DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant's Application filed on 1/7/2025.
Claims 1-49, 70-73 were canceled.
Claims 50-69 are pending for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/8/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 50-54, 56-62, 64-69 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sham (US20100312420A1).
Regarding claim 50, Sham teaches An apparatus for assisting with functional testing of systems of an aircraft, the apparatus comprising:
one or more data processors(Sham: Fig. 2 Element 202; Para 27 “an automatic maintenance test client module 202, which may be realized using one or more applications and one or more processor devices. Client module 202 is coupled to or cooperates with other devices, components, and functional modules of the client system 106. For example, client module 202 may cooperate with the following elements, without limitation: a flight control system (FCS) 204; a central maintenance computing function (CMCF) 206; an airplane condition monitoring function (ACMF) 208; a communication management function (CMF) 210; a data storage element 212; and a multifunction control and display unit (MCDU) 214”); and
non-transitory machine-readable memory operatively coupled to the one or more data processors(Sham: Fig. 1 Element 116; Fig. 2 Element 212; Para 27 “an automatic maintenance test client module 202, which may be realized using one or more applications and one or more processor devices. Client module 202 is coupled to or cooperates with other devices, components, and functional modules of the client system 106. For example, client module 202 may cooperate with the following elements, without limitation: a flight control system (FCS) 204; a central maintenance computing function (CMCF) 206; an airplane condition monitoring function (ACMF) 208; a communication management function (CMF) 210; a data storage element 212; and a multifunction control and display unit (MCDU) 214”), storing instructions executable by the one or more data processors (Sham: Para 19 “The onboard components are coupled together in a physical and/or wireless manner to accommodate the exchange, transfer, or transmission of data, control signals, commands, instructions, power, etc”) and configured to cause the one or more data processors to:
select, based on data indicative of a condition of the aircraft, two or more selected functional tests of respective two or more systems of the aircraft(Sham: Fig. 4; Para 41 “the diagnostic data received at the ground-based server is stored at a location that is remote from the aircraft (task 408). As explained above with reference to FIG. 1, the diagnostic data could be stored in a data storage element that is co-located with (or otherwise associated with) the ground-based server. The ground-based server may also analyze and process the received diagnostic data (task 410) in an appropriate manner, such that the identified faults can be addressed as needed. For example, the diagnostic data could be automatically analyzed for purposes of generating at least one test checklist for the aircraft (task 412). Notably, the content of the test checklist will be influenced or determined by the diagnostic data”; Para 47 “The labels Test_1, Test_2, and Test_N represent instructions or commands that initiate or execute the respective tests, and the labels Results_1, Results_2, and Results_N represent the associated test results being sent from the LRUs to the onboard client. In this manner, the onboard client can obtain the test results for the maintenance tests specified on the current test checklist (task 506)”; Para 17 “A number of maintenance checks and tests are performed on an aircraft prior to departure. These checks and tests may involve diagnostic tests of mechanical devices such as braking system components, flaps, and landing gear, and/or diagnostic tests of electronic devices”; Para 34 “The MCDU 214 provides display and user interface functionality to the flight crew, maintenance personnel, etc”; Para 40 “A takeoff checklist fault report contains fault information associated with diagnostic checks/tests performed during the takeoff phase of the flight, an en route checklist fault report contains fault information associated with diagnostic checks/tests performed during flight, and a landing checklist fault report contains fault information associated with diagnostic checks/tests performed during the landing phase of the flight”; Para 41 “a test checklist may be a post-flight checklist, a pre-flight checklist, a preventative maintenance checklist, a takeoff checklist, an en route checklist, a landing checklist, or any combination thereof”); and
generate an output for initiating the two or more selected functional tests(Sham: Para 47 “The labels Test_1, Test_2, and Test_N represent instructions or commands that initiate or execute the respective tests, and the labels Results_1, Results_2, and Results_N represent the associated test results being sent from the LRUs to the onboard client. In this manner, the onboard client can obtain the test results for the maintenance tests specified on the current test checklist (task 506)”).
