DETAILED ACTION
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 03/22/2023 was filed and has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 8-9, 11, 15-16, 18, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castaneda et al. (US 8838293 B2), herein after will be referred to as Castaneda, in view of Brace et al. (US 20220036669 A1), and herein after will be referred to as Brace, and in further view of Gerhards, R., “The Syslog Protocol”, Network Working Group, Request for Comments: 5424, Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), March 2009, [retrieved on 2026-04-14]. Retrieved from the Internet <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5424>, and herein after will be referred to as Gerhards.
Regarding Claim 1, Castaneda teaches receiving a rule set, wherein the rule set represents an indicator of a flight management system bug, error, or flight safety concern; (see at least Castaneda, Col 4 lines 11-14: "Among the possible test situations, the following cases constitute typical examples of prevention or monitoring of bugs or erroneous pilot inputs possible with an FMS, exhibiting a generic nature:...") and upon determining that an error indicator (see at least Castaneda, Col 4 lines 65-67: "A third sub-module TESTS, 1630 constitutes is library of then tests which will be carried out under the command of the CONDITIONS sub-module. (determining an error)") associated with the log data (see at least Castaneda, FIG. 1 and Col 3 lines 43-56: flight plan FPLN, Navigation database NAVDB, BDN, 130, lateral trajectory TRAJ, 120, predictions PRED, 140, and navigation LOCNAV, 170. (log data)) violates a rule of the rule set (see at least Castaneda, Col 4 lines 59-67: "The monitor will preferably store the data version used to decide that the associated tests of the library must be carried out. At the output of this sub-module, a second sub-module CONDITIONS, 1620 tests the conditions…A third sub-module TESTS, 1630 constitutes is library of then tests which will be carried out under the command of the CONDITIONS sub-module. "), such that the log state includes data from before, during, and after an occurrence of the flight management system bug, error, or flight safety concern (Recording an internal (log state) that contains data preceding, comprising, and following the incoherence; Col 6 lines 8-17).
Castaneda does not explicitly teach writing log data to a first memory as a log buffer, wherein the log data is generated by the flight management system; writing at least a subset of the log buffer of the first memory to a second memory as a log state.
However, Brace teaches a method for reporting an error within the system or FMS by the process of, at step 210, logging in an access log, a list of functional elements that access a set of data elements sorted in memory of the system ([0032]). Furthermore, at step 220, the functional element includes performing a set of system functions during runtime. These teachings are equivalent to the claim writing log data to a first memory as a log buffer because a first memory as a log buffer is a memory store that is written to prior to a triggering event to capture data. Brace’s access log performs this exact function ([0032]). Brace explicitly teaches, at step 220, the log is written during runtime, which is before the error is identified, at step 230. This access log serves as the temporary buffer from which data is retrieved after the error is detected (step 240, [0033]). Brace further teaches, at step 240, in response to identifying the error, the error reporter retrieves a list of the set of data elements, that include a subset of data elements, from the access log and, at step 260, exports the error report defining the error to a file ([0033], [0047]). This teaching is equivalent to writing at least a subset of the log buffer to a second memory as a log state because the error report retrieves the list of the set of data elements, including a subset of data elements, and is exported to a file for later analysis.
Castaneda and Brace are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of monitoring and logging errors in a flight management system. 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 Castaneda to incorporate the teachings of the continuous runtime logging of system data into an access log to serve as a first memory log buffer and export the error report as a file to a second memory as taught by Brace based on the motivation to provide access to the access log to ensure the preceding data is captured and available before the error is detected. This provides the benefit of improving the diagnostic system by allowing the necessary contextual data is available for logging when an error is detected.
Castaneda and Brace does not explicitly teach wherein the error indicator includes a sequence of data at a beginning of each log data entry of the log buffer, and the error indicator specifies a type of information in the log data entry.
However, Gerhards discloses a standardized logging protocol for conveying event notification messages wherein each log message contains a structured header beginning with a specific priority value. Gerhards teaches that every log message must start with a header where the first element is a Priority (PRI) sequence that represents a severity of the error and the facility (type of system or information) that generated it (Section 6.2.1). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because the priority value PRIVAL is structured to be located at the beginning of the log entry that acts as the error indicator (Severity) while simultaneously specifying the type of information or system (Facility) that generated the log data.
Castaneda, Brace, and Gerhards are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of event logging, error monitoring, and diagnostic data capture. 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 Castaneda and Brace to incorporate the teachings of formatting log data entries to begin with a standardized header sequence that identifies the error severity and information type as taught by Gerhards based on the motivation to structure the log entries so that diagnostic tools can parse, classify, and filter error states without expending computation processing resources reading the entire message payload. This provides the benefit of optimizing the memory buffer and interoperability between the FMS internal log buffers and debugging platforms.
Regarding Claim 2, Castaneda, Brace, and Gerhards teach all the limitations of Claim 1. Castaneda does not explicitly teach upon determining that the first memory is full, setting a write location of the first memory to a start location of the first memory.
However, Brace, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a first memory in the form of an access log (see at least Brace, Para 20: "The main framework 24 can also include an access log 38 stored in the memory of the system 100. The access log 38 can define a list of functional elements 46 that access at least a subset of the set of data elements within the system 100.") but does not explicitly disclose the operation such that when it becomes full, the write location is set to a start location of the first memory. The technique of managing a fixed-size memory buffer used for logging, such that when the buffer becomes full, new data is written starting from the beginning of the buffer (known as a circular buffer or ring buffer), is a well-known and conventional data management technique. This is commonly employed to prevent log files from consuming excessive memory and to ensure continuous logging of the most recent data. It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the base system to incorporate the access log as taught by Brace to manage the first memory using a standard circular buffer method based on the motivation to improve the continuous operational logging capability without exceeding memory limitations.
Regarding Claim 4, Castaneda, Brace, and Gerhards teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Castaneda does not teach wherein the error indicator comprises a tag or identifier associated with the log data.
However, Brace, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the error indicator (see at least Brace, Para 24: “…the fault handler 48 can be configured to identify an error 16…”) comprises a tag or identifier associated with the log data (see at least Brace, Para 24: “the fault handler 48 , including but not limited to , identifying where the error has occurred ( e.g. the identification of the error functional element 468 )”.). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the base system and incorporate a tag or identifier in the log data to indicate an error as taught by Brace based on the motivation to improve the specificity and diagnostic utility of the error indication in FMS monitoring system.
Regarding Claim 8, Castaneda discloses receiving a rule set (see at least Castaneda, Col 4 lines 7-14: "The monitor will advantageously comprise a library of tests to be performed in particular conditions (rule-set) of the aircraft and of its environment..."), wherein the rule set represents an indicator of a flight management system bug, error, or flight safety concern (see at least Castaneda, Col 4 lines 11-14: "Among the possible test (rule set)situations, the following cases constitute typical examples of prevention or monitoring of bugs or erroneous (bug and error) pilot inputs possible with an FMS (Flight Management System), exhibiting a generic nature:..."); and upon determining that an error indicator (see at least Castaneda, Col 4 lines 65-67: "A third sub-module TESTS, 1630 constitutes is library of then tests which will be carried out under the command of the CONDITIONS sub-module. (determining an error)") associated with the log data (see at least Castaneda, FIG. 1 and Col 3 lines 43-56: flight plan FPLN, Navigation database NAVDB, BDN, 130, lateral trajectory TRAJ, 120, predictions PRED, 140, and navigation LOCNAV, 170. (log data)) violates a rule of the rule set (see at least Castaneda, Col 4 lines 59-67: "The monitor will preferably store the data version used to decide that the associated tests of the library must be carried out. At the output of this sub-module, a second sub-module CONDITIONS, 1620 tests the conditions…A third sub-module TESTS, 1630 constitutes is library of then tests which will be carried out under the command of the CONDITIONS sub-module. "), such that the log state includes data from before, during, and after an occurrence of the flight management system bug, error, or flight safety concern (Recording an internal (log state) that contains data preceding, comprising, and following the incoherence; Col 6 lines 8-17).
Castaneda does not explicitly disclose writing log data to a first memory as a log buffer, wherein the log data is generated by the flight management system; writing at least a subset of the log buffer of the first memory to a second memory as a log state.
However, Brace teaches a method for reporting an error within the system or FMS by the process of, at step 210, logging in an access log, a list of functional elements that access a set of data elements sorted in memory of the system ([0032]). Furthermore, at step 220, the functional element includes performing a set of system functions during runtime. These teachings are equivalent to the claim writing log data to a first memory as a log buffer because a first memory as a log buffer is a memory store that is written to prior to a triggering event to capture data. Brace’s access log performs this exact function ([0032]). Brace explicitly teaches, at step 220, the log is written during runtime, which is before the error is identified, at step 230. This access log serves as the temporary buffer from which data is retrieved after the error is detected (step 240, [0033]). Brace further teaches, at step 240, in response to identifying the error, the error reporter retrieves a list of the set of data elements, that include a subset of data elements, from the access log and, at step 260, exports the error report defining the error to a file ([0033], [0047]). This teaching is equivalent to writing at least a subset of the log buffer to a second memory as a log state because the error report retrieves the list of the set of data elements, including a subset of data elements, and is exported to a file for later analysis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Castaneda to incorporate the teachings of the continuous runtime logging of system data into an access log to serve as a first memory log buffer and export the error report as a file to a second memory as taught by Brace based on the motivation to provide access to the access log to ensure the preceding data is captured and available before the error is detected. This provides the benefit of improving the diagnostic system by allowing the necessary contextual data is available for logging when an error is detected.
Castaneda and Brace does not explicitly teach wherein the error indicator includes a sequence of data at a beginning of each log data entry of the log buffer, and the error indicator specifies a type of information in the log data entry.
However, Gerhards discloses a standardized logging protocol for conveying event notification messages wherein each log message contains a structured header beginning with a specific priority value. Gerhards teaches that every log message must start with a header where the first element is a Priority (PRI) sequence that represents a severity of the error and the facility (type of system or information) that generated it (Section 6.2.1). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because the priority value PRIVAL is structured to be located at the beginning of the log entry that acts as the error indicator (Severity) while simultaneously specifying the type of information or system (Facility) that generated the log data.
Castaneda, Brace, and Gerhards are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of event logging, error monitoring, and diagnostic data capture. 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 Castaneda and Brace to incorporate the teachings of formatting log data entries to begin with a standardized header sequence that identifies the error severity and information type as taught by Gerhards based on the motivation to structure the log entries so that diagnostic tools can parse, classify, and filter error states without expending computation processing resources reading the entire message payload. This provides the benefit of optimizing the memory buffer and interoperability between the FMS internal log buffers and debugging platforms.
Regarding Claim 9, Castaneda, Brace, and Gerhards teach all the limitations of Claim 8. Castaneda does not explicitly teach upon determining that the first memory is full, setting a write location of the first memory to a start location of the first memory.
However, Brace, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a first memory in the form of an access log (see at least Brace, Para 20: "The main framework 24 can also include an access log 38 stored in the memory of the system 100. The access log 38 can define a list of functional elements 46 that access at least a subset of the set of data elements within the system 100.") but does not explicitly disclose the operation such that when it becomes full, the write location is set to a start location of the first memory. The technique of managing a fixed-size memory buffer used for logging, such that when the buffer becomes full, new data is written starting from the beginning of the buffer (known as a circular buffer or ring buffer), is a well-known and conventional data management technique. This is commonly employed to prevent log files from consuming excessive memory and to ensure continuous logging of the most recent data. It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the base system to incorporate the access log as taught by Brace to manage the first memory using a standard circular buffer method based on the motivation to improve the continuous operational logging capability without exceeding memory limitations.
Regarding Claim 11, Castaneda, Brace, and Gerhards teach all the limitations of Claim 8. Castaneda does not explicitly disclose wherein the error indicator comprises a tag or identifier associated with the log data.
However, Brace, in the same field of endeavor, discloses wherein the error indicator (see at least Brace, Para 24: “…the fault handler 48 can be configured to identify an error 16…”) comprises a tag or identifier associated with the log data (see at least Brace, Para 24: “the fault handler 48 , including but not limited to , identifying where the error has occurred ( e.g. the identification of the error functional element 468 )”.). Brace error indicator includes identification with the log data and error functional elements to provide a specific way of noting the type of information associated with the error. It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the base system and incorporate a tag or identifier in the log data to indicate an error as taught by Brace based on the motivation to improve the specificity and diagnostic utility of the error indication in FMS monitoring system.
Regarding Claim 15, Castaneda discloses receiving a rule set (see at least Castaneda, Col 4 lines 7-14: "The monitor will advantageously comprise a library of tests to be performed in particular conditions (rule-set) of the aircraft and of its environment..."), wherein the rule set represents an indicator of a flight management system bug, error, or flight safety concern (see at least Castaneda, Col 4 lines 11-14: "Among the possible test (rule set)situations, the following cases constitute typical examples of prevention or monitoring of bugs or erroneous (bug and error) pilot inputs possible with an FMS (Flight Management System), exhibiting a generic nature:..."); and upon determining that an error indicator (see at least Castaneda, Col 4 lines 65-67: "A third sub-module TESTS, 1630 constitutes is library of then tests which will be carried out under the command of the CONDITIONS sub-module. (determining an error)") associated with the log data (see at least Castaneda, FIG. 1 and Col 3 lines 43-56: flight plan FPLN, Navigation database NAVDB, BDN, 130, lateral trajectory TRAJ, 120, predictions PRED, 140, and navigation LOCNAV, 170. (log data)) violates a rule of the rule set (see at least Castaneda, Col 4 lines 59-67: "The monitor will preferably store the data version used to decide that the associated tests of the library must be carried out. At the output of this sub-module, a second sub-module CONDITIONS, 1620 tests the conditions…A third sub-module TESTS, 1630 constitutes is library of then tests which will be carried out under the command of the CONDITIONS sub-module. "), such that the log state includes data from before, during, and after an occurrence of the flight management system bug, error, or flight safety concern (Recording an internal (log state) that contains data preceding, comprising, and following the incoherence; Col 6 lines 8-17).
Castaneda does not explicitly disclose writing log data to a first memory as a log buffer, wherein the log data is generated by the flight management system; writing at least a subset of the log buffer of the first memory to a second memory as a log state.
However, Brace teaches a method for reporting an error within the system or FMS by the process of, at step 210, logging in an access log, a list of functional elements that access a set of data elements sorted in memory of the system ([0032]). Furthermore, at step 220, the functional element includes performing a set of system functions during runtime. These teachings are equivalent to the claim writing log data to a first memory as a log buffer because a first memory as a log buffer is a memory store that is written to prior to a triggering event to capture data. Brace’s access log performs this exact function ([0032]). Brace explicitly teaches, at step 220, the log is written during runtime, which is before the error is identified, at step 230. This access log serves as the temporary buffer from which data is retrieved after the error is detected (step 240, [0033]). Brace further teaches, at step 240, in response to identifying the error, the error reporter retrieves a list of the set of data elements, that include a subset of data elements, from the access log and, at step 260, exports the error report defining the error to a file ([0033], [0047]). This teaching is equivalent to writing at least a subset of the log buffer to a second memory as a log state because the error report retrieves the list of the set of data elements, including a subset of data elements, and is exported to a file for later analysis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Castaneda to incorporate the teachings of the continuous runtime logging of system data into an access log to serve as a first memory log buffer and export the error report as a file to a second memory as taught by Brace based on the motivation to provide access to the access log to ensure the preceding data is captured and available before the error is detected. This provides the benefit of improving the diagnostic system by allowing the necessary contextual data is available for logging when an error is detected.
Castaneda and Brace does not explicitly teach wherein the error indicator includes a sequence of data at a beginning of each log data entry of the log buffer, and the error indicator specifies a type of information in the log data entry.
However, Gerhards discloses a standardized logging protocol for conveying event notification messages wherein each log message contains a structured header beginning with a specific priority value. Gerhards teaches that every log message must start with a header where the first element is a Priority (PRI) sequence that represents a severity of the error and the facility (type of system or information) that generated it (Section 6.2.1). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because the priority value PRIVAL is structured to be located at the beginning of the log entry that acts as the error indicator (Severity) while simultaneously specifying the type of information or system (Facility) that generated the log data.
Castaneda, Brace, and Gerhards are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of event logging, error monitoring, and diagnostic data capture. 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 Castaneda and Brace to incorporate the teachings of formatting log data entries to begin with a standardized header sequence that identifies the error severity and information type as taught by Gerhards based on the motivation to structure the log entries so that diagnostic tools can parse, classify, and filter error states without expending computation processing resources reading the entire message payload. This provides the benefit of optimizing the memory buffer and interoperability between the FMS internal log buffers and debugging platforms.
Regarding Claim 16, Castaneda, Brace, and Gerhards teach all the limitations of Claim 15. Castaneda does not explicitly teach upon determining that the first memory is full, setting a write location of the first memory to a start location of the first memory.
However, Brace, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a first memory in the form of an access log (see at least Brace, Para 20: "The main framework 24 can also include an access log 38 stored in the memory of the system 100. The access log 38 can define a list of functional elements 46 that access at least a subset of the set of data elements within the system 100.") but does not explicitly disclose the operation such that when it becomes full, the write location is set to a start location of the first memory. The technique of managing a fixed-size memory buffer used for logging, such that when the buffer becomes full, new data is written starting from the beginning of the buffer (known as a circular buffer or ring buffer), is a well-known and conventional data management technique. This is commonly employed to prevent log files from consuming excessive memory and to ensure continuous logging of the most recent data. It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the base system to incorporate the access log as taught by Brace to manage the first memory using a standard circular buffer method based on the motivation to improve the continuous operational logging capability without exceeding memory limitations.
Regarding Claim 18, Castaneda, Brace, and Gerhards teach all the limitations of Claim 15. Castaneda does not explicitly disclose wherein the error indicator comprises a tag or identifier associated with the log data.
However, Brace, in the same field of endeavor, discloses wherein the error indicator (see at least Brace, Para 24: “…the fault handler 48 can be configured to identify an error 16…”) comprises a tag or identifier associated with the log data (see at least Brace, Para 24: “the fault handler 48 , including but not limited to , identifying where the error has occurred ( e.g. the identification of the error functional element 468 )”.). Brace error indicator includes identification with the log data and error functional elements to provide a specific way of noting the type of information associated with the error. It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the base system and incorporate a tag or identifier in the log data to indicate an error as taught by Brace based on the motivation to improve the specificity and diagnostic utility of the error indication in FMS monitoring system.
Regarding Claim 21, Castaneda, Brace, and Gerhards teach all the limitations of Claim 1. Castaneda further teaches the rule of the rule set includes a flight management system error message (A test that, when violated, dispatches a flight management system error message to the crew; Col 5 lines 64-67).
Regarding Claim 22, Castaneda, Brace, and Gerhards teach all the limitations of Claim 8. Castaneda further teaches the rule of the rule set includes a flight management system error message (A test that, when violated, dispatches a flight management system error message to the crew; Col 5 lines 64-67).
Regarding Claim 23, Castaneda, Brace, and Gerhards teach all the limitations of Claim 15. Castaneda further teaches the rule of the rule set includes a flight management system error message (A test that, when violated, dispatches a flight management system error message to the crew; Col 5 lines 64-67).
Claim(s) 5-7, 12-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castaneda in view of Brace, and in view of Gerhards, as applied in claim 1, 8, and 15, and in further view of White et al. (US 20030023740 A1), and herein after will be referred to as White.
Regarding Claim 5, Castaneda, Brace, and Gerhards teach all the limitations of Claim 1. Castaneda does not explicitly teach replicating the flight management system bug, error, or flight safety concern based on the log state.
However, Brace teaches replicating the flight management system bug, error, or flight safety concern based on the log state (see at least Brace Para 34: “the system 100 can also reload a state of the system 100 into a debugging system error recreation. (replicating FMS error based on log state)”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the base system to incorporate the capability to reload a state of the system into a debugging system as taught by Brace based on the motivation to replicate the state of the system at the time of error for evaluation and debugging. This provides the benefit of improving the overall evaluation and testing process by replicating the exact conditions of the system to make data driven decisions and conclusions.
Castaneda, Brace, and Gerhards does not explicitly teach simulating a flight environment.
However, White, in the same field of endeavor, teaches simulating a flight environment (see at least White Para 17: "Flight Management System ("FMS") application for use in a flight simulation environment (simulating a flight environment)").
Castaneda, Brace, Gerhards, and White are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of system diagnostics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the base system and incorporate the simulating the flight environment as taught by White based on the motivation to fully recreate the exact conditions when the error occurred. This provides the benefit of replicating the exact conditions for testing and debugging purposes.
Regarding Claim 6, the prior art combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 5. Castaneda, Brace, and Gerhards does not explicitly teach wherein simulating the flight environment includes at least one of: a cabin session, a software integration test environment, a desktop environment, or a virtual environment.
However, White, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein simulating the flight environment (see at least White Para 17: "Flight Management System ("FMS") application for use in a flight simulation environment (simulating a flight environment)") includes a desktop environment (see at least White Para 44: White, Para 44: “FMS computer 232 comprises a workstation 502 running a version of Microsoft's Windows NT operating system software (Desktop environment)… “). White discloses well-known and conventional choices for FMS simulation and testing by using a workstation using the Microsoft Windows NT operating system. It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the base system to incorporate the teachings of a desktop environment when performing the simulation of the flight environment as taught in White, as these are well-known and conventional choices for FMS simulation and testing.
Regarding Claim 7, the prior art combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 5. Castaneda does not explicitly teach replicating the flight management system bug, error, or flight safety concern comprises recreating system states of a flight management system that existed before, during, or after the occurrence of the flight management system bug, error, or flight safety concern.
However, Brace, in the same field of endeavor, further teaches wherein replicating the flight management system bug, error, or flight safety concern (see at least Brace, Para 34: “the system 100 can also reload a state of the system 100 into a debugging system error recreation. (replicating FMS error based on log state)”) comprises recreating system states (see at least see at least Brace, Para 34: “the system 100 can also reload a state of the system 100…”) of a flight management system that existed before, during, or after the occurrence of the flight management system bug, error, or flight safety concern (see at least Brace, Para 34: “Brace Para 34: "the system (FMS) 100 can also reload a state (recreating system states) of the system 100 into a debugging system for error recreation (replicating error) (during)...The error report can also define the state by including the state of the system 100 prior (Before) to the error 16 occurrence or after (After) the error 16 occurrence."). Brace discloses replicating the error including the system states prior, during, and after the error occurrence for detailed contextual information. It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the base system to incorporate the teachings of reloading the system state into a debugging system error recreation that includes the state of the system prior and after occurrence as taught by Brace based on the motivation to replicate the events leading into the error and evaluating how the system responds after the error has occurred. This provides the benefit of a detailed contextual understanding of events leading to the error and any after effects in the system due to the error.
Regarding Claim 12, Castaneda, Brace, and Gerhards discloses all the limitations of Claim 8. Castaneda does not explicitly teach replicating the flight management system bug, error, or flight safety concern based on the log state.
However, Brace teaches replicating the flight management system bug, error, or flight safety concern based on the log state (see at least Brace Para 34: “the system 100 can also reload a state of the system 100 into a debugging system error recreation. (replicating FMS error based on log state)”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the base system to incorporate the capability to reload a state of the system into a debugging system as taught by Brace based on the motivation to replicate the state of the system at the time of error for evaluation and debugging. This provides the benefit of improving the overall evaluation and testing process by replicating the exact conditions of the system to make data driven decisions and conclusions.
Castaneda, Brace, and Gerhards does not explicitly disclose simulating a flight environment.
However, White, in the same field of endeavor, discloses simulating a flight environment (see at least White Para 17: "Flight Management System ("FMS") application for use in a flight simulation environment (simulating a flight environment)"). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the base system and incorporate the simulating the flight environment as taught by White based on the motivation to fully recreate the exact conditions when the error occurred. This provides the benefit of replicating the exact conditions for testing and debugging purposes.
Regarding Claim 13, the prior combination discloses all the limitations of Claim 12. Castaneda, Brace, and Gerhards does not explicitly teach wherein simulating the flight environment includes at least one of: a cabin session, a software integration test environment, a desktop environment, or a virtual environment.
However, White, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein simulating the flight environment (see at least White Para 17: "Flight Management System ("FMS") application for use in a flight simulation environment (simulating a flight environment)") includes a desktop environment (see at least White Para 44: White, Para 44: “FMS computer 232 comprises a workstation 502 running a version of Microsoft's Windows NT operating system software (Desktop environment)… “). White discloses well-known and conventional choices for FMS simulation and testing by using a workstation using the Microsoft Windows NT operating system. It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the base system to incorporate the teachings of a desktop environment when performing the simulation of the flight environment as taught in White, as these are well-known and conventional choices for FMS simulation and testing.
Regarding Claim 14, the prior art combination discloses all the limitations of Claim 12. Castaneda does not disclose wherein replicating the flight management system bug, error, or flight safety concern comprises recreating system states of a flight management system that existed before, during, or after the occurrence of the flight management system bug, error, or flight safety concern.
However, Brace, in the same field of endeavor, discloses wherein replicating the flight management system bug, error, or flight safety concern (see at least Brace, Para 34: “the system 100 can also reload a state of the system 100 into a debugging system error recreation. (replicating FMS error based on log state)”) comprises recreating system states (see at least see at least Brace, Para 34: “the system 100 can also reload a state of the system 100…”) of a flight management system that existed before, during, or after the occurrence of the flight management system bug, error, or flight safety concern (see at least Brace, Para 34: “Brace Para 34: "the system (FMS) 100 can also reload a state (recreating system states) of the system 100 into a debugging system for error recreation (replicating error) (during)...The error report can also define the state by including the state of the system 100 prior (Before) to the error 16 occurrence or after (After) the error 16 occurrence."). Brace discloses replicating the error including the system states for detailed contextual information. It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include wherein replicating the flight management system bug, error, or flight safety concern comprises recreating system states of a flight management system that existed before, during, or after the occurrence of the flight management system bug, error, or flight safety concern in view of Brace when performing the replication of the error to include the system states for detailed contextual information.
Regarding Claim 19, Castaneda, Brace, and Gerhards discloses all the limitations of Claim 15. Brace further disclose replicating the flight management system bug, error, or flight safety concern based on the log state (see at least Brace Para 34: “the system 100 can also reload a state of the system 100 into a debugging system error recreation. (replicating FMS error based on log state)”).
Castaneda, Brace, and Gerhards does not explicitly disclose simulating a flight environment.
However, White, in the same field of endeavor, discloses simulating a flight environment (see at least White Para 17: "Flight Management System ("FMS") application for use in a flight simulation environment (simulating a flight environment)"). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the base system and incorporate the simulating the flight environment as taught by White based on the motivation to fully recreate the exact conditions when the error occurred. This provides the benefit of replicating the exact conditions for testing and debugging purposes.
Regarding Claim 20, the prior art discloses all the limitations of Claim 19. Castaneda does not explicitly teach replicating the flight management system bug, error, or flight safety concern comprises recreating system states of a flight management system that existed before, during, or after the occurrence of the flight management system bug, error, or flight safety concern.
However, Brace, in the same field of endeavor, discloses wherein replicating the flight management system bug, error, or flight safety concern (see at least Brace, Para 34: “the system 100 can also reload a state of the system 100 into a debugging system error recreation. (replicating FMS error based on log state)”) comprises recreating system states (see at least see at least Brace, Para 34: “the system 100 can also reload a state of the system 100…”) of a flight management system that existed before, during, or after the occurrence of the flight management system bug, error, or flight safety concern (see at least Brace, Para 34: “Brace Para 34: "the system (FMS) 100 can also reload a state (recreating system states) of the system 100 into a debugging system for error recreation (replicating error) (during)...The error report can also define the state by including the state of the system 100 prior (Before) to the error 16 occurrence or after (After) the error 16 occurrence."). Brace discloses replicating the error including the system states prior, during, and after the error occurrence for detailed contextual information. It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the base system to incorporate the teachings of reloading the system state into a debugging system error recreation that includes the state of the system prior and after occurrence as taught by Brace based on the motivation to replicate the events leading into the error and evaluating how the system responds after the error has occurred. This provides the benefit of a detailed contextual understanding of events leading to the error and any after effects in the system due to the error.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent, most relevant, to applicant's disclosure.
Carpenter (US 20200341868 A1)
Manjunath (US 20170331895 A1)
Block (US 20170139869 A1)
Hochwarth (US 20230401965 A1)
Dunning (US 20220390329 A1)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Pages 8-10, filed 01/12/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered. The Examiner respectfully agrees that Castaneda and Brace does not teach the error indicator includes a sequence of data at the beginning of each log data entry of the log buffer. However, upon further search and consideration, a new ground of rejection is made based on the combination of Castaneda et al. (US 8838293 B2) in view of Brace et al. (US 20220036669 A1), and in further view of Gerhards, R., “The Syslog Protocol”, Network Working Group, Request for Comments: 5424, Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), March 2009, [retrieved on 2026-04-14]. Retrieved from the Internet <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5424>. Gerhards discloses a standardized logging protocol (syslog) for conveying event notification messages wherein each log message contains a structured header beginning with a specific priority value. Gerhards teaches that every log message must start with a header SYSLOG-MSG = HEADER SP STRUCTURED-DATA [SP MSG] where the first element in the header is a Priority (PRI) sequence (Section 6) that represents a severity of the error and the facility (type of system or information) that generated it (Section 6.2.1). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because the priority value PRIVAL is structured to be located at the beginning of the log entry that acts as the error indicator (Severity) while simultaneously specifying the type of information or system (Facility) that generated the log data. Accordingly, the claims remain rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD ANDREW IZON DIZON whose telephone number is (571)272-4834. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/EDWARD ANDREW IZON DIZON/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights