DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
3. Applicant argues the amended claim(s) 1 is/are allowable over Lamkin et al. (US-9269205-B1) in view of Redondo et al. (EP-3961012-A1). Applicant continues, independent claim 1 recites, “validating the improved flight trajectory using an imagery data, when the at least one aircraft flies according to the at least one flight plan including the improved flight trajectory, wherein the step of validating the improved flight trajectory using the imagery data comprises: capturing, using a first imaging device associated with the at least one aircraft and a second imaging device associated with a distant observation system away from the at least one aircraft, at least one contrail image, wherein the at least one contrail image represents actual contrail formation during a flight of the at least one aircraft according to a flight plan having the improved flight trajectory; and comparing the at least one contrail image with the contrail forecast data to validate the improved flight trajectory of the aircraft for contrail formation at a given time instant,” which is not taught or suggested by Lamkin and Redondo, either alone or in combination.
4. However, it appears Applicant is analyzing the cited references in isolation while ignoring the combination of the references. Applicant argues Redondo discloses measuring and assessing contrail formation in real time using observation sensors and image analysis to identify contrail parameters such as width, density, and duration, and recommending optimized routes to minimize contrails. However, Redondo does not disclose validating an improved flight trajectory by comparing imagery data with forecast data as claimed. Applicant is reminded that determining an improved flight trajectory based on contrail formation forecast is taught by Lamkin, as indicated by the previous Office Action. Redondo teaches a device and method to assess and more particularly calculate a contrail amount produced by an aircraft ([0001]). The invention also aims to provide tools to limit contrails and to provide optimized routes for minimizing contrails formation and contrails effects. The invention allows to accurately calculate a contrail formation for each flight. Data about contrails formation in real situation is accumulated and analyzed. Thereby, flights are optimized to reduce at maximum the global warming effect of the contrails formation ([0009]-[0012]). Examiner notes, calculating a contrail formation for a flight, is forecasting contrail formation based on a model, regardless of the time that it is performed. Redondo also teaches the processing unit is adapted to analyze imagery data from one or more observation sensor(s) based on any known image analysis technique, including image segmentation, object recognition, etc. Such software is based on artificial intelligence processing, trained with a high number of known images, at least some of them comprising one or more contrails ([0039]). The processing unit provides a recommendation on one or more flight paths susceptible to minimize the amount of contrails formed ([0044]). That is precisely what Applicant describes in claim 1 which is verifying the contrail formation and changing the flight trajectory if needed. As such, the combination of Lamkin and Redondo teaches the limitations of the claim and by using the contrail formation forecast of Lamkin instead of the calculated contrails formation of Redondo and using contrail formation forecast of Lamkin with the verification method of Redondo, the contrail formation forecast is validated. Further, Redondo teaches the processing unit is adapted to analyze imagery data from one or more observation sensor(s) based on any known image analysis technique, including image segmentation, object recognition, etc. Such software is based on artificial intelligence processing, trained with a high number of known images, at least some of them comprising one or more contrails ([0039]) which is comparing the at least one contrail image with the contrail forecast data to validate the improved flight trajectory of the at least one aircraft for contrail formation at a given time instant. Comparing an image with known images for contrail formation is validating and verifying contrail formation.
5. Furthermore, Applicant argues the present specification explicitly teaches that the improved flight trajectory is verified for improved contrail likelihood by observing contrail formation along the improved trajectory and that such validation “enables determining the merits of altering the one or more flight parameters to determine the improved flight trajectory (i.e., whether or not it was the right decision to re-route the aircraft).” See paragraph [0030] of US 2023/0326354 A1. The specification further teaches capturing, using a first imaging device associated with the aircraft and/or a second imaging device associated with a distant observation system, at least one contrail image representing actual contrail formation, and comparing this image with contrail forecast data to validate the improved trajectory (paragraphs [0032], [0036]). Thus, the claimed validation process involves a specific sequential operation: forecast generation, flight according to the improved trajectory, imagery capture, and comparison of actual contrail formation with forecast data to validate the trajectory. In contrast, Redondo performs only real-time measurement and analysis of imagery to identify contrail characteristics, not validation of forecast accuracy. Redondo's artificial intelligence processing at paragraph [0039] is limited to object recognition and segmentation for detecting contrails in images. It does not involve comparing imagery with forecast data, does not use forecast data as an input, and does not perform validation assessing whether prior predictions matched actual outcomes. Accordingly, Redondo fails to disclose comparing contrail imagery with contrail forecast data to validate an improved flight trajectory. Redondo describes imaging options such as onboard cameras, satellite imaging devices, or imaging devices on another aircraft or ground stations (paragraphs [0059], [0065]), but presents these as alternative observation arrangements, not a coordinated dual-device system used together for validation purposes. The claimed invention specifically requires both a first imaging device associated with the aircraft and a second imaging device associated with a distant observation system, wherein both are used to capture contrail imagery for comparison with forecast data. The specification (paragraphs [0034]-[0035]) teaches this coordinated system to obtain comprehensive imagery from multiple perspectives for validation. Redondo neither teaches nor suggests using two imaging devices in coordination for validating trajectory accuracy. Its alternative imaging setups serve only to detect or measure contrails, not to compare imagery from multiple sources with forecast data. Therefore, Redondo cannot anticipate or render obvious capturing, using a first imaging device on the aircraft and a second imaging device on a distant observation system, at least one contrail image for validation of an improved flight trajectory as claimed.
