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 9/22/2025.
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.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended, claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
(A). Regarding double patenting rejections: Applicant’s filing of terminal disclaimer overcomes the double patenting rejections, the double patenting rejections are withdrawn.
(B). 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 § 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) and RÖMER et al (WO 2019129351 A1, hereinafter, “RÖMER”, refer to attached NPL copy).
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 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;
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; and
(transfer the one or more configuration items to the engine control) after applying the cryptographic algorithm and verifying the digital signature;
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 of the one or more configuration items from the offboard system.
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; and
(transfer the one or more configuration items to the engine control) after applying the cryptographic algorithm and verifying the digital signature;
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 of the one or more configuration items from the offboard system.
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);
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. …” );
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 of the one or more configuration items from the offboard system (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.).
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
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;
(transfer the one or more configuration items to the engine control) after applying the cryptographic algorithm (and verifying the digital signature);
However, in analogous art, RÖMER teaches
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. P3 first two paragraphs, wherein the RSA cryptosystem reads on a cryptographic algorithm, the public key reads on one parameter that is received, the public key also reads on received cryptographic information and the private key reads on previously stored cryptographic information. Thus RSA cryptosystem renders the claim limitation obvious);
(transfer the one or more configuration items to the engine control) after applying the cryptographic algorithm (and verifying the digital signature) (e.g. the RSA cryptosystem disclosed in P3 first two paragraphs as cited above can be applied to decrypt the encrypted 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 incorporate the invention of RÖMER because it allows for transmitting data between two entities in a secure manner without the need to exchange a symmetric key over a secured communication channel before the secured communication can be performed. 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 allowing for transmitting data between two entities in a secure manner without the need to exchange a symmetric key over a secured communication channel before the secured communication can be performed (RÖMER, P3 first paragraph).
With respect to claim 6 (Original), Butz as modified by Adibhatla, ADAMS and RÖMER 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 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butz in view of Adibhatla, ADAMS and RÖMER as applied to claims 1 and 8 respectively, and further in view of Rao et al. (US 20190384587 A1, hereinafter, “Rao”).
With respect to claim 2 (Previously Presented), Butz as modified by Adibhatla, ADAMS and RÖMER teaches The communication adapter of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
receive a confirmation message from the engine control; 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.
However, in analogous art, Rao teaches
receive a confirmation message from 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); 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]).
With respect to claim 9 (Previously Presented), it recites same features as claim 2, 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 and RÖMER 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 and RÖMER 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 and RÖMER 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 and RÖMER 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, RÖMER 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 and RÖMER 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 and RÖMER 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 and RÖMER 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 and RÖMER 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 and RÖMER.
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 to the engine control after applying the cryptographic algorithm and verifying the digital signature; and
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 of the one or more configuration items from the offboard system.
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 to the engine control [after applying the cryptographic algorithm], (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 to the engine control) after applying the cryptographic algorithm and verifying the digital signature; and
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 of the one or more configuration items from the offboard system.
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 cited reference Butz teaches the communication adapter, the combination of Butz and ADAMS renders the claim feature obvious);
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. …” );
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 of the one or more configuration items from the offboard system (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.).
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
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;
(transfer the one or more configuration items to the engine control) after applying the cryptographic algorithm (and verifying the digital signature).
However, in analogous art, RÖMER teaches
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. P3 first two paragraphs, wherein the RSA cryptosystem reads on a cryptographic algorithm, the public key reads on one parameter that is received, the public key also reads on received cryptographic information and the private key reads on previously stored cryptographic information. Thus RSA cryptosystem renders the claim limitation obvious);
(transfer the one or more configuration items to the engine control) after applying the cryptographic algorithm (e.g. the RSA cryptosystem disclosed in P3 first two paragraphs as cited above can be applied to decrypt the encrypted 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 incorporate the invention of RÖMER because it allows for transmitting data between two entities in a secure manner without the need to exchange a symmetric key over a secured communication channel before the secured communication can be performed. 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 allowing for transmitting data between two entities in a secure manner without the need to exchange a symmetric key over a secured communication channel before the secured communication can be performed (RÖMER, P3 first paragraph).
With respect to claim 19 (Original), Snyder as modified by Butz, ADAMS and RÖMER 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 and RÖMER 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 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder in view of Butz, ADAMS and RÖMER as applied to claim 15, and further in view of Rao et al. (US 20190384587 A1, hereinafter, “Rao”).
With respect to claim 16 (Previously Presented), Snyder as modified by Butz, ADAMS and RÖMER teaches The gas turbine engine of claim 15, but does not appear to explicitly teach wherein processing circuitry is further configured to:
receive a confirmation message from the engine control; 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.
However, in analogous art, Rao teaches
receive a confirmation message from 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); 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]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder in view of Butz, ADAMS and RÖMER as applied to claim 15, and further in view of SNELL.
With respect to claim 17 (Original), Snyder as modified by Butz, ADAMS and RÖMER teaches The gas turbine engine of 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, 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 Snyder, Butz, ADAMS, RÖMER and Snell appears 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.
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).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder in view of Butz, ADAMS and RÖMER as applied to claim 15, and further in view of PITRE.
With respect to claim 18 (Original), Snyder as modified by Butz, ADAMS and RÖMER 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 9/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At p8 last paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “… It is
respectfully submitted that the communication interface 180 is not reasonably equivalent to the communication interface of claim 1, as the communication interface 180 of Adibhatla is within a control system, not within a communication adapter that verifies a digital signature of one or more configuration items from an offboard system prior to transferring the one or more configuration items to a control system. At most combining Adibhatla with Butz may suggest including a communication adapter within the ECU 14 of Butz. However, in claim 1, the communication adapter comprises the communication interface and is not recited as part of the engine control.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, Butz teaches a communication adapter comprising a communication interface, “Wireless communication means are provided for uploading navigation data to the aircraft flight management computer 22 to periodically update the navigational database. The wireless communication means includes a remote communication unit 34 and a local communication unit 36 connected by a wireless communication link 38.” See para [0017] of Butz, wherein the wireless communication means reads on a communication adapter and a local communication unit 36 reads on the communication interface. Adibhatla teaches an exemplary gas turbine engine including a modulated turbine cooling (MTC) control system, and the MTC control system, as shown in Fig. 2 comprising a communication interface which is similar to the communication adapter and is mounted on a portion of the gas turbine engine, hence the combination of Butz and Adibhatla teaches that the local communication unit 36 of Butz is possibly mounted on a portion of the gas turbine engine. ADAMS teaches that the communication adapter verifies a digital signature of one or more configuration items from an offboard system prior to transferring the one or more configuration items to a control system. The cited references in combination render the claim features obvious.
At p9 first paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “Further, the local communication unit 36 of Butz operates at an aircraft level, for example, to "upload navigation data" and transfer the uploaded navigational data to an aircraft flight management computer along with downloading flight plan information. (Butz; paragraph [0018]). An aircraft-level communication interface would not reasonably be mounted to a portion of an engine in Butz, as other locations on the aircraft would be better suited for such aircraft-level communication interfaces. For instance, Butz teaches away from having a software loader in close proximity or directly linked to an ECU, as "software loaders can fail to operate under extreme temperature conditions". (Butz; paragraph [0007]).”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, Adibhatla teaches it is possible to mount a communication interface to a portion of an engine. Butz teaches techniques for transmitting engine control data to or from the engine control unit of an engine by using a local communication unit capable of establishing a wireless communication link with a remote communication unit and means for transferring data between the local communication unit and the engine control unit. See para [0009] of Butz. Butz’s techniques overcome the drawbacks of the approaches that involves use of software loaders.
At p9 second paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “In rejecting claim 1, the Office Action acknowledges that Butz in view of Adibhatla fails to disclose, "receive one or more configuration items from the offboard system", and cites Adams, pg. 10, lines 18-19, as teaching this limitation. It is respectfully submitted that owner information identifying the name of an owner of a mobile device that is preloaded onto the mobile device as described in Adams does not reasonably teach or suggest, "receive one or more configuration items from the offboard system through the communication interface of the communication adapter", "wherein the communication adapter is mounted on a portion of the gas turbine engine". Moreover, the teachings of Adams relates to configuring a mobile device with information identifying the owner of the mobile device would not reasonably be combined with the engine related teachings of Butz in view of Adibhatla. …”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, Adams teaches receiving configuration information through a communication interface of the communication adapter. 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 “receive one or more configuration items from the offboard system”. Thus the combination of the cited references renders the claim feature obvious.
At p9 second paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant also argued that “…. Furthermore, the wireless hub 66 of Snyder, as cited in rejecting claim 15, that converts signals from the EEC 52 to wireless signals, which can be sent to the appropriate engine component 54 on the core engine case 17, also does not reasonably teach or suggest these limitations in combination with other claim limitations.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, for claim 15, Snyder and Butz teaches the communication adapter comprising a communication interface. Adams teaches receiving configuration information through a communication interface of the communication adapter. 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 Snyder and Butz is able to “receive one or more configuration items from the offboard system”. Thus the combination of the cited references renders the claim feature obvious.
At p9 third to p10 first paragraphs of the Remarks, Applicant argued the claims are allowable based on the arguments for claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, as explained above, the combination of the cited references teaches the claim features, the claims are rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, Bingham et al., US 11034459 B2 teaches Distributed Control And Monitoring System For Multiple Platforms.
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