1, the system shown in Fig. 2 comprising a communication interface is similar to the communication adapter and is mounted on a portion of the gas turbine engine, hence renders the claim feature obvious. i.e. the local communication unit 36 of Butz is possibly mounted on a portion of the gas turbine engine);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Butz with the invention of Adibhatla so that the gas turbine engine is capable of communicating with a remote device and control systems. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing the capability for the gas turbine engine to communicate with a remote device and control systems (Adibhatla, para [0026]).
Butz as modified by Adibhatla does not appear to explicitly disclose
receive one or more configuration items from the offboard system through the communication interface of the communication adapter;
apply a cryptographic algorithm using one or more parameters received and cryptographic information to decrypt the one or more configuration items, wherein the cryptographic information includes a combination of received cryptographic information and previously stored cryptographic information;
verify a digital signature of the one or more configuration items from the offboard system;
(transfer the one or more configuration items) with the digital signature (to the engine control) after applying the cryptographic algorithm and verifying the digital signature;
receive a confirmation message from the engine control based on validation of the digital signature by the engine control prior to updating the engine control;
transmit a data state of the engine control and a configuration of the engine control to the offboard system with an update completion confirmation of the engine control from the communication adapter to the offboard system based on the confirmation message from the engine control;
block access of the offboard system from reading or writing to memory of the engine control based on a verification failure of the digital signature detected at the communication adapter; and
block access of the offboard system from reading or writing to memory of the engine control based on a validation failure of the digital signature detected at the engine control.
However, in analogous art, ADAMS teaches
receive one or more configuration items from the offboard system through the communication interface of the communication adapter (e.g. p10 lines 18-19, “… whenever owner information is received.” The owner information reads on configuration items from the offboard system. Fig. 9 shows the communication interface/connector 450. P9 lines 34-47, “The interface/connectors 450 and 452 could be any of a plurality of compatible data transfer components, …. Therefore, a communication link between the insertion tool 464 and the mobile device 430 may be a wireless connection or a physical wired connection.” The primary reference Butz teaches the communication interface of the communication adapter, the combination of Butz and ADAMS renders the claim feature obvious);
apply a cryptographic algorithm using one or more parameters received and cryptographic information to decrypt the one or more configuration items, wherein the cryptographic information includes a combination of received cryptographic information and previously stored cryptographic information (e.g. p10, lines 21-54, “The owner information that is pre-loaded onto the mobile device 430 may include data integrity and/or source authentication information, such as a cryptographic system like a digital signature public key which corresponds to a digital signature private key used by the owner to digitally sign information before it is transferred to the mobile device 430. … In digital signature verification, a digital signature public key corresponding to the private key is used.” Wherein the digital signature verification suggests decryption);
verify a digital signature of the one or more configuration items from the offboard system (e.g. p10 lines 43-45, “… The insertion module 444 is preferably configured to verify the digital signature before the owner control information is stored on the mobile device 430. …” );
(transfer the one or more configuration items) with the digital signature (to the engine control) after applying the cryptographic algorithm and verifying the digital signature (e.g. e.g. p10, lines 21-54 as cited above);
[receive a confirmation message from the engine control] based on validation of the digital signature by the engine control prior to updating the engine control (e.g. p10, lines 21-54);
block access of the offboard system from reading or writing to memory of the engine control based on a verification failure of the digital signature detected at the communication adapter (e.g. p10 lines 45-46, “… If digital signature verification fails, then the owner control information is not stored on the mobile device 430. …” wherein the owner control information reads on configuration items, when digital signature verification fails, the owner control information is not stored indicating blocking access to the memory, hence renders claim feature obvious. ADAMS’ teaching applies to the communication adapter, hence renders the claim feature obvious).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of ADAMS because ADAMS’s teaching provides techniques that prevent false control/configuration information from storing in the device memory. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of preventing false control/configuration information from storing in the device memory (ADAMS, p10 lines 40-50).
Butz as modified by Adibhatla and ADAMS does not appear to explicitly teach
receive a confirmation message from the engine control (based on validation of the digital signature by the engine control prior to updating the engine control);
transmit a data state of the engine control and a configuration of the engine control to the offboard system with an update completion confirmation of the engine control from the communication adapter to the offboard system based on the confirmation message from the engine control;
block access of the offboard system from reading or writing to memory of the engine control based on a validation failure of the digital signature detected at the engine control.
However, in analogous art, Rao teaches
receive a confirmation message from the engine control (based on validation of the digital signature by the engine control prior to updating the engine control) (e.g. Fig. 5, steps 545 -555. Para [0053], “… The aircraft 540 notifies the maintenance technician 530 of the status of the installation. At 555, a verification of the installation is determined by the inspector 550 …” wherein the aircraft 540 reads on the engine control, ADAMS teaches the validation, the combination of Rao and ADAMS renders he claim feature obvious); and
transmit a data state of the engine control and a configuration of the engine control to the offboard system with an update completion confirmation of the engine control from the communication adapter to the offboard system based on the confirmation message from the engine control (e.g. Fig. 5, step 560, para [0053], “… and at 560, a notification is sent that the installation is complete to the maintenance manager 520, the pilot 570 and the inspector 550 views the report 565 generated by the maintenance technician 575 of the installation.” Wherein the maintenance technician 575 reads on the offboard system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Rao because it provides techniques for improving both the performance and robustness of the LSAP loading process by using a fully/semi-automated set of certified activities for installing, updating, and validating software updates in an aircraft by use of a blockchain network. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for improving both the performance and robustness of the LSAP loading process by using a fully/semi-automated set of certified activities for installing, updating, and validating software updates in an aircraft by use of a blockchain network (Rao, para [0005-0007]).
Butz as modified by Adibhatla, ADAMS and Rao does not appear to explicitly teach block access of the offboard system from reading or writing to memory of the engine control based on a validation failure of the digital signature detected at the engine control. However, this is taught in analogous art, Bhella (e.g. para [0036], “At block 410, the controller 227
verifies that the digital signature of the authentication data was made with a private key that corresponds to the public key stored in the memory 229. For example, the controller 227 may execute a signature verifying algorithm that, given the authentication
data, public key and signature, either accepts or rejects the authenticity of the
authentication data. If either of the authentication steps at blocks 408, 410 fail, the controller 227 may output an error at block 412, which may correspond with a visual or audio signal that the symbol has not been authenticated. The error at block 412 results in the controller 102 preventing the nearfield transceiver 230 and/or the communication port 231 from establishing a communication link with the corresponding transceiver of the client computing device 104.” Wherein the controller 227 reads on the engine control, and preventing communication reads on blocking access of the offboard system. Bhella’s teaching applies to the engine control, and renders the claim feature obvious.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Bhella because it provides improved techniques for authentication and maintaining security communicating with different systems. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing improved techniques for authentication and maintaining security communicating with different systems as suggested by Bhella (see, para [0002-0003]).
With respect to claim 6 (Original), Butz as modified by Adibhatla, ADAMS, Rao and Bhella teaches The communication adapter of claim 1, Butz further teaches wherein the one or more configuration items comprise executable software for the engine control (para [0019], “…For example, when the wireless communication link 38 is established between the remote communication unit 34 and the local communication unit 36, data messages containing ECU data, such as ECU software updates, can be sent to the local communication unit 36 by the airline operator or data service provider….”).
With respect to claim 8 (Currently Amended), it is directed to A method that is disclosed in claim 1, please see the rejections directed to claim 1 above which also cover the limitations recited in claim 8.
With respect to claim 13 (Original), it recites same features as claim 6, and is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butz in view of Adibhatla, ADAMS, Rao and Bhella as applied to claims 1 and 8 respectively, and further in view of Schulz et al (US 20170155514 A1, hereinafter, “Schulz” cited from IDS filed on 8/7/2023).
With respect to claim 3 (Original), Butz as modified by Adibhatla, ADAMS, Rao and Bhella teaches The communication adapter of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the communication adapter manages credentials and user authentication to limit access to the engine control.
However, in analogous art, Schulz teaches
wherein the communication adapter manages credentials and user authentication to limit access to the engine control (Fig. 3A, steps 112-124, wherein software update is analogous to engine control trim data update, and valid signature reads on credentials).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Schulz because Schulz’s teaching provides techniques for efficiently and securely updating software. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for efficiently and securely updating software (Schulz, para [0001]).
With respect to claim 10 (Original), it recites same features as claim 3, and is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butz in view Adibhatla, ADAMS, Rao and Bhella as applied to claims 1 and 8 respectively, and further in view of SNELL (US 20140123625 A1, hereinafter, “SNELL” cited from IDS filed on 8/7/2023) and Schulz.