Regarding claim 51, Sham teaches The apparatus as defined in claim 50, wherein:
the non-transitory machine-readable memory contains data indicative of a predetermined testing order for the selected functional tests(Sham: Para 47 “The labels Test_1, Test_2, and Test_N represent instructions or commands that initiate or execute the respective tests, and the labels Results_1, Results_2, and Results_N represent the associated test results being sent from the LRUs to the onboard client. In this manner, the onboard client can obtain the test results for the maintenance tests specified on the current test checklist (task 506)”; i.e. Test numbers indicated a predefined testing order for the selected functional tests); and
the initiation of the two or more selected functional tests is in accordance with the predetermined testing order(Sham: Para 47 “The labels Test_1, Test_2, and Test_N represent instructions or commands that initiate or execute the respective tests, and the labels Results_1, Results_2, and Results_N represent the associated test results being sent from the LRUs to the onboard client. In this manner, the onboard client can obtain the test results for the maintenance tests specified on the current test checklist (task 506)”).
Regarding claim 52, Sham teaches The apparatus as defined in claim 50, wherein the instructions are configured to cause the one or more data processors to generate an output for causing a display device to display an execution object configured to trigger an automated initiation of some or all of the selected functional tests in response to user input(Sham: Fig.5 Element 502-504; Para 44 “Sometime after the test checklist has been received by the onboard client, one or more of the tests specified on the checklist can be initiated and executed. For ease of description and illustration, certain tasks and steps associated with the testing procedure are found in process 500 (in practice, however, these tasks could be included in process 400). In certain implementations, process 500 may begin by establishing an interactive control session (e.g., a secure session) with a remote maintenance personnel terminal. In this regard, process 500 authenticates the remote maintenance personnel terminal (task 502) or, equivalently, the user of the maintenance personnel terminal”; Para 45 “After authentication of the maintenance personnel terminal, process 500 will initiate, execute, control, and/or complete the tests that are specified in the test checklist (task 504). In some situations, the maintenance personnel terminal is used to merely initiate one or more tests, which are automatically executed and completed onboard the aircraft without any human intervention during the actual execution of the tests. In other situations, one or more tests are executed and completed onboard the aircraft with some human interaction or involvement”).
Regarding claim 53, Sham teaches The apparatus as defined in claim 50, wherein the instructions are configured to cause the one or more data processors to generate an output for causing a display device to display a condition object indicating the condition of the aircraft(Sham: Fig. 5 Element 506; Para 47 “The labels Test_1, Test_2, and Test_N represent instructions or commands that initiate or execute the respective tests, and the labels Results_1, Results_2, and Results_N represent the associated test results being sent from the LRUs to the onboard client. In this manner, the onboard client can obtain the test results for the maintenance tests specified on the current test checklist (task 506)”; Para 43 “Process 400 may continue by transmitting the test checklist from the ground-based server to the onboard client (task 416). In preferred embodiments, task 416 is performed during the same data communication session established during task 404, and the test checklist is wirelessly received by the onboard client. FIG. 4 depicts the test checklist 316 being successfully sent from the ground-based server to the onboard client. Process 400 may also send a copy of the fault analysis report from the ground-based server to the AOC, to the maintenance personnel terminal, and/or elsewhere (task 418). FIG. 4 depicts the fault analysis report 318 being successfully sent to the AOC and to the maintenance personnel terminal”)), the condition object being responsive to user input indicative of the condition of the aircraft(Sham: Para 45 “In some situations, the maintenance personnel terminal is used to merely initiate one or more tests, which are automatically executed and completed onboard the aircraft without any human intervention during the actual execution of the tests. In other situations, one or more tests are executed and completed onboard the aircraft with some human interaction or involvement. For example, a user of the remote maintenance personnel terminal (while logged in) could monitor, control, supervise, manage, or otherwise influence the manner in which the tests are executed. Indeed, some tests may require human involvement (such as data entry, selection of options, data recording, etc.), and the system described here can accommodate such tests”).
Regarding claim 54, Sham teaches The apparatus as defined in claim 53, wherein the instructions are configured to cause the one or more data processors to generate an output for causing the display device to display an execution object configured to trigger an automated initiation of some or all of the selected functional tests in response to user input(Sham: Fig.5 Element 502-504; Para 44 “Sometime after the test checklist has been received by the onboard client, one or more of the tests specified on the checklist can be initiated and executed. For ease of description and illustration, certain tasks and steps associated with the testing procedure are found in process 500 (in practice, however, these tasks could be included in process 400). In certain implementations, process 500 may begin by establishing an interactive control session (e.g., a secure session) with a remote maintenance personnel terminal. In this regard, process 500 authenticates the remote maintenance personnel terminal (task 502) or, equivalently, the user of the maintenance personnel terminal”; Para 45 “After authentication of the maintenance personnel terminal, process 500 will initiate, execute, control, and/or complete the tests that are specified in the test checklist (task 504). In some situations, the maintenance personnel terminal is used to merely initiate one or more tests, which are automatically executed and completed onboard the aircraft without any human intervention during the actual execution of the tests. In other situations, one or more tests are executed and completed onboard the aircraft with some human interaction or involvement.”).
