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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to Applicant’s Amendments dated October 14, 2025, the previous rejections under the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn, new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are issued, and an objection to the specification is issued.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed October 14, 2025, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant states that Lebbos does not teach to align aircraft based on contrails, however, the aircraft are aligned based on the atmospheric disturbances that do create contrails (Paragraph [0010], “The invention offers strategies to enable two aircraft to meet together and for one (i.e. the follower aircraft) to place itself in the desired position in the wake of the other (i.e. the leader aircraft) for generating fuel savings”). The association of contrails and vortices is provided by Unterstrasser (Abstract, “Flying in the upwash region of an aircraft’s wake vortex field is aerodynamically advantageous. It saves fuel and concomitantly reduces the carbon foot print. However, 𝐶𝑂2 emissions are only one contribution to the aviation climate impact among several others . In this study, we employ an established large eddy simulation model with a fully coupled particle-based ice microphysics code and simulate the evolution of contrails that were produced behind formations of two aircraft.”). Applicant further states that neither Lebbos nor Unterstrasser include an auto-pilot control, however, automatic flight control is taught by Schultz (Paragraph [0020], “According to further aspects of the present invention, the command and control system is configured to display aircraft status, navigation and surveillance information, alerts, and guidance commands or 4D flight paths provided by the flight computer and to process guidance commands or 4D flight paths to control the aircraft.”). Finally, Applicant now amends the limitations to include that the overlapping region includes persistent contrails, and notes the prior rejection did not include the detection of persistent contrails. However, this is now taught by the inclusion of Lincoln (US 20240167426 A1). Therefore, Applicant arguments are unpersuasive. The remaining arguments are essentially the same as those addressed above, and are moot and/or unpersuasive for essentially the same reasons.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 06/04/2024 is being considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract uses language which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc. Specifically, the abstract states, “The present disclosure provides …” which is implied. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-11, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being as being unpatentable by Lebbos (US 20210192961 A1), previously of record, herein after referred to simply as Lebbos, further in view of Unterstrasser (“Contrail Mitigation …”), previously of record, Schultz (US 20100292871 A1), previously of record, and Lincoln (US 20240167426 A1), newly of record, herein after referred to simply as Lebbos, Unterstrasser, Schultz, and Lincoln.
Regarding Claim 1,
Lebbos discloses the following limitations,
detecting, by one or more computing devices including one or more processors in communication with one or more non-transitory memories, on environmental conditions in an overlay region, (Paragraph [0143], “Additionally, identifying pairs of interest in the coarse filter step 104 could be rendered more precise and reliable by analyzing flight history data, with or without formation flight, tracks flown, weather history and future predictions, schedules and delay statistics, rerouting occurrences, etc.” – past and future weather are environmental conditions, and Paragraph [0153], “The systems and devices described herein may include a controller or a computing device comprising a processing unit and a memory which has stored therein computer-executable instructions for implementing the processes described herein.” – on the use of a computer to implement the method)
detecting, by the one or more computing devices, conditions for overlay flight routing; (Paragraph [0143], “Additionally, identifying pairs of interest in the coarse filter step 104 could be rendered more precise and reliable by analyzing flight history data, with or without formation flight, tracks flown, weather history and future predictions, schedules and delay statistics, rerouting occurrences, etc.” – past and future weather are environmental conditions which weigh on the determination of overlay flight routing)
identifying, by the one or more computing devices, using the environmental conditions and a first route for a first aircraft, an overlay area … (Paragraph [0053], “Accordingly, the process 100 includes a coarse filtering step 104 which filters the large number of flight plans in the database 102 and so the even larger number of potential leader-follower combinations by keeping only a limited number of possible follower-leader pairs 106 satisfying specified first filtering criteria 108. It should be appreciated that the terms “follower” and “leader” are in relation to the common ground track section 26 and that these terms are arbitrarily utilized when subjecting a pair to coarse filtering 104.” – where coarse filtering to produce a number of possible pairs, in an area, is in an overlay area, Paragraph [0054], “Generally, the present processes 100 include evaluating the operational feasibility of each candidate pair against the first, or course, filtering criteria 108. The coarse filtering criteria 108 may include: during a certain time period both aircraft of a potential pair must be airborne; the pair should have overlapping routes for a significant part of the flight; the two aircraft must not be flying further than 300 NM apart at the beginning of their overlapping route section. If the pair meets the first criteria 108, the process proceeds 100 with a fine filtering step 110 for each possible pair 106.”
identifying, by the one or more computing devices, from the overlay area and a plurality of routes for a plurality of aircraft, a common flight path portion comprising the overlay area … and a second route from the plurality of routes for a second aircraft of the plurality of aircraft; (Paragraph [0043], “The two flights 10, 12 may be planning to use the same routes to get from their departure airports to their destination airports. Their planned routes geographically overlap one another producing the common ground track section 26. On this shared route, the present process implements a fuel saving formation flight between the two aircraft 14, 16, one playing the role of the leader aircraft 14 while the other plays the role of the follower aircraft 16.” – the common ground section 26 is selected from the filtered set of routes in an overlay area, which is a finer filtering, Paragraph [0054], “Generally, the present processes 100 include evaluating the operational feasibility of each candidate pair against the first, or course, filtering criteria 108. The coarse filtering criteria 108 may include: during a certain time period both aircraft of a potential pair must be airborne; the pair should have overlapping routes for a significant part of the flight; the two aircraft must not be flying further than 300 NM apart at the beginning of their overlapping route section. If the pair meets the first criteria 108, the process proceeds 100 with a fine filtering step 110 for each possible pair 106.”)
identifying, by the one or more computing devices, at least one change to a base flight plan for the second aircraft to provide a rendezvous for the second aircraft to fly within the overlay area over the common flight path portion; (Paragraph [0102], “In this embodiment, for each possible pair of flights, the process 100 (will) modify the flight plan of the follower aircraft by simulating earlier merge points and later spilt points with the flight plan 10 of the leader aircraft 14, so as to have a common route 26 section longer than the one found in the original flight plans.” -– the at least one change is to have a longer overlap in the aircraft routes, which is at least applied to the second aircraft, Paragraph [0102], “Accordingly, the speed and altitude profile of both follower and leader aircraft is also modified compared to their initial flight.”)
generating, by the one or more computing devices, a plurality of updated flight plans with one or more of the at least one change to the base flight plan for the second aircraft; (Paragraph [0102], “In this embodiment, for each possible pair of flights, the process 100 (will) modify the flight plan of the follower aircraft by simulating earlier merge points and later spilt points with the flight plan 10 of the leader aircraft 14, so as to have a common route 26 section longer than the one found in the original flight plans.” -– a number of potential flight plans are generated based on the change)
selecting, by the one or more computing devices, from the plurality of updated flight plans, an improved flight pan for providing overlay objectives in the overlay area (Paragraph [0102], “Accordingly, the speed and altitude profile of both follower and leader aircraft is also modified compared to their initial flight.” – an alternative is selected)
replacing by the one or more computing devices, the base flight plan for the second aircraft with the improved flight plan (Paragraph [0102], “Accordingly, the speed and altitude profile of both follower and leader aircraft is also modified compared to their initial flight.” – the alternative plan replaces the initial plan)
and … changing the air speed of the second aircraft based on the improved flight plan (Paragraph [0102], “Accordingly, the speed and altitude profile of both follower and leader aircraft is also modified compared to their initial flight.”– the alternative plan is implemented by modifying the flight, which includes a flight airspeed)
However, Lebbos does not teach the following limitation,
wherein the overlay objectives comprise disrupting the … contrail produced by the first aircraft
However, this is taught by Unterstrasser, which teaches that a formation flight can disrupt the production of contrails (Page 1, Abstract, “The simulations demonstrate that the contrail ice mass and total extinction behind a two-aircraft formation are substantially smaller than for a corresponding case with two separate aircraft and contrails. Hence, this first study suggests that establishing formation flight may strongly reduce the contrail climate effect.”) which functions by reducing the available moisture to form contrails for the second aircraft (Page 2, Introduction, “Saturation effects can be expected when contrails of two or more aircraft are produced in close proximity as they compete for the available atmospheric water vapour and mutually inhibit their growth.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the formation flight of Lebbos with the contrail objective of Unterstrasser, as this is a means of mitigating contrail climate impact (Page 19, Summary, “Overall, the potential reductions by formation flight are quite substantial. This renders formation flight a promising measure to mitigate the contrail climate impact.”). Further, the combination is a simple substitution of elements, yielding results which are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
However, the combination of Lebbos and Unterstrasser does not teach the following limitation,
and implementing, by an auto-pilot system receiving instruction from an overlay matching system, the improved flight plan for providing the overlay objectives in the overlay area … for the second aircraft,
While Lebbos describes updating flight plans via Air Traffic Control (Paragraph [0100]) it does not describe implementing these updates via an autopilot. However, Schultz, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a connection of autopilot commands and traffic control guidance (Paragraph [0020], “According to further aspects of the present invention, the command and control system is configured to display aircraft status, navigation and surveillance information, alerts, and guidance commands or 4D flight paths provided by the flight computer and to process guidance commands or 4D flight paths to control the aircraft. … Specifically, such as in the situation of a flight director, an operator of the aircraft or ATC can be provided guidance commands or 4D flight paths on a user interface from which guidance commands or 4D flight paths can also be issued or modified. An operator of the aircraft and ATC can interact by exchanging information relayed by the communication system. The command and control system includes a Flight Control System (FCS) which processes the guidance commands or 4D flight paths issued by the flight computer or the FMS and then controls the aircraft actuators. The FCS can advantageously be an acceptable autoflight or autopilot system already accessible on the aircraft.” – Air Traffic Control can be provided guidance commands, and an autopilot can implement these commands. The delivery of guidance commands to the autopilot constitutes the overlay matching system. See further Paragraph [0038], “A surveillance and guidance method and system in accordance with the present invention combines the ability to safely and effectively guide a vehicle towards a target in the presence of obstacles while complying with traffic regulations and procedures.” ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lebbos, as previously modified by Unterstrasser, with the autopilot implementation of ATC guidance as taught by Schultz, as this enables automatic formation flight (Paragraph [0067], “Given by way of nonlimiting example, the aircraft intent can be to trail, shadow or loiter around a target for the purpose of formation flight, air refueling, air drop or rendezvous, or to gather surveillance information on or around the target.”). Further, the combination could be performed using known methods, yielding results which are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
However, the combination of Lebbos, Unterstrasser, and Schultz does not teach the following limitations,
… a control mitigation area that includes a persistent contrail;
… the overlay area including the persistent contrail …
… the persistent contrail produced by the first aircraft …
… the overlay area that includes the persistent contrail …
However, Lincoln, in the same field of endeavor, teaches to discriminate between fleeting and persistent contrails, and react differently based on this determination, so that persistent contrail can be mitigated (Paragraph [0027], “The machine readable instructions 120 can include instructions configured to cause the controller 118 to reroute subsequent flights 153 after a sensor onboard a prior flight, e.g. the aircraft 10 in FIG. 3, following the intended route 144 detects formation of persistent contrails 106 on the prior flight so the subsequent flights 153 can follow the improved route 146 to reduce or eliminate persistent contrails 106. The machine readable instructions 120 can include instructions configured to cause the controller 118 to predict formation of persistent contrails on the intended route 144 and to reroute all flights 10, 153 from the intended route 144 to the improved route 146 for a period of time as long as conditions for the formation of persistent contrails 106 on the intended route 144 persist.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the vehicle routing of Lebbos, previously modified with Unterstrasser and Schultz, with the detection of persistent contrails as taught By Lincoln, as persistent contrails are of interest for being mitigated, while fleeting contrails are not (Paragraph [0018], “The systems and methods described herein can be used to detect contrails, discriminate between fleeting and persistent contrails, and control to reduce or avoid formation of persistent contrails.”). Further, the combination is a simple substitution of elements yielding results which are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 2,
The combination of Lebbos, Unterstrasser, Schultz, and Lincoln, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Unterstrasser further teaches the following limitations,
wherein the overlay objectives further comprise: overlaying a contrail produced by the second aircraft in the overlay area with a contrail produced by the first aircraft; and minimizing the contrail produced by the second aircraft based on a lower ambient moisture content due to a formation of the contrail produced by the first aircraft (Page 2, Introduction, “contrails of two or more aircraft … produced in close proximity … compete for the available atmospheric water vapour and mutually inhibit their growth.”)