With respect to claim 4 (Original), Butz as modified by Adibhatla, ADAMS, Rao and Bhella teaches The communication adapter of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the one or more configuration items comprise a plurality of engine control trim data, and wherein the engine control trim data comprises at least one digital signature that is validated by the engine control prior to updating the engine control.
However, in analogous art, Snell teaches
wherein the one or more configuration items comprise a plurality of engine control trim data (para [0049], “…Alternatively the trim value may be replaced by the new trim value in the engine control system via a wired or wireless data link. The new value may be supplied at the same time as other updates including engine control software updates.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Snell because SNELL’s teaching provides techniques that increase the life of the gas turbine engine. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques that increase the life of the gas turbine engine (SNELL, para [0007]).
None of Butz, Adibhatla, ADAMS, Rao, Bhella and Snell appears to explicitly teach
wherein the engine control trim data comprises at least one digital signature that is validated by the engine control prior to updating the engine control.
However, in analogous art, Schulz teaches
wherein the engine control trim data comprises at least one digital signature that is validated by the engine control prior to updating the engine control (Fig. 3A, steps 112-124, wherein software update is analogous to engine control trim data update).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Schulz because Schulz’s teaching provides techniques for efficiently and securely updating software. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for efficiently and securely updating software (Schulz, para [0001]).
With respect to claim 11 (Original), it recites same features as claim 4, and is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butz in view of Adibhatla, ADAMS, Rao and Bhella as applied to claims 1 and 8 respectively, and further in view of PITRE et al (US 20190102162 A1, hereinafter, “PITRE” cited from IDS filed on 8/7/2023).
With respect to claim 5 (Original), Butz as modified by Adibhatla, ADAMS, Rao and Bhella teaches The communication adapter of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the one or more configuration items comprise a plurality of fault limit data.
However, in analogous art, PITRE teaches
wherein the one or more configuration items comprise a plurality of fault limit data (para [0279], “…"syncErrorThreshold" (the maximum number of allowed errors during a sync. If the number of errors exceeds the maximum number allowed, the sync job aborts….” wherein the syncErrorThreshold reads on fault limit data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of PITRE because PITRE’s teaching provides techniques that “improve the experience and efficiency of the end user”. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques that improve the experience and efficiency of the end user (PITRE, para [0070]).
With respect to claim 12 (Original), it recites same features as claim 5, and is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butz in view of Adibhatla, ADAMS, Rao and Bhella as applied to claims 6 and 13 respectively, and further in view of Schulz.
With respect to claim 7 (Original), Butz as modified by Adibhatla, ADAMS, Rao and Bhella teaches The communication adapter of claim 6, but does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the executable software comprises at least one digital signature that is validated by the engine control prior to updating the engine control.
However, in analogous art, Schulz teaches
wherein the executable software comprises at least one digital signature that is validated by the engine control prior to updating the engine control (Fig. 3A, steps 112-124, wherein software update is analogous to engine control trim data update).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Schulz because Schulz’s teaching provides techniques for efficiently and securely updating software. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for efficiently and securely updating software (Schulz, para [0001]).
With respect to claim 14 (Original), it recites same features as claim 7, and is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder (US 20160222889 A1, hereinafter “Snyder” cited from IDS filed on 8/7/2023) in view of Butz, ADAMS, Rao and Bhella.
With respect to claim 15 (Currently Amended), Snyder teaches A gas turbine engine of an aircraft, the gas turbine engine comprising:
a fan section comprising a fan case (Fig. 1, para [0026]);
an engine control configured to monitor and control operation of the gas turbine engine in real-time (Fig. 2, EEC 52, para [0008], “…the electronic engine control includes a wireless device that is configured to communicate wirelessly with each of the plurality of engine components”); and
a communication adapter mounted on the fan case (communications harness 64 in Fig. 2, para [0013], “In a further embodiment of any of the above, a communications harness connects the electronic engine control to a wireless hub”),
Snyder does not appear to explicitly teach
(a communication adapter mounted on the fan case), the communication adapter comprising processing circuitry configured to:
receive one or more configuration items from an offboard system through a communication interface of the communication adapter;
apply a cryptographic algorithm using one or more parameters received and cryptographic information to decrypt the one or more configuration items, wherein the cryptographic information includes a combination of received cryptographic information and previously stored cryptographic information;
verify a digital signature of the one or more configuration items from the offboard system;
transfer the one or more configuration items with the digital signature to the engine control after applying the cryptographic algorithm and verifying the digital signature;
receive a confirmation message from the engine control based on validation of the digital signature by the engine control prior to updating the engine control;
transmit a data state of the engine control and a configuration of the engine control to the offboard system with an update completion confirmation of the engine control from the communication adapter to the offboard system based on the confirmation message from the engine control
block access of the offboard system from reading or writing to memory of the engine control based on a verification failure of the digital signature detected at the communication adapter; and
block access of the offboard system from reading or writing to memory of the engine control based on a validation failure of the digital signature detected at the engine control.