Regarding claim 56, Sham teaches The apparatus as defined in claim 50, wherein the selected functional tests are pre-flight functional tests (Sham: Para 17 “Tests that usually follow power up of an aircraft typically include, without limitation: power up checks; pre-flight checks; pre-flight preparation checks; before start checks; before taxi checks; taxi out checks; and before takeoff checks”) and the data indicative of the condition of the aircraft is indicative of any of the following: whether a next flight of the aircraft is a first flight of a day; whether the next flight of the aircraft immediately follows a change in flight crew; and whether the next flight of the aircraft immediately follows a cold and dark start of the aircraft(Sham: Para 17 “A number of maintenance checks and tests are performed on an aircraft prior to departure. These checks and tests may involve diagnostic tests of mechanical devices such as braking system components, flaps, and landing gear, and/or diagnostic tests of electronic devices. Tests that usually follow power up of an aircraft typically include, without limitation: power up checks; pre-flight checks; pre-flight preparation checks; before start checks; before taxi checks; taxi out checks; and before takeoff checks”; i.e. Tests following power up of an aircraft encompasses a cold and dark start of the aircraft).
Regarding claim 57, Sham teaches An aircraft comprising the apparatus as defined in claim 50(Sham: Fig. 1-2; Para 5 “A method of automated fault analysis and execution of post-flight or pre-flight tests for an aircraft is provided. The aircraft includes an onboard maintenance test client system”).
Regarding claim 58, Sham teaches A computer-implemented method for assisting with functional testing of systems of an aircraft, the method comprising:
receiving data indicative of a condition of the aircraft(Sham: Fig. 4; Para 41 “the diagnostic data received at the ground-based server is stored at a location that is remote from the aircraft (task 408). As explained above with reference to FIG. 1, the diagnostic data could be stored in a data storage element that is co-located with (or otherwise associated with) the ground-based server. The ground-based server may also analyze and process the received diagnostic data (task 410) in an appropriate manner, such that the identified faults can be addressed as needed. For example, the diagnostic data could be automatically analyzed for purposes of generating at least one test checklist for the aircraft (task 412). Notably, the content of the test checklist will be influenced or determined by the diagnostic data”);
selecting, based on the data indicative of the condition of the aircraft, two or more selected functional tests of respective two or more systems of the aircraft(Sham: Fig. 4; Para 41 “the diagnostic data received at the ground-based server is stored at a location that is remote from the aircraft (task 408). As explained above with reference to FIG. 1, the diagnostic data could be stored in a data storage element that is co-located with (or otherwise associated with) the ground-based server. The ground-based server may also analyze and process the received diagnostic data (task 410) in an appropriate manner, such that the identified faults can be addressed as needed. For example, the diagnostic data could be automatically analyzed for purposes of generating at least one test checklist for the aircraft (task 412). Notably, the content of the test checklist will be influenced or determined by the diagnostic data”; Para 47 “The labels Test_1, Test_2, and Test_N represent instructions or commands that initiate or execute the respective tests, and the labels Results_1, Results_2, and Results_N represent the associated test results being sent from the LRUs to the onboard client. In this manner, the onboard client can obtain the test results for the maintenance tests specified on the current test checklist (task 506)”; Para 17 “A number of maintenance checks and tests are performed on an aircraft prior to departure. These checks and tests may involve diagnostic tests of mechanical devices such as braking system components, flaps, and landing gear, and/or diagnostic tests of electronic devices”; Para 34 “The MCDU 214 provides display and user interface functionality to the flight crew, maintenance personnel, etc”; Para 40 “A takeoff checklist fault report contains fault information associated with diagnostic checks/tests performed during the takeoff phase of the flight, an en route checklist fault report contains fault information associated with diagnostic checks/tests performed during flight, and a landing checklist fault report contains fault information associated with diagnostic checks/tests performed during the landing phase of the flight”; Para 41 “a test checklist may be a post-flight checklist, a pre-flight checklist, a preventative maintenance checklist, a takeoff checklist, an en route checklist, a landing checklist, or any combination thereof”); and
initiating the two or more selected functional tests(Sham: Para 47 “The labels Test_1, Test_2, and Test_N represent instructions or commands that initiate or execute the respective tests, and the labels Results_1, Results_2, and Results_N represent the associated test results being sent from the LRUs to the onboard client. In this manner, the onboard client can obtain the test results for the maintenance tests specified on the current test checklist (task 506)”).
As per claim 59, it recites A computer-implemented method for assisting with functional testing of systems of an aircraft having limitations similar to those of claim 51 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
As per claim 60, it recites A computer-implemented method for assisting with functional testing of systems of an aircraft having limitations similar to those of claim 52 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
As per claim 61, it recites A computer-implemented method for assisting with functional testing of systems of an aircraft having limitations similar to those of claim 53 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
As per claim 62, it recites A computer-implemented method for assisting with functional testing of systems of an aircraft having limitations similar to those of claim 54 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
As per claim 64, it recites A computer-implemented method for assisting with functional testing of systems of an aircraft having limitations similar to those of claim 56 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
As per claim 65, it recites A computer-implemented method for assisting with functional testing of systems of an aircraft having limitations similar to those of claim 57 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
As per claim 66, it recites A computer program product for assisting with functional testing of systems of an aircraft having limitations similar to those of claim 58 and therefore is rejected on the same basis. Sham further teaches non-transitory computer readable storage medium containing program code(Sham: Fig. 1 Element 116; Fig. 2 Element 212; Para 27 “an automatic maintenance test client module 202, which may be realized using one or more applications and one or more processor devices. Client module 202 is coupled to or cooperates with other devices, components, and functional modules of the client system 106. For example, client module 202 may cooperate with the following elements, without limitation: a flight control system (FCS) 204; a central maintenance computing function (CMCF) 206; an airplane condition monitoring function (ACMF) 208; a communication management function (CMF) 210; a data storage element 212; and a multifunction control and display unit (MCDU) 214”; Para 19 “The onboard components are coupled together in a physical and/or wireless manner to accommodate the exchange, transfer, or transmission of data, control signals, commands, instructions, power, etc.”).
As per claim 67, it recites A computer program product for assisting with functional testing of systems of an aircraft having limitations similar to those of claim 59 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
As per claim 68, it recites A computer program product for assisting with functional testing of systems of an aircraft having limitations similar to those of claim 60 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
As per claim 69, it recites A computer program product for assisting with functional testing of systems of an aircraft having limitations similar to those of claim 61 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 55, 63 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sham (US20100312420A1) in view of SENF (US20150121140A1).
In regards to claim 55, Sham teaches The apparatus as defined in claim 50.
Yet Sham do not explicitly teach wherein the instructions are configured to cause the one or more data processors to generate an output for causing an execution of at least two of the selected functional tests in parallel.
However, in the same field of endeavor, SENF teaches wherein the instructions are configured to cause the one or more data processors to generate an output for causing an execution of at least two of the selected functional tests in parallel(SENF: Para 41 “During execution of the test plan 3 on the test environment 2, the test execution control tool 4 monitors the test progress and, in accordance with step d) shown in FIG. 2, plays the test data acquired by the test environment 2 from the control unit 1 tested using the test plan 3 back to the database 9. The test management tool 5 then in turn has access to the test data thus acquired, which can then be analyzed graphically, for example. Moreover, the possibility also exists for the arrangement to have a plurality of test execution control tools 4 that are each connected to separate test environments 2 so that a plurality of test plans 3 can be executed in parallel”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify The apparatus of Sham with the feature of wherein the instructions are configured to cause the one or more data processors to generate an output for causing an execution of at least two of the selected functional tests in parallel disclosed by SENF. One would be motivated to do so for the benefit of “automatically execute the test plan in the test environment” (SENF: Para 13).
As per claim 63, it recites A computer-implemented method for assisting with functional testing of systems of an aircraft having limitations similar to those of claim 55 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENYUAN YANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/W.Y./Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/ANSHUL SOOD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667