6. However, while Applicant asserts, their invention requires two imaging devices, the relevant claim limitation does not reflect such a requirement. Claim 1 recites “capturing, using a first imaging device associated with the at least one aircraft and a second imaging device associated with a distant observation system away from the at least one aircraft, at least one contrail image, wherein the at least one contrail image represents actual contrail formation during a flight of the at least one aircraft according to a flight plan having the improved flight trajectory.” Applicant has not included any limitations on combining the images from two imaging device into at least one contrail image. Accordingly, it is not clear how two different cameras produce one image. As such, the limitation above was interpreted under its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Applicant’s as alternative observation arrangements. If the Applicant believes this feature to be a crucial part of their application, the Examiner strongly encourages them to amend such a feature into the claims, assuming they have support for it in their specification, rather than arguing for features the claims simply do not reflect.
7. Furthermore, Applicant argues the Office Action asserts that it would have been obvious to modify Lamkin by incorporating Redondo's contrail measurement system “to provide a precise evaluation of contrail formation in order to adjust potential taxes to an actual contribution to climate change of a flight.” However, this rationale merely supports recording actual contrail formation for tax or compliance purposes, not validating forecast accuracy or determining the correctness of a forecast-based rerouting decision. Tax evaluation systems document past events but do not require comparison between actual and forecast data, nor do they assess whether forecast-based trajectory changes achieved predicted benefits.
8. However, as established above, the contrail formation is validated and the combination of Lamkin and Redondo teaches validating forecast accuracy or determining the correctness of a forecast-based rerouting decision. Imposing tax also motivates the airlines to verify and avoid a trajectory that causes contrail formation.
9. Furthermore, Applicant argues the claimed invention, in contrast, addresses the problem of prediction uncertainty in contrail mitigation, as discussed at paragraphs [0003]-[0004] of the specification. The invention resolves this by validating forecast accuracy through comparison of forecasted contrail formation with actual contrail imagery obtained from both onboard and distant observation systems, to determine whether the decision to alter flight parameters was correct. To arrive at the claimed invention, a skilled artisan would have to recognize this unaddressed problem of prediction uncertainty and conceive a solution involving forecast validation through dual-source imagery comparison, a concept absent from and unsupported by Lamkin or Redondo. The Examiner's reasoning relies on hindsight reconstruction of the claimed invention, and as such, the combination cannot render claim 1 obvious.
10. in this regard, it is noted that the features which applicant relies upon are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
11. As such, these arguments are unpersuasive.
12. Applicant argues independent claim(s) 12 has/have been amended similar to independent claim 1 and it/they is/are allowable for reasons similar to those presented in favor of patentability of claim 1.
13. This argument is unpersuasive as each independent claim has been fully rejected and for the reasons given above.
14. Applicant argues dependent claim(s) is/are patentable by the virtue of their dependency on one of the independent claims and the additional features recited in the dependent claims.
15. This argument is unpersuasive as each independent claim and dependent claim has been fully rejected and for the reasons given above.
Double Patenting
16. As a terminal disclaimer has been properly filed, the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection with co-pending Application No. 18/000,390 has been obviated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
17. 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.
18. Claim(s) 1, 10-12, and 14-15
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamkin et al. (US-9269205-B1) in view of Redondo et al. (EP-3961012-A1).
In regards to claim 1
, Lamkin teaches A method for determining an improved flight trajectory (Figs. 1-5, Col 1, lines 7-8: Systems and methods for measuring the environmental impact of an aircraft. Col 3, lines 1-2: System 100 is an aircraft environmental impact assessment system. Col 8, lines 34-38: The system 100 measures the carbon emissions and environmental impact of an aircraft in different airspaces, provides feedback to improve environmental impact, and gathers and stores evidence of fuel burn and generated carbon for use by regulators which encompasses determining an improved flight trajectory.), the method comprising:
receiving one or more weather parameters to determine a contrail forecast data; (Col 3, lines 1-7: An aircraft environmental impact assessment system 100 includes a one-way data interface 102 and a processing system 104. The one-way data interface 102 is adapted to continuously receive aircraft data from an aircraft data source 106, and flight management data from a flight management data source 108. Col 3, lines 34-42: The processing system 104, in response to the aircraft data, the flight management data, and inputs from at least the market data source 112, the static items data source 114, and the priority input user interface 122, evaluates the impact of the current aircraft flight profile, considering the aircraft type, the planned flight path, the weather conditions, and various market factors such as fuel price, and generates various metrics and performance data for flight crews and airlines. Col 6, lines 3-16: The processing system 104 is configured to generate various types of targeted outputs. These targeted outputs include various performance metrics for airlines, and various types of feedback for display to airline flight crews. The standard performance metrics 216 include metrics that are likely considered significant to most (if not all) operating platforms. Such metrics include, data representative of global warming potential (GWP), contrail formation, NOx formation, and instantaneous CO2 emissions. As illustrated by Fig. 2, the aircraft data source 106 includes temperature and weather radar. According to Applicant’s specification temperature is a weather parameter (See page 4, lines 11-18 of Applicant’s specification). As such, aircraft data source 106 encompasses weather parameters.)
receiving one or more flight parameters associated with at least one aircraft to
determine a flight data of the at least one aircraft; (Col 3, lines 1-7: An aircraft environmental impact assessment system 100 includes a one-way data interface 102 and a processing system 104. The one-way data interface 102 is adapted to continuously receive aircraft data from an aircraft data source 106, and flight management data from a flight management data source 108. As illustrated by Fig. 2, the aircraft data source 106 includes air speed, altitude, aircraft orientation, ground speed which according to Applicant’s specification are considered as the flight parameters (See page 10, lines 32-35 of Applicant’s specification). As such, aircraft data source 106 encompasses flight parameters.)
receiving a flight schedule comprising at least one flight plan of at the least one aircraft, wherein the flight schedule pertains to a given period of time; (Col 3, lines 1-7: An aircraft environmental impact assessment system 100 includes a one-way data interface 102 and a processing system 104. The one-way data interface 102 is adapted to continuously receive aircraft data from an aircraft data source 106, and flight management data from a flight management data source 108. As illustrated by Fig. 2, the flight management data source 108 includes the flight plan which according to Applicant’s specification is considered as the flight schedule (See page 5, lines 14-16 of Applicant’s specification). As such, aircraft data source 106 encompasses flight parameters.)
analyzing the at least one flight plan to determine at least one navigational avoidance between the at least one aircraft and a second aircraft; (Col 4, lines 20-25: The flight management data source 108 is implemented using devices, sensors, and systems that provide various types of real-time flight management data 204. Such systems includes the aircraft flight management system (FMS) and the aircraft traffic collision avoidance system (TCAS). An aircraft traffic collision avoidance system, necessarily analyzes the flight plan to determine navigational avoidance between the aircraft with a second aircraft.)
determining, based on the contrail forecast data, the flight data and the at least one flight plan, a contrail likelihood associated with the at least one aircraft; (Col 6, lines 3-16: The processing system 104 is configured to generate various types of targeted outputs. These targeted outputs include various performance metrics for airlines, and various types of feedback for display to airline flight crews. The standard performance metrics 216 include metrics that are likely considered significant to most (if not all) operating platforms. Such metrics include, data representative of global warming potential (GWP), contrail formation, NOx formation, and instantaneous CO2 emissions. The targeted output of contrail formation encompasses determining a contrail likelihood associated with the at least one aircraft. As illustrated by Fig. 2, aircraft data source 106 is an input to the processing system 104. That is, the various types of targeted outputs, including contrail formation, are generated based on the aircraft data source.)
altering, based on the at least one navigational avoidance and the contrail likelihood, the one or more flight parameters of the at least one aircraft to determine an improved flight trajectory for the at least one flight plan; (Col 3, lines 34-61: The processing system 104, in response to the aircraft data, the flight management data, and inputs from at least the market data source 112, the static items data source 114, and the priority input user interface 122, evaluates the impact of the current aircraft flight profile, considering the aircraft type, the planned flight path, the weather conditions, and various market factors such as fuel price, and generates various metrics and performance data for flight crews and airlines. The processing system 104 is additionally configured to combine data representative of items such as fuel burn, weight, procedural factors, wait time, and flight time, with various types of stored data, such as aircraft type information, and with pilot priorities to generate intuitive metrics, logging, and feedback for airlines and flight crews. The processing system 104 also commands the one or more display devices 124 to render one or more images representative of the real-time environmental impact of the aircraft, to thereby provide real-time feedback of the aircraft's environmental impact to the flight crew. The processing system 104 also commands the one or more display devices 124 to render one or more images representative of the recommendations for improving the real-time environmental impact of the aircraft. The recommendations varies in type and number, and includes recommended flight routes for minimized environmental impact, recommended altitudes for minimized environmental impact, recommended cruise numbers for minimized environmental impact, and pilot advisories based on ranked priorities, just to name a few. Recommending flight routes for minimized environmental impact and recommending altitudes for minimized environmental impact is altering, based on the at least one navigational avoidance and the contrail likelihood, the one or more flight parameters of the at least one aircraft to determine an improved flight trajectory for the at least one flight plan.)
sending the at least one flight plan including the improved flight trajectory to the at least one aircraft; and (Col 3, lines 48-62: The processing system 104 also commands the one or more display devices 124 to render one or more images representative of the real-time environmental impact of the aircraft, to thereby provide real-time feedback of the aircraft's environmental impact to the flight crew. The processing system 104 also commands the one or more display devices 124 to render one or more images representative of the recommendations for improving the real-time environmental impact of the aircraft. The recommendations varies in type and number, and may include, for example, recommended flight routes for minimized environmental impact, recommended altitudes for minimized environmental impact, recommended cruise numbers for minimized environmental impact, and pilot advisories based on ranked priorities, just to name a few which encompasses sending the at least one flight plan including the improved flight trajectory to the at least one aircraft.)
Lamkin does not teach validating the improved flight trajectory using an imagery data, when the at least one aircraft flies according to the at least one flight plan including the improved flight trajectory, wherein the step of validating the improved flight trajectory using the imagery data comprises:
capturing, using a first imaging device associated with the at least one aircraft and a second imaging device associated with a distant observation system away from the at least one aircraft, at least one contrail image, wherein the at least one contrail image represents actual contrail formation during a flight of the at least one aircraft according to a flight plan having the improved flight trajectory; and
comparing the at least one contrail image with the contrail forecast data to validate the improved flight trajectory of the at least one aircraft for contrail formation at a given time instant,
wherein the method further comprises:
utilizing the validated improved flight trajectory to generate at least one climatology of an average contrail likelihood over at least one geographical region; and
generating at least one environmentally-friendly flight route using the at least one climatology.
However, Redondo teaches a device and method to assess and more particularly calculate a contrail amount produced by an aircraft ([0001]). The invention also aims to provide tools to limit contrails and to provide optimized routes for minimizing contrails formation and contrails effects. The invention allows to accurately calculate a contrail formation for each flight. Data about contrails formation in real situation is accumulated and analyzed. Thereby, flights are optimized to reduce at maximum the global warming effect of the contrails formation ([0009]-[0012]). As mentioned above, data about contrails formation in real situation is accumulated and analyzed which encompasses the scenario of using the improved flight trajectory. An observation sensor for measuring an observation parameter is adapted to detect at least the presence or absence of contrail in the trail of an aircraft. However, an observation sensor is sensible enough to not only measure the presence or absence of a contrail, but to measure different parameters of one or more contrails such as their width, length, thickness, density, number, duration, etc.. An observation sensor is able to determine the presence of multiple contrails - in particular for aircrafts with two or more engines ([0018]). The processing unit is adapted to analyze imagery data from one or more observation sensor(s) based on any known image analysis technique, including image segmentation, object recognition, etc. Such software is based on artificial intelligence processing, trained with a high number of known images, at least some of them comprising one or more contrails ([0039]) which is comparing the at least one contrail image with the contrail forecast data to validate the improved flight trajectory of the at least one aircraft for contrail formation at a given time instant. Based on atmospheric data representative of one or more atmosphere parameter in different locations (including geographical location and altitude), the processing unit calculates a contrails value in different locations in the atmosphere. The processing unit provides a recommendation on one or more flight paths susceptible to minimize the amount of contrails formed ([0044]). The processing unit 19 is also connected to an observation sensor 21 through a communication line 23. The processing unit receives data produced by the observation sensor 21 as input. The observation sensor is a camera. The camera 21 is placed in an aft portion of the aircraft, and turned towards the aft of the aircraft so as to be able to acquire images of a trail of the aircraft in the atmosphere. Thereby the camera 21 acquires images of the atmosphere that comprise contrails 26 formed by the engines 24 of the aircraft 18 on-board which it is mounted. By being oriented towards the back of the aircraft, and more particularly towards a region of the atmosphere in which the aircraft 18 has already flown, the camera 21 acquires good images of the contrails 26 formed by the aircraft. Indeed the contrails often form at some distance after the engines exhaust, such that a camera turned towards a lateral side of the aircraft, behind the engines may not be able to acquire images of all contrails 16 formed. Moreover, by placing the camera 21 in the back of the aircraft and towards its trail, the extent and duration of the contrails 26 is extracted from the images acquired by the camera 21 ([0059], Fig. 1) which acts as the first imaging device associated with the at least one aircraft. The processing unit 19 receives observation data from an observation sensor such as: a satellite imaging device 21a, an imaging device 21b on-board a second aircraft 18b following the path of the aircraft 18a the contrails 26 of which are to be evaluated, a ground station imaging device 21c ([0065], Fig. 2) which acts as a distant observation system away from the at least one aircraft. Calculating a contrails value in different locations in the atmosphere is generating climatology of an average contrail likelihood over at least one geographical region. As mentioned above, the system verifies the formation of contrails. Accordingly, the verification process determines whether the current trajectory is the optimal trajectory or not. If contrails are not formed, then the trajectory is the optimal trajectory. Otherwise, the system provides another optimized route. Since the verification is performed in real-time, the determined optimal trajectory will be validated. As such, providing optimized routes for minimizing contrails formation and contrails effects is generating at least one environmentally-friendly flight route using the at least one climatology.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify aircraft environmental impact measurement system of Lamkin, by incorporating the teachings of Redondo, such that the processing unit of Redondo uses a camera, placed in an aft portion of the aircraft, to capture images of the contrail formation and then analyzes the images, using any known image analysis technique such as comparing the images, to calculate a contrails value in different locations in the atmosphere and provides optimized routes for minimizing contrails formation.
The motivation to modify is that, as acknowledged by Redondo, to provide a precise evaluation of contrail formation in order to adjust potential taxes to an actual contribution to climate change of a flight ([0010]) which one of ordinary skill would have recognized may help us to limit global warming.
In regards to claim 10
, Lamkin, as modified by Redondo, teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the one or more weather parameters is selected from: a temperature, a pressure, a water vapor and ice water content, vapor pressure of air and saturated vapor pressure, wind vectors, number of ice particles in a cloud and corresponding particle size, and incoming and outgoing radiation energy in an atmospheric column. (Fig. 2, Col 3, lines 1-7: An aircraft environmental impact assessment system 100 includes a one-way data interface 102 and a processing system 104. The one-way data interface 102 is adapted to continuously receive aircraft data from an aircraft data source 106, and flight management data from a flight management data source 108. As illustrated by Fig. 2, the aircraft data source 106 includes temperature and weather radar. Temperature acts as the one or more weather parameters.)
In regards to claim 11
, Lamkin, as modified by Redondo, teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the one or more flight parameters is selected from: a date and time of a flight, a destination, a trajectory, a flight altitude, an expected arrival at the destination, a speed, a latitude for flying the at least one aircraft, a longitude for flying the at least one aircraft, a heading, a payload, an operating characteristic of a particular aircraft type, and a fuel data. (Fig. 2, Col 3, lines 1-7: An aircraft environmental impact assessment system 100 includes a one-way data interface 102 and a processing system 104. The one-way data interface 102 is adapted to continuously receive aircraft data from an aircraft data source 106, and flight management data from a flight management data source 108. As illustrated by Fig. 2, the aircraft data source 106 includes air speed, altitude, aircraft orientation, ground speed, date/time and GNSS location of the aircraft.)
In regards to claim 12
, Lamkin teaches A system for determining an improved flight trajectory (Figs. 1-5, Col 3, lines 1-2: System 100 is an aircraft environmental impact assessment system. Col 8, lines 34-38: The system 100 measures the carbon emissions and environmental impact of an aircraft in different airspaces, provides feedback to improve environmental impact, and gathers and stores evidence of fuel burn and generated carbon for use by regulators which encompasses determining an improved flight trajectory.), the system comprising a processor (Col 9, lines 9-10: A general-purpose processor is a microprocessor.), wherein the processor is configured to:
receive one or more weather parameters to determine a contrail forecast data; (Col 3, lines 1-7: An aircraft environmental impact assessment system 100 includes a one-way data interface 102 and a processing system 104. The one-way data interface 102 is adapted to continuously receive aircraft data from an aircraft data source 106, and flight management data from a flight management data source 108. Col 3, lines 34-42: The processing system 104, in response to the aircraft data, the flight management data, and inputs from at least the market data source 112, the static items data source 114, and the priority input user interface 122, evaluates the impact of the current aircraft flight profile, considering the aircraft type, the planned flight path, the weather conditions, and various market factors such as fuel price, and generates various metrics and performance data for flight crews and airlines. Col 6, lines 3-16: The processing system 104 is configured to generate various types of targeted outputs. These targeted outputs include various performance metrics for airlines, and various types of feedback for display to airline flight crews. The standard performance metrics 216 include metrics that are likely considered significant to most (if not all) operating platforms. Such metrics include, data representative of global warming potential (GWP), contrail formation, NOx formation, and instantaneous CO2 emissions. As illustrated by Fig. 2, the aircraft data source 106 includes temperature and weather radar. According to Applicant’s specification temperature is a weather parameter (See page 4, lines 11-18 of Applicant’s specification). As such, aircraft data source 106 encompasses weather parameters.)
receive one or more flight parameters associated with at least one aircraft to determine a flight data of the at least one aircraft; (Col 3, lines 1-7: An aircraft environmental impact assessment system 100 includes a one-way data interface 102 and a processing system 104. The one-way data interface 102 is adapted to continuously receive aircraft data from an aircraft data source 106, and flight management data from a flight management data source 108. As illustrated by Fig. 2, the aircraft data source 106 includes air speed, altitude, aircraft orientation, ground speed which according to Applicant’s specification are considered as the flight parameters (See page 10, lines 32-35 of Applicant’s specification). As such, aircraft data source 106 encompasses flight parameters.)
receive a flight schedule comprising at least one flight plan of the at least one aircraft, wherein the flight schedule pertains to a given period of time; (Col 3, lines 1-7: An aircraft environmental impact assessment system 100 includes a one-way data interface 102 and a processing system 104. The one-way data interface 102 is adapted to continuously receive aircraft data from an aircraft data source 106, and flight management data from a flight management data source 108. As illustrated by Fig. 2, the flight management data source 108 includes the flight plan which according to Applicant’s specification is considered as the flight schedule (See page 5, lines 14-16 of Applicant’s specification). As such, aircraft data source 106 encompasses flight parameters.)
analyze the at least one flight plan to determine at least one navigational avoidance between the at least one aircraft and a second aircraft; (Col 4, lines 20-25: The flight management data source 108 is implemented using devices, sensors, and systems that provide various types of real-time flight management data 204. Such systems includes the aircraft flight management system (FMS) and the aircraft traffic collision avoidance system (TCAS). An aircraft traffic collision avoidance system, necessarily analyzes the flight plan to determine navigational avoidance between the aircraft with a second aircraft.)
determine, based on the contrail forecast data, the flight data and the at least one flight plan, a contrail likelihood associated with the at least one aircraft; (Col 6, lines 3-16: The processing system 104 is configured to generate various types of targeted outputs. These targeted outputs include various performance metrics for airlines, and various types of feedback for display to airline flight crews. The standard performance metrics 216 include metrics that are likely considered significant to most (if not all) operating platforms. Such metrics include, data representative of global warming potential (GWP), contrail formation, NOx formation, and instantaneous CO2 emissions. The targeted output of contrail formation encompasses determining a contrail likelihood associated with the at least one aircraft. As illustrated by Fig. 2, aircraft data source 106 is an input to the processing system 104. That is, the various types of targeted outputs, including contrail formation, are generated based on the aircraft data source.)
alter, based on the at least one navigational avoidance and the contrail likelihood, the one or more flight parameters of the at least one aircraft to determine an improved flight trajectory for the at least one flight plan; (Col 3, lines 34-61: The processing system 104, in response to the aircraft data, the flight management data, and inputs from at least the market data source 112, the static items data source 114, and the priority input user interface 122, evaluates the impact of the current aircraft flight profile, considering the aircraft type, the planned flight path, the weather conditions, and various market factors such as fuel price, and generates various metrics and performance data for flight crews and airlines. The processing system 104 is additionally configured to combine data representative of items such as fuel burn, weight, procedural factors, wait time, and flight time, with various types of stored data, such as aircraft type information, and with pilot priorities to generate intuitive metrics, logging, and feedback for airlines and flight crews. The processing system 104 also commands the one or more display devices 124 to render one or more images representative of the real-time environmental impact of the aircraft, to thereby provide real-time feedback of the aircraft's environmental impact to the flight crew. The processing system 104 also commands the one or more display devices 124 to render one or more images representative of the recommendations for improving the real-time environmental impact of the aircraft. The recommendations varies in type and number, and includes recommended flight routes for minimized environmental impact, recommended altitudes for minimized environmental impact, recommended cruise numbers for minimized environmental impact, and pilot advisories based on ranked priorities, just to name a few. Recommending flight routes for minimized environmental impact and recommending altitudes for minimized environmental impact is altering, based on the at least one navigational avoidance and the contrail likelihood, the one or more flight parameters of the at least one aircraft to determine an improved flight trajectory for the at least one flight plan.)
send the at least one flight plan including the improved flight trajectory to the at least one aircraft; and (Col 3, lines 48-62: The processing system 104 also commands the one or more display devices 124 to render one or more images representative of the real-time environmental impact of the aircraft, to thereby provide real-time feedback of the aircraft's environmental impact to the flight crew. The processing system 104 also commands the one or more display devices 124 to render one or more images representative of the recommendations for improving the real-time environmental impact of the aircraft. The recommendations varies in type and number, and may include, for example, recommended flight routes for minimized environmental impact, recommended altitudes for minimized environmental impact, recommended cruise numbers for minimized environmental impact, and pilot advisories based on ranked priorities, just to name a few which encompasses sending the at least one flight plan including the improved flight trajectory to the at least one aircraft.)
Lamkin does not teach validate the improved flight trajectory using an imagery data, when the at least one aircraft flies according to the at least one flight plan including the improved flight trajectory,
wherein the system further comprises a first imaging device associated with the at least one aircraft or a second imaging device associated with a distant observation system away from the at least one aircraft, wherein the first imaging device or the second imaging device is configured to capture at least one contrail image, wherein the at least one contrail image represents actual contrail formation during a flight of the at least one aircraft according to a flight plan having the improved flight trajectory,
wherein the processor is configured to compare the at least one contrail image with the contrail forecast data to validate the improved flight trajectory of the at least one aircraft for contrail formation at a given time instant, and
wherein the processor is configured to:
utilize the validated improved flight trajectory to generate at least one climatology of an average contrail likelihood over at least one geographical region; and
generate at least one environmentally-friendly flight route using the at least one climatology.
However, Redondo teaches a device and method to assess and more particularly calculate a contrail amount produced by an aircraft ([0001]). The invention also aims to provide tools to limit contrails and to provide optimized routes for minimizing contrails formation and contrails effects. The invention allows to accurately calculate a contrail formation for each flight. Data about contrails formation in real situation is accumulated and analyzed. Thereby, flights are optimized to reduce at maximum the global warming effect of the contrails formation ([0009]-[0012]). As mentioned above, data about contrails formation in real situation is accumulated and analyzed which encompasses the scenario of using the improved flight trajectory. An observation sensor for measuring an observation parameter is adapted to detect at least the presence or absence of contrail in the trail of an aircraft. However, an observation sensor is sensible enough to not only measure the presence or absence of a contrail, but to measure different parameters of one or more contrails such as their width, length, thickness, density, number, duration, etc.. An observation sensor is able to determine the presence of multiple contrails - in particular for aircrafts with two or more engines ([0018]). The processing unit is adapted to analyze imagery data from one or more observation sensor(s) based on any known image analysis technique, including image segmentation, object recognition, etc. Such software is based on artificial intelligence processing, trained with a high number of known images, at least some of them comprising one or more contrails ([0039]) which is comparing the at least one contrail image with the contrail forecast data to validate the improved flight trajectory of the at least one aircraft for contrail formation at a given time instant. Based on atmospheric data representative of one or more atmosphere parameter in different locations (including geographical location and altitude), the processing unit calculates a contrails value in different locations in the atmosphere. The processing unit provides a recommendation on one or more flight paths susceptible to minimize the amount of contrails formed ([0044]). The processing unit 19 is also connected to an observation sensor 21 through a communication line 23. The processing unit receives data produced by the observation sensor 21 as input. The observation sensor is a camera. The camera 21 is placed in an aft portion of the aircraft, and turned towards the aft of the aircraft so as to be able to acquire images of a trail of the aircraft in the atmosphere. Thereby the camera 21 acquires images of the atmosphere that comprise contrails 26 formed by the engines 24 of the aircraft 18 on-board which it is mounted. By being oriented towards the back of the aircraft, and more particularly towards a region of the atmosphere in which the aircraft 18 has already flown, the camera 21 acquires good images of the contrails 26 formed by the aircraft. Indeed the contrails often form at some distance after the engines exhaust, such that a camera turned towards a lateral side of the aircraft, behind the engines may not be able to acquire images of all contrails 16 formed. Moreover, by placing the camera 21 in the back of the aircraft and towards its trail, the extent and duration of the contrails 26 is extracted from the images acquired by the camera 21 ([0059], Fig. 1) which acts as the first imaging device associated with the at least one aircraft. The processing unit 19 receives observation data from an observation sensor such as: a satellite imaging device 21a, an imaging device 21b on-board a second aircraft 18b following the path of the aircraft 18a the contrails 26 of which are to be evaluated, a ground station imaging device 21c ([0065], Fig. 2) which acts as a distant observation system away from the at least one aircraft. Calculating a contrails value in different locations in the atmosphere is generating climatology of an average contrail likelihood over at least one geographical region. As mentioned above, the system verifies the formation of contrails. Accordingly, the verification process determines whether the current trajectory is the optimal trajectory or not. If contrails are not formed, then the trajectory is the optimal trajectory. Otherwise, the system provides another optimized route. Since the verification is performed in real-time, the determined optimal trajectory will be validated. As such, providing optimized routes for minimizing contrails formation and contrails effects is generating at least one environmentally-friendly flight route using the at least one climatology.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify aircraft environmental impact measurement system of Lamkin, by incorporating the teachings of Redondo, such that the processing unit of Redondo uses a camera, placed in an aft portion of the aircraft, to capture images of the contrail formation and then analyzes the images, using any known image analysis technique such as comparing the images, to calculate a contrails value in different locations in the atmosphere and provides optimized routes for minimizing contrails formation.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Redondo in regards to claim 1.
In regards to claim 14
, Lamkin, as modified by Redondo, teaches The system according to claim 12.
Further, Redondo teaches observation data is acquired by an observation sensor, such as a camera for example. However the observation sensor may be of any other type, such as a radar, a lidar, etc. ([0070]). According to Applicant’s specification Lidar is an active remove sensing system (See page 9, lines 19-33). The processing unit is adapted to analyze the duration and/or geometrical evolution - including density - of the contrail during time, for example based on satellite imagery, ground imagery, or other imagery obtained by aircrafts flying after the evaluated flight ([0051]). According to Applicant’s specification an earth observation sensor and satellites are passive remove sensing system (See page 9, lines 19-33). Camera 21 is located in the back of the aircraft and towards its trail ([0059], Fig. 1) which is an in-situ measurement system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify aircraft environmental impact measurement system of Lamkin, as already modified by Redondo, by further incorporating the teachings of Redondo, such that lidar, satellite and on-board sensing devices are used to obtain contrail images.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Redondo in regards to claim 1.
In regards to claim 15
, Lamkin, as modified by Redondo, teaches A computer program product for determining an improved flight trajectory, the computer program product comprising a non-transitory machine-readable data storage medium having stored thereon program instructions that, when accessed by a processor, cause the processor to execute steps of the method of claim 1. (Col 9, lines 17-24: The steps of a method or algorithm embodied directly in hardware, in a software module executed by a processor, or in a combination of the two. A software module resides in RAM memory, flash memory, ROM memory, EPROM memory, EEPROM memory, registers, hard disk, a removable disk, a CD-ROM, or any other form of storage medium known in the art which encompasses a non-transitory machine-readable data storage medium.)
19. Claim(s) 3-5
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamkin et al. (US-9269205-B1) in view of Redondo et al. (EP-3961012-A1) and further is view of Non-patent Literature Irvine et al. “A simple framework for assessing the tradeoff between the climate impact of aviation carbon dioxide emissions and contrails for a single flight.”
In regards to claim 3
, Lamkin, as modified by Redondo, teaches The method according to claim 1.
Lamkin, as modified by Redondo, does not explicitly teach determining carbon dioxide emissions for a given flight of the at least one aircraft, based on the flight plan of the at least one aircraft and the contrail likelihood associated with the at least one aircraft; and
calculating a carbon dioxide equivalent for the given flight, based on the carbon dioxide emissions, wherein the step of altering one or more flight parameters associated with the given flight is performed in a manner that an improved flight trajectory for the flight plan of the at least one aircraft minimizes the carbon dioxide equivalent for the given flight.
However, Irvine teaches the ice-supersaturated regions (ISSRs) are where contrails form frequently occur in relatively shallow layers (Page 1, Introduction, Figure 1). At the flight planning stage, an aircraft is predicted to encounter an ISSR along its proposed route. An alternative route is found, at the same altitude, which avoids the ISSR but increases the flight length. Considering only the climate impact of the contrails and CO2 emissions (thus neglecting other non-CO2 emissions that have a climate effect such as oxides of nitrogen, NOx), the new route is preferable only if the climate impact of the CO2 emissions from flying the additional distance are smaller than the climate impact of the avoided contrail (Page 2, Col 1) which encompasses determining carbon dioxide emissions for a given flight and calculating a carbon dioxide equivalent for the given flight and altering the route when the alternate flight route minimizes carbon dioxide equivalent for the given flight.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify aircraft environmental impact measurement system of Lamkin, as already modified by Redondo, by incorporating the teachings of Irvine, such that when a flight route is predicted to encounter an ISSR, an alternative route is found and the climate impact of the contrails and CO2 emissions of the routes are compared and the aircraft is re-routed when the climate impact of the CO2 emissions from flying the additional distance are smaller than the climate impact of the avoided contrail.
The motivation to modify is that, as acknowledged by Irvine, persistent contrails are an important climate impact of aviation which could potentially be reduced by re-routing aircraft to avoid contrailing (Abstract) which one of ordinary skill would have recognized will help with CO2 emissions.
In regards to claim 4
, Lamkin, as modified by Redondo, teaches The method according to claim 1.
Lamkin, as modified by Redondo, does not explicitly teach wherein a minimization of the contrail likelihood is associated with increase in a carbon offset value, and wherein the carbon offset value is associated with a fuel utilized for the at least one aircraft.
However, Irvine teaches the amount of additional CO2 emissions is the product of the distance, the fuel flow and EICO2. Increasing the flight distance requires the aircraft to carry additional fuel, which increases the weight of the aircraft and thus also increases the fuel burn. The most effective way of reducing contrail formation for small increase in fuel burn is through a combination of horizontal re-routing with altitude changes. Altitude changes might cause a fuel penalty to account for the increase in fuel burn from flying at a sub-optimal altitude (Page 3, Col 1). If the contrail length was 100 km and dx was 22.5 km, then based on the results in table 1, dxmax is always greater than dx so it is climatically beneficial to fly the alternative route and avoid the contrail (Page 4, col 2, Tables 1-2, Equation 1, Fig. 1) which is increasing the carbon offset value associated with the flight length.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify aircraft environmental impact measurement system of Lamkin, as already modified by Redondo, by incorporating the teachings of Irvine, such that the aircraft is re-routed when it is climatically beneficial to fly the alternative route by avoiding contrail formation and minimizing CO2 emission.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Irvine in regards to claim 3.
In regards to claim 5
, Lamkin, as modified by Redondo and Irvine, teaches The method according to claim 4, further comprising assessing a fuel burn penalty or fuel savings achieved, based on the fuel utilized for the given flight. (Col 1, lines 19-29: Airlines and air crews need a way to measure carbon emissions and environmental impact of their aircraft in different airspaces. Airlines and air crews also need a way to receive feedback regarding their real-time carbon footprint so that this data is used to plan and optimize their operations, while at the same time balancing cost and flight schedule. Moreover, the monetary value of so-called “carbon credits” and carbon footprint is high. Therefore, reliable evidence of fuel burn and generated carbon will need to be available to regulators to confirm claimed savings. Col 3, lines 42-44: The processing system 104 is additionally configured to combine data representative of items such as fuel burn. Col 8, lines 15-18: The aircraft data that are retrieved and stored may vary, but includes time tags, remaining fuel, fuel burn rate, engine temperatures, aircraft position, and aircraft altitude, just to name a few. The fuel burn and generated carbon acts as the fuel burn penalty.)
20. Claim(s) 7-9
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamkin et al. (US-9269205-B1) in view of Redondo et al. (EP-3961012-A1) and further is view of Rahmes et al. (US-8660716-B1).
In regards to claim 7
, Lamkin, as modified by Redondo, teaches The method according to claim 1.
Lamkin, as modified by Redondo, does not teach executing an electronic flight bag (EFB) software on an EFB device to support in-air tactical response.
However, Rahmes teaches the display unit 106 is located in the cockpit of the aircraft is graphical display, such as an electronic flight bag (“EFB”) display (Fig. 1, Col 3, lines 40-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify aircraft environmental impact measurement system of Lamkin, as already modified by Redondo, by incorporating the teachings of Rahmes, such that an electronic flight bag (“EFB”) display is used in the cockpit.
The motivation to modify is that, as acknowledged by Rahmes, an Air Navigation Service Provider (“ANSP”) analyzes the effects of airborne constraints on multiple flight routes in order to select an optimized flight route for the aircraft, thereby decreasing fuel usage, flight time, and emissions, while increasing passenger safety and comfort (Col 1, lines 17-22) which one of ordinary skill would have recognized allows the flight to be more economical and environmental-friendly.
In regards to claim 8
, Lamkin, as modified by Redondo, teaches The method according to claim 1.
Lamkin, as modified by Redondo, does not teach executing an air navigation service provider (ANSP) software for enabling at least one air navigation task to be performed.
However, Rahmes teaches the display of the comparative VSDs for the flight routes may aid the flight crew of the aircraft or route planning personnel at the airline's operation center (“AOC”) or an Air Navigation Service Provider (“ANSP”) in analyzing and selecting an optimized flight route for the aircraft (Col 2, lines 36-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify aircraft environmental impact measurement system of Lamkin, as already modified by Redondo, by incorporating the teachings of Rahmes, such that an air navigation service provider (ANSP) is used for selecting an optimized flight route.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Rahmes in regards to claim 7.
In regards to claim 9
, Lamkin, as modified by Redondo, teaches The method according to claim 1.
Lamkin, as modified by Redondo, does not teach providing, on an interactive user interface of a display device, at least one of: the one or more weather parameters, the contrail forecast data, the one or more flight parameters, the flight data, the flight schedule, the contrail likelihood, the improved flight trajectory, the imagery data, the validated improved flight trajectory, the at least one environmentally-friendly flight route, the carbon dioxide equivalent, the carbon offset value, the fuel burn penalty or fuel savings achieved.
However, Rahmes teaches the alternate or proposed routes exist in a database within the route planning system 100, and are provided to the comparative vertical situation display module 102 directly through a user interface connected to the route planning system. In addition to the active and proposed flight routes, the navigation/route information 104 containing other data regarding the flight routes or navigation of the aircraft, including navigation waypoints, divergence waypoints, convergence waypoints, point locations of known hazards, airport locations, geographic maps, topography maps, satellite maps, and the like (Col 3, lines 29-39) are displayed. The alternate or proposed routes is the improved flight trajectory.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify aircraft environmental impact measurement system of Lamkin, as already modified by Redondo, by incorporating the teachings of Rahmes, such that the alternate or proposed route is displayed through a user interface.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Rahmes in regards to claim 7.
Conclusion
21. The prior art made of record
and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bailey et al. (US-20130085669-A1) teaches a method for processing flight information.
Judd et al. (US-20080167885-A1) teaches a collision avoidance system (TCAS).
Mannstein et al. (US-20120173147-A1) teaches a device and a method for determining and indicating, on board of an airplane climate-relevant effects of a contrail produced by the airplane.
Harrington (US-20090290761-A1) teaches a data processing system that interacts with several cameras, hemispherical lens, telephoto lens, and movable platform, to monitor and track contrails formed by high-altitude aircraft in the visible sky.
Harrington et al. (US-20090319164-A1) teaches a method for controlling aircraft contrail placement including detecting an aircraft contrail.
LaCivita et al. (US-20210183253-A1) teaches an aircraft flight strategy selection system and method determine one or more possible flight strategies for an aircraft.
Bailey (US-20110054718-A1) teaches a method and apparatus for providing weather information for a trajectory of an aircraft.
Bailey et al. (US-20200105147-A1) teaches vertical flight path optimization by generating a plurality of waypoints with allowable parameters for a flightpath.
Fletcher et al. (US-20220403790-A1) teaches a method of mitigating contrails produced by an aircraft.
Non-patent Literature Irvine et al. “The dependence of contrail formation on the weather pattern and altitude in the North Atlantic” teaches the effect of weather situation, together with the route and altitude of the aircraft on estimating contrail coverage.
Non-patent Literature Abramson et al. “Design of a decision support system to reduce net radiative forcing via optimal contrail generation” teaches a method for aircraft contrail generation optimization.
Non-patent Literature Teoh et al. “Mitigating the Climate Forcing of Aircraft Contrails by Small-Scale Diversions and Technology Adoption” teaches a small-scale strategy of diverting the airplanes to reduce the contrail formation.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Preston J Miller whose telephone number is (703)756-1582. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM 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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571) 272-6011. 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.
/P.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3661 /RAMYA P BURGESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661