However, in analogous art, Butz teaches
the communication adapter comprising processing circuitry configured to: (para [0015], “The system 10 includes an electronic control unit (ECU) 14 such as a full authority digital engine control (FADEC) although other controllers can be used….”) , transfer the one or more configuration items [with the digital signature] to the engine control [after applying the cryptographic algorithm and verifying the digital signature], (para [0019], “The system 10 is also capable of transmitting (i.e., uploading and/or downloading) engine control data between the airline operator or a data service provider and the ECU 14 using the wireless communication means. …For example, when the wireless communication link 38 is established between the remote communication unit 34 and the local communication unit 36, data messages containing ECU data, such as ECU software updates, can be sent to the local communication unit 36 by the airline operator or data service provider….” Wherein engine control data read on configuration items);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Snyder and the invention of Butz because Butz’s teaching provides techniques that overcome drawbacks of prior art. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing new techniques that overcome drawbacks of prior art (Butz, para [0007-0009]).
Snyder as modified by Butz does not appear to explicitly teach
receive one or more configuration items from an offboard system through a communication interface of the communication adapter;
apply a cryptographic algorithm using one or more parameters received and cryptographic information to decrypt the one or more configuration items, wherein the cryptographic information includes a combination of received cryptographic information and previously stored cryptographic information;
verify a digital signature of the one or more configuration items from the offboard system;
(transfer the one or more configuration items) with the digital signature (to the engine control) after applying the cryptographic algorithm and verifying the digital signature;
receive a confirmation message from the engine control based on validation of the digital signature by the engine control prior to updating the engine control;
transmit a data state of the engine control and a configuration of the engine control to the offboard system with an update completion confirmation of the engine control from the communication adapter to the offboard system based on the confirmation message from the engine control
block access of the offboard system from reading or writing to memory of the engine control based on a verification failure of the digital signature detected at the communication adapter; and
block access of the offboard system from reading or writing to memory of the engine control based on a validation failure of the digital signature detected at the engine control.
However, in analogous art, ADAMS teaches
receive one or more configuration items from an offboard system through a communication interface of the communication adapter (e.g. p10 lines 18-19, “… whenever owner information is received.” The owner information reads on configuration items from the offboard system. Fig. 9 shows the communication interface/connector 450. P9 lines 34-47, “The interface/connectors 450 and 452 could be any of a plurality of compatible data transfer components, …. Therefore, a communication link between the insertion tool 464 and the mobile device 430 may be a wireless connection or a physical wired connection.” The primary reference Butz teaches the communication interface of the communication adapter, the combination of Butz and ADAMS renders the claim feature obvious);
apply a cryptographic algorithm using one or more parameters received and cryptographic information to decrypt the one or more configuration items, wherein the cryptographic information includes a combination of received cryptographic information and previously stored cryptographic information (e.g. p10, lines 21-54, “The owner information that is pre-loaded onto the mobile device 430 may include data integrity and/or source authentication information, such as a cryptographic system like a digital signature public key which corresponds to a digital signature private key used by the owner to digitally sign information before it is transferred to the mobile device 430. … In digital signature verification, a digital signature public key corresponding to the private key is used.” Wherein the digital signature verification suggests decryption);
verify a digital signature of the one or more configuration items from the offboard system (e.g. p10 lines 43-45, “… The insertion module 444 is preferably configured to verify the digital signature before the owner control information is stored on the mobile device 430. …” );
(transfer the one or more configuration items) with the digital signature (to the engine control) after applying the cryptographic algorithm and verifying the digital signature (e.g. e.g. p10, lines 21-54 as cited above);
[receive a confirmation message from the engine control] based on validation of the digital signature by the engine control prior to updating the engine control (e.g. p10, lines 21-54);
block access of the offboard system from reading or writing to memory of the engine control based on a verification failure of the digital signature detected at the communication adapter (e.g. p10 lines 45-46, “… If digital signature verification fails, then the owner control information is not stored on the mobile device 430. …” wherein the owner control information reads on configuration items, when digital signature verification fails, the owner control information is not stored indicating blocking access to the memory, hence renders claim feature obvious. ADAMS’ teaching applies to the communication adapter, hence renders the claim feature obvious).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of ADAMS because ADAMS’s teaching provides techniques that prevent false control/configuration information from storing in the device memory. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of preventing false control/configuration information from storing in the device memory (ADAMS, p10 lines 40-50).
Snyder as modified by Butz and ADAMS does not appear to explicitly teach
receive a confirmation message from the engine control (based on validation of the digital signature by the engine control prior to updating the engine control);
transmit a data state of the engine control and a configuration of the engine control to the offboard system with an update completion confirmation of the engine control from the communication adapter to the offboard system based on the confirmation message from the engine control;
block access of the offboard system from reading or writing to memory of the engine control based on a validation failure of the digital signature detected at the engine control.
However, in analogous art, Rao teaches
receive a confirmation message from the engine control (based on validation of the digital signature by the engine control prior to updating the engine control) (e.g. Fig. 5, steps 545 -555. Para [0053], “… The aircraft 540 notifies the maintenance technician 530 of the status of the installation. At 555, a verification of the installation is determined by the inspector 550 …” wherein the aircraft 540 reads on the engine control, ADAMS teaches the validation, the combination of Rao and ADAMS renders he claim feature obvious); and
transmit a data state of the engine control and a configuration of the engine control to the offboard system with an update completion confirmation of the engine control from the communication adapter to the offboard system based on the confirmation message from the engine control (e.g. Fig. 5, step 560, para [0053], “… and at 560, a notification is sent that the installation is complete to the maintenance manager 520, the pilot 570 and the inspector 550 views the report 565 generated by the maintenance technician 575 of the installation.” Wherein the maintenance technician 575 reads on the offboard system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Rao because it provides techniques for improving both the performance and robustness of the LSAP loading process by using a fully/semi-automated set of certified activities for installing, updating, and validating software updates in an aircraft by use of a blockchain network. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for improving both the performance and robustness of the LSAP loading process by using a fully/semi-automated set of certified activities for installing, updating, and validating software updates in an aircraft by use of a blockchain network (Rao, para [0005-0007]).
Snyder as modified by Butz, ADAMS and Rao does not appear to explicitly teach block access of the offboard system from reading or writing to memory of the engine control based on a validation failure of the digital signature detected at the engine control. However, this is taught in analogous art, Bhella (e.g. para [0036], “At block 410, the controller 227
verifies that the digital signature of the authentication data was made with a private key that corresponds to the public key stored in the memory 229. For example, the controller 227 may execute a signature verifying algorithm that, given the authentication
data, public key and signature, either accepts or rejects the authenticity of the
authentication data. If either of the authentication steps at blocks 408, 410 fail, the controller 227 may output an error at block 412, which may correspond with a visual or audio signal that the symbol has not been authenticated. The error at block 412 results in the controller 102 preventing the nearfield transceiver 230 and/or the communication port 231 from establishing a communication link with the corresponding transceiver of the client computing device 104.” Wherein the controller 227 reads on the engine control, and preventing communication reads on blocking access of the offboard system. Bhella’s teaching applies to the engine control, and renders the claim feature obvious.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Bhella because it provides improved techniques for authentication and maintaining security communicating with different systems. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing improved techniques for authentication and maintaining security communicating with different systems as suggested by Bhella (see, para [0002-0003]).
With respect to claim 19 (Original), Snyder as modified by Butz, ADAMS, Rao and Bhella teaches The gas turbine engine of claim 15, ADAMS further teaches wherein the communication adapter manages credentials and user authentication to limit access to the engine control (e.g. p10 lines 40-50, wherein digital signature reads on credentials and verifying the signature reads on authentication. For motivation to combine, please refer to office action regarding claim 15).
With respect to claim 20 (Original), Snyder as modified by Butz, ADAMS, Rao and Bhella teaches The gas turbine engine of claim 15, Butz further teaches wherein the one or more configuration items comprise executable software for the engine control (para [0019], “…For example, when the wireless communication link 38 is established between the remote communication unit 34 and the local communication unit 36, data messages containing ECU data, such as ECU software updates, can be sent to the local communication unit 36 by the airline operator or data service provider….” For motivation to combine, please refer to office action regarding claim 15); ADAMS further teaches and wherein the executable software comprises at least one digital signature that is validated by the engine control prior to updating the engine control (e.g. p10 lines 40-50, wherein digital signature reads on credentials and verifying the signature reads on validation. For motivation to combine, please refer to office action regarding claim 15).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder in view of Butz, ADAMS, Rao and Bhella as applied to claim 15, and further in view of SNELL.
With respect to claim 17 (Original), Snyder as modified by Butz, ADAMS, Rao and Bhella teaches The gas turbine engine of claim 15, ADAMS further teaches [wherein the one or more configuration items comprise a plurality of engine control trim data] with at least one digital signature that is validated by the engine control prior to updating the engine control (e.g. p10 lines 40-50, wherein digital signature reads on credentials and verifying the signature reads on validation. For motivation to combine, please refer to office action regarding claim 15). but does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the one or more configuration items comprise a plurality of engine control trim data (with at least one digital signature that is validated by the engine control prior to updating the engine control). However, this is taught in analogous art, SNELL (para [0049], “…Alternatively the trim value may be replaced by the new trim value in the engine control system via a wired or wireless data link. The new value may be supplied at the same time as other updates including engine control software updates.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Snell because SNELL’s teaching provides techniques that increase the life of the gas turbine engine. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques that increase the life of the gas turbine engine (SNELL, para [0007])..
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder in view of Butz, ADAMS, Rao and Bhella as applied to claim 15, and further in view of PITRE.
With respect to claim 18 (Original), Snyder as modified by Butz, ADAMS, Rao and Bhella teaches The gas turbine engine of claim 15, but does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more configuration items comprise a plurality of fault limit data.
However, in analogous art, PITRE teaches
wherein the one or more configuration items comprise a plurality of fault limit data (para [0279], “…"syncErrorThreshold" (the maximum number of allowed errors during a sync. If the number of errors exceeds the maximum number allowed, the sync job aborts….” wherein the syncErrorThreshold reads on fault limit data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of PITRE because PITRE’s teaching provides techniques that “improve the experience and efficiency of the end user”. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques that improve the experience and efficiency of the end user (PITRE, para [0070]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding art rejections filed 5/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At p10 last to p11 first paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “
PNG
media_image1.png
24
846
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Updates of a mobile device are not reasonably analogous to a communication adapter that is configured to wirelessly communicate with an offboard system and to communicate with an engine control of the gas turbine engine. Further, the updates of Adams are with respect to an insertion module 444 of a mobile device 430 that includes memory 432 to be updated. In contrast, the communication adapter of claim 1 transfers "the one or more configuration items with the digital signature to the engine control after applying the cryptographic algorithm and verifying the digital signature", as recited in claim 1 as amended. Thus, the combination of references fails to teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 1 as amended.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, Butz teaches transferring configuration items through a communication adapter, and Adams teaches encrypting/decrypting and verifying a digital signature. Although the configuration information of Adams may be different from the configuration items of the instant claims, incorporating the teaching of Adams would make one of ordinary skill in the art understand that the communication interface of the communication adapter taught by Butz and Adibhatla is able to transfer “the one or more configuration items with the digital signature to the engine control after applying the cryptographic algorithm and verifying the digital signature”. Thus the combination of the cited references renders the claim feature obvious.
At p11 second paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued with respect to the amendment features. This argument is moot upon new ground of rejections made in the office action above.
At p11 third and fourth paragraphs of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “For at least these reasons, ... Withdrawal of the rejections is respectfully requested.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, as set forth in the office action, and as explained above, the cited references in combination render the claims obvious, the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
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 Zengpu Wei whose telephone number is 571-270-1302. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:00AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bradley Teets, can be reached on 571-272-3338. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/Zengpu Wei/
Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights