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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/16/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s priority filing: U.S. Provisional Application 63/390,434, filed 07/19/2022.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 03/16/2026. The examiner notes the following adjustments to the claims by the applicant:
Claims 1-4, 8-11, and 15-18 are amended;
No claims are cancelled or added.
Therefore, Claims 1-21 are pending examination, in which Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent claims.
In light of the instant amendments and arguments:
Claim 17 is object to for a minor informality.
Further examination resulted in a new rejection of Claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as detailed below.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informality: “after the flight is completed. determining” should have comma after the word completed rather than a period. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following arguments regarding the previous office action:
To overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection, the applicant has amended each independent claim to include the additional underlined limitation: "wherein the determining whether the flight achieved contrail reduction is based on atmospheric data, accessed after the flight is completed, relating to an actual flight path of the flight";
“Paragraph [0109] in Durant describes validating the improved flight trajectory using imagery data. Thus, paragraph [0109] in Durant also does not teach or suggest "the determining whether the flight achieved contrail reduction is based on atmospheric data, accessed after the flight is completed, relating to an actual flight path of the flight," as recited in amended independent claim 1.”;
“Applicant submits that Durant only discloses determining whether a flight achieved contrail reduction based on images. See, e.g., Durant, paragraph [0030]: "The contrail formation may be observed from an imagery data from a variety of sources including, but not limited to, imaging devices directly associated with the aircraft, satellite observations, machine learning techniques." Durant uses atmospheric data only for forecasting, not for determining whether a flight achieved contrail reduction after the flight is completed. (See, e.g., Durant, paragraph [0026].) Accordingly, Applicant submits that Durant fails to teach or suggest "the determining whether the flight achieved contrail reduction is based on atmospheric data, accessed after the flight is completed, relating to an actual flight path of the flight," as recited in amended independent claim 1.”;
“Durant uses atmospheric data only for forecasting, not for determining whether a flight achieved contrail reduction after the flight is completed. (See, e.g., Durant, paragraph [0026].) Accordingly, Applicant submits that Durant fails to teach or suggest "the determining whether the flight achieved contrail reduction is based on atmospheric data, accessed after the flight is completed, relating to an actual flight path of the flight," as recited in amended independent claim 1.”.
Applicant's arguments A., B., C. and D. appear to be directed to the instantly amended subject matter. Accordingly, they have been addressed in the rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Durant (US 2025/0259554 A1) in view of Scaramellino (US 2010/0042453 A1), henceforth Scaramellino.
Regarding Claim 1, Durant discloses the limitations: a system for facilitating carbon-equivalent offsets from contrails {“Based on the improved flight trajectory, a carbon offset value is generated to compensate for the carbon footprint caused by the flight. Beneficially, the method is an efficient, effective, and robust alternative to conventional approaches for mitigating the carbon footprint resulting from contrail formation caused due to increasing air travel volume by changing flight operations and maintenance.”, ¶[0014]}, the system comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor {“the present disclosure relates to a computer program product for determining an improved flight trajectory.”, ¶[0001], and “Referring to FIG. 2, there is illustrated a system 200 for determining an improved flight trajectory 208, in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure. The system 200 comprises a processor. The processor of the system 200 is coupled to a weather monitoring system 202 and the aircraft 204”, ¶[0120]}, cause the system at least to: identify a flight designated for a contrail