Regarding Claim 3,
The combination of Lebbos, Unterstrasser, Schultz, and Lincoln, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. Lebbos further discloses the following limitations,
wherein identifying the overlay area comprises: identifying the first aircraft from the plurality of aircraft based on the environmental conditions and a location of the first aircraft at a first time relative to the overlay region (Paragraph [0143], “Additionally, identifying pairs of interest in the coarse filter step 104 could be rendered more precise and reliable by analyzing flight history data, with or without formation flight, tracks flown, weather history and future predictions, schedules and delay statistics, rerouting occurrences, etc.” – past and future weather are environmental conditions which weigh on the determination of overlay flight routing, which includes determining the location of an aircraft at a first time, Paragraph [0054], “Generally, the present processes 100 include evaluating the operational feasibility of each candidate pair against the first, or course, filtering criteria 108. The coarse filtering criteria 108 may include: during a certain time period both aircraft of a potential pair must be airborne; the pair should have overlapping routes for a significant part of the flight; the two aircraft must not be flying further than 300 NM apart at the beginning of their overlapping route section. If the pair meets the first criteria 108, the process proceeds 100 with a fine filtering step 110 for each possible pair 106.”)
identifying a contrail path produced by the first aircraft traveling through the overlay region (Paragraph [0074], “In this step 206, the previous process of simulating the different phases of the follower's flight is repeated. The difference in this case is that the process 100 simulates getting the follower aircraft within a, for instance, 3 NM distance behind the leader aircraft. This formation position is to be acquired as close as possible to the previously described merge point. Moreover, the process takes into account in the simulation the effect of flying in the upwash region of the trailing vortices of the leader aircraft for the rest of the common section.” – aircraft contrails can present themselves in the vortices of an aircraft, either being swept into such vortices or directly produced by the pressure drop of such vortices , thus, putting the vehicle within a wake of one another includes identifying a contrail path within the overlay region)
identifying the overlay area relative to the contrail path produced by the first aircraft, wherein a following traveling through the overlay area alters at least one of the contrail path produce by the first aircraft and a contrail path produced by the following aircraft (Paragraph [0074], “In this step 206, the previous process of simulating the different phases of the follower's flight is repeated. The difference in this case is that the process 100 simulates getting the follower aircraft within a, for instance, 3 NM distance behind the leader aircraft. This formation position is to be acquired as close as possible to the previously described merge point. Moreover, the process takes into account in the simulation the effect of flying in the upwash region of the trailing vortices of the leader aircraft for the rest of the common section.” – the upwash region has an effect on the follower aircraft, thus, its contrail path would be altered in accordance with this disturbance of the air. The overlay area is the region found in the coarse filtering, which is reduced to the area of the finetuning for a reduced overlay area, and the location of the second aircraft’s route within this area in combination with the area itself is the common flight portion)
Regarding Claim 4,
The combination of Lebbos, Unterstrasser, Schultz, and Lincoln, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. Lebbos further discloses the following limitations,
identifying the at least one change to the base flight plan for the second aircraft comprises determining one or more updated airspeeds for the second aircraft to position the aircraft within the overlay area; (Paragraph [0102], “Accordingly, the speed and altitude profile of both follower and leader aircraft is also modified compared to their initial flight.”)
and, selecting the improved flight plan comprises selecting a rendezvous airspeed based on route control limits for the second aircraft and the plurality of aircraft, (Paragraph [0015], “The second criteria may include continuously comparing the speed envelope of the leader aircraft with the speed envelope of the follower aircraft making sure that any given Mach number and/or altitude they fly at together is compatible with their respective flyable domains of speed and altitude.”)
wherein the rendezvous airspeed positions the second aircraft in the overlay area in the common flight path portion (Paragraph [0102], “Accordingly, the speed and altitude profile of both follower and leader aircraft is also modified compared to their initial flight.”)
Regarding Claim 7,
The combination of Lebbos, Unterstrasser, Schultz, and Lincoln, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. Lebbos further discloses the following limitations,
providing the improved flight plan to a flight plan arbiter for approval; and receiving an approval to implement the improved flight plan at the second aircraft (Paragraph [0100], “the process 100 may automatically select 118 the combination of pairs of interest that offers the highest accumulated follower trip fuel savings possible, while satisfying aircraft operator's preselected preferences and Air Traffic Control (ATC) constraints that have been indicated or provided. The flight plan is updated with the airline and presented for validation to the authorities (including ATC) and may be updated in the database 102.” – it is well known that air traffic authorities can be involved in approving a flight plan and changes to a flight plan, as it appears here in the step of presenting a new plan for validation from ATC)
Regarding Claims 8 and 15,
Claims 8 and 15 recite essentially the same limitations as those of Claim 1, in addition to generic computer technology that performs the corresponding method of Claim 1, to capture a corresponding apparatus in each of Claims 8 and 15. Therefore, the combination of Lebbos, Unterstrasser, Schultz, and Lincoln, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claims 8 and 15.
Regarding Claims 9-11, 14, 16-18 and 20,
Claims 9-11, 14, 16-18, and 20, recite essentially the same limitations as Claims 2-4 and 7, except in depending on Claim 8 and Claim 15 respectively as corresponding apparatuses, rather than the method of Claim 1. The combination of Lebbos, Unterstrasser, Schultz, and Lincoln, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claims 2-4 and 7. Therefore, the combination of Lebbos, Unterstrasser, Schultz and Lincoln teaches all the limitations of Claims 9-11, 14, 16-18, and 20.
Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Lebbos, Unterstrasser, Schultz, and Lincoln, further in view of Matthews (US 20160362022 A1), previously of record, herein after referred to simply as Matthews.
Regarding Claim 5,
The combination of Lebbos, Unterstrasser, Schultz, and Lincoln. as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Lebbos further discloses the following limitations,
generating a plurality of prospective flight plans for routing the second aircraft through the overlay area; (Paragraph [0102], “In this embodiment, for each possible pair of flights, the process 100 (will) modify the flight plan of the follower aircraft by simulating earlier merge points and later spilt points with the flight plan 10 of the leader aircraft 14, so as to have a common route 26 section longer than the one found in the original flight plans.” – alternatives are produced)
However, the combination of Lebbos, Unterstrasser, and Schultz does not teach the following limitation,
and determining a route alteration value for each of the plurality of prospective flight plans, wherein the updated flight plans comprise prospective flight plans with a route alteration value less than a route alteration limit
However, this is taught by Matthews, which teaches that a route can be altered to optimize one parameter, such as fuel savings, so long as another parameter does not exceed a threshold (Paragraph [0110], “ The determination of whether to decrease the operational setting to the value 514 may be based on one or more thresholds. For example, if this change in operational setting results in a reduction in fuel consumption and/or a reduction in the amount of emissions generated that is greater than one or more designated threshold amounts, and the change does not result in the parameter increasing by more than a designated threshold amount from the lower value 512 to the upper value 516 and/or cause the vehicle system 100 to travel slower than a designated speed or produce less than a designated total power output, then the change may be implemented. If, however, the change results in a reduction in fuel consumption and/or emissions generation that is smaller than a threshold amount, the parameter increasing by more than a threshold amount, and/or the vehicle system 100 to travel slower than a designated speed and/or produce less than a designated total power, then the change may not be made to the previously identified asynchronous operational setting.”), where the other parameter can be a time parameter (Paragraph [0079], “Another example of the parameters is time of arrival. This parameter indicates when the vehicle system will arrive at one or more locations, such as a final destination, of a trip.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the vehicle routing of Lebbos with the route alteration limit as taught by Matthews, as this enables a system to balance a potential improvement against other necessary considerations (Paragraph [0107], “As described above, a trip objective can include a reduction in fuel consumption, emission generation, and/or travel time. If one or more of the asynchronous operational settings can be changed in order to reduce fuel consumption, emission generation, and/or travel time (relative to not changing the asynchronous operational settings) while avoiding significant decreases in the improvement in vehicle handling (that is achieved by using the asynchronous operational settings), then the asynchronous operational settings may be modified. On the other hand, if changing the asynchronous operational settings would not result in achieving or improving upon a trip objective, then the asynchronous operational settings may not be changed.”). Further, the combination could be performed using known methods, yielding results which are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 6,
The combination of Lebbos, Unterstrasser, Schultz, Lincoln, and Matthews, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 5. Matthews further already teaches the following limitation,
wherein the route alteration value comprises one or more of: an additional fuel burn caused by the prospective flight plan of the plurality of prospective flight plans, a delay caused by the prospective flight plan, and additional wear to the second aircraft caused by the prospective flight plans (Paragraph [0110], “ The determination of whether to decrease the operational setting to the value 514 may be based on one or more thresholds. For example, if … the change does not result in the parameter increasing by more than a designated threshold amount from the lower value 512 to the upper value 516 … then the change may be implemented”, where the parameter can be a time parameter (Paragraph [0079], “Another example of the parameters is time of arrival.”)
Regarding Claim 12,
Claim 12 recites essentially the same limitations to that of Claim 5, except in depending on Claim 8 as a corresponding apparatus, rather than the method of Claim 1. The combination of Lebbos, Unterstrasser, Schultz, Lincoln, and Matthews, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 5. Therefore, the combination of Lebbos, Unterstrasser, Schultz, Lincoln, and Matthews teaches all the limitations of Claims 12.
Regarding Claim 13,
Claim 13 recites essentially the same limitations to that of Claim 6, except in depending on Claim 12 as a corresponding apparatus, rather than the method of Claim 5. The combination of Lebbos, Unterstrasser, Schultz, Lincoln, and Matthews, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 6. Therefore, the combination of Lebbos, Unterstrasser, Schultz, Lincoln, and Matthews teaches all the limitations of Claims 13.
Regarding Claim 19,
Claim 19 recites essentially the same limitations to that of Claims 5 and 6, except with language of each of Claims 5 and 6 merged into a single claim depending on Claim 15, as a corresponding apparatus. The combination of Lebbos, Unterstrasser, Schultz, Lincoln, and Matthews, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claims 5 and 6. Therefore, the combination of Lebbos, Unterstrasser, Schultz, Lincoln, and Matthews teaches all the limitations of Claims 19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Graefe (US 20210110706), previously of record, discloses that a decision to overlap a travel path can be balanced against a time cost (Paragraph [0080]). Swann (US 20150284103 A1), previously of record, discloses balancing contrail mitigation against interests such as fuel consumption (Paragraph [0023]). Imad Lebbos (US 20210149420 A1), previously of record, discloses that a follower aircraft can have its path modified for a formation flying without altering the path of the leader aircraft (Paragraph [0083]). Holmes (US 20220392355 A1), previously of record, discloses that contrail generation is a parameter of interest when establishing flight routes (Paragraph [0019]). Thomas (US 20170315564 A1), previously of record, discloses the detection of aircraft contrail as a means of aligning aircraft positions in formation flight (Paragraph [0061]). Durant (US 20230273626 A1), previously of record, teaches that contrail production can be simulated (Paragraph [0063], “Moreover, 4-D maps generated based on the vertical simulation profiles plot contrail formation zones on the given flight trajectory and may guide the pilots to avoid flying into such zones.”)
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 KAREN LYNELLE FURGASON whose telephone number is (571)272-5619. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 6 PM.
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, Erin Bishop, can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
/K.L.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665