reduction procedure {“The processor is configured to send the at least one flight plan including the improved flight trajectory to the at least one aircraft.”, ¶[0080]}; determine, after the flight is completed {use of carbon calculator post-flight is described in ¶[0054]}, whether the flight executed the contrail reduction procedure {“the term “improved flight trajectory” as used herein refers to the flight trajectory that reduces a likelihood of the contrail formation by the aircraft when one or more of the flight parameters are improved or altered”, ¶[0017]} and achieved contrail reduction {“validate the improved flight trajectory 208 using an imagery data, such as from a distant observation system 210 away from the aircraft 204, when the at least one aircraft 204 flies according to the at least one flight plan 206 including the improved flight trajectory 208.”, ¶[0120]; and “the EFB software may assist in recording the change in flight trajectories and causal parameters (e.g. bad weather conditions, prohibited zones, high contrail zones, and the like) invoking change in flight trajectories at various instances, and share such recording with an airline or an ANSP operator.”, ¶[0068]}, wherein the determining whether the flight achieved contrail reduction is based on atmospheric data, accessed after the flight is completed, relating to an actual flight path of the flight {“the method generates a climate footprint of the flight path, either prospectively and/or retrospectively, by combining the quantification of the climate impact with carbon calculator approaches, so that passengers and/or operator of the aircraft can pay to offset their non-CO2 climate impact either prospectively (i.e. pre-flight) or retrospectively (i.e. post-flight) or a combination of both approaches.”, ¶[0054]}; based on determining that the flight executed the contrail reduction procedure and achieved contrail reduction {use of carbon calculator post-flight is described in ¶[0054]}, include, in a carbon offset exchange service, wherein the carbon offset exchange service is a market exchange service which provides functionality allowing buyers and sellers to set bid and ask prices for carbon-equivalent offsets {“the carbon credit values are carbon credit credits for trade between carbon credit vendors (such as parties under various environmental and trade organizations, such as for example, the Kyoto Protocol, EU Emission Trading Scheme) and buyers (such as individuals, companies, governments, or other entities). Moreover, the carbon credit vendors may be organizations that voluntarily credit their contrail likelihood with an aim of promoting sustainability. The buyers of the carbon credit value may be companies that emit various greenhouse gases as a by-product of their business”, ¶[0061], and “passengers and/or operator of the aircraft can pay to offset their non-CO2 climate impact either prospectively (i.e. pre-flight) or retrospectively (i.e. post-flight) or a combination of both approaches.”, ¶[0054]}.
Durant does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: a carbon offset exchange service, [with] a carbon-equivalent offset listing corresponding to the flight.
However, Scaramellino explicitly recites the limitation: a carbon offset exchange service, [with] a carbon-equivalent offset listing corresponding to the flight {Fig. 3, shows the tracking of carbon footprint reductions for different types of travel, including the adjusting the carbon footprint 130 for airline flights 168 to account for efforts at carbon-emission reductions 174, this data being storable in a database as represent in Fig. 2: “a specific impact of a particular user action on the end user's overall greenhouse gas emissions and energy usage may be calculated. The impact may be presented in the form of at least one of energy savings or increase, greenhouse gas reduction or increase, cost savings or increase, and resource savings or increase for the particular user action.”, ¶[0045], and carbon footprint reduction related to flight history information: “The flight history information may comprise one of: (a) specific flight information for each flight taken, including at least one of flight length, flight origin and destination, plane type, plane age, layover information, and the like; and (b) estimate of number of flights taken and length of flights taken. A flight class may be determined for each flight based on the flight length. Carbon dioxide emissions may then be determined for each flight based on an emissions factor for the flight class and the flight length.”, ¶[0029]}.
Durant and Scaramellino are analogous art because the both deal with carbon footprint monitoring and potential off-setting.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Durant and Scaramellino before them, to modify the teachings of Durant to include the teachings of Scaramellino to enable an individual to better track greenhouse gas emissions associated with their travel {Abstract}.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Durant and Scaramellino discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Durant explicitly recites the limitation: wherein in determining whether the flight executed the contrail reduction procedure and achieved contrail reduction, the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system at least to: after the flight is completed: access flight track data for the actual flight path of the flight; determine whether the flight executed the contrail reduction procedure based on the flight track data for the actual flight path; access the atmospheric data {“new flight data may be available during flight, e.g., current or up-to-date weather data”, ¶[0088]} relating to the actual flight path; and determine whether the flight achieved contrail reduction based on the atmospheric data relating to the actual flight path {the use of a carbon calculator post-flight is described in ¶[0054] (i.e., “the method generates a climate footprint of the flight path, either prospectively and/or retrospectively, by combining the quantification of the climate impact with carbon calculator approaches), thus enabling the determination of the level of contrail avoidance based on data gathered during flight (i.e., “avoiding flying into…high probability contrail formation zones”, ¶[0041], “validate the improved flight trajectory 208 using an imagery data”, ¶[0120]; including data gathering: “an active remote sensing system, a passive remote sensing system, and an in-situ measurement system” ¶[0082]) via the modeling approaches described in ¶[0018] and ¶[0027]}.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Durant and Scaramellino discloses all the limitations of Claim 2, as discussed supra. In addition, Durant explicitly recites the limitation: wherein in determining whether the flight achieved contrail reduction, the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system at least to: after the flight is completed, determine, based on the atmospheric data {“new flight data may be available during flight, e.g., current or up-to-date weather data”, ¶[0088]} relating to the actual flight path, whether the actual flight path avoided an atmospheric ice super saturated (ISS) region {the use of a carbon calculator post-flight is described in ¶[0054] (i.e., “the method generates a climate footprint of the flight path, either prospectively and/or retrospectively, by combining the quantification of the climate impact with carbon calculator approaches), thus enabling the determination of the level of contrail avoidance based on data gathered during flight (i.e., “avoiding flying into…high probability contrail formation zones”, ¶[0041], “validate the improved flight trajectory 208 using an imagery data”, ¶[0120]; including data gathering: “an active remote sensing system, a passive remote sensing system, and an in-situ measurement system” ¶[0082]) via the modeling approaches described in ¶[0018] and ¶[0027]}.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Durant and Scaramellino discloses all the limitations of Claim 3, as discussed supra. In addition, Durant explicitly recites the limitation: wherein in determining whether the actual flight path avoided an atmospheric ISS region, the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system at least to: after the flight is completed, apply a contrail formation model and a contrail persistence model to the atmospheric data relating to the actual flight path {the use of a carbon calculator post-flight is described in ¶[0054] (i.e., “the method generates a climate footprint of the flight path, either prospectively and/or retrospectively, by combining the quantification of the climate impact with carbon calculator approaches), thus enabling the determination of the level of contrail avoidance based on data gathered during flight (i.e., “avoiding flying into…high probability contrail formation zones”, ¶[0041], “validate the improved flight trajectory 208 using an imagery data”, ¶[0120]; including data gathering: “an active remote sensing system, a passive remote sensing system, and an in-situ measurement system” ¶[0082]) via the modeling approaches described in ¶[0018] and ¶[0027]}.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Durant and Scaramellino discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Durant explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the system at least to: determine a contrail reduction distance as a difference between (a) a contrail that would have been formed by an original unadjusted flight path of the flight and (b) a contrail or absence of contrail that resulted from the actual flight path {determining the level of contrail mitigation requires (i) monitoring for contrails (“the disclosed method enables regular monitoring of the one or more weather parameters and flight parameters for predicting a contrail formation by a given aircraft and using it to determine and reduce the carbon footprint left by the aforesaid aircraft”, ¶[0014]), (ii) the aim and means for mitigating contrails (“Embodiments of the present disclosure substantially eliminate, or at least partially address, the aforementioned problems in the prior art, and enable providing an improved flight trajectory that beneficially mitigates contrail formation and their resultant effect on the climate (namely, climate impact).”, ¶[0104]), and (iii) the modeling (¶[0027]) and computational power (¶[0080]) to calculate a dimensions related to contrail formation (“physics-based models (for example Contrail Cirrus Prediction Model (CoCIP)) may be used for predicting when a contrail will form (based on the one or more weather parameters) and how a contrail will evolve.”, ¶[0018], and “the algorithm quantifies the climate impact caused by an aircraft and changes an aircraft flight plan or in-flight trajectory to prevent contrail formation by using the aforementioned methods.”, ¶[0093], as will be appreciated by one skilled in the art}.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Durant and Scaramellino discloses all the limitations of Claim 5, as discussed supra. In addition, Durant explicitly recites the limitation: wherein in determining the contrail reduction distance, the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system at least to: access atmospheric data relating to the original unadjusted flight path of the flight and atmospheric data relating to the actual flight path {“new flight data may be available during flight, e.g., current or up-to-date weather data”, ¶[0088]}; apply a contrail formation model and a contrail persistence model to the atmospheric data relating to the original unadjusted flight path to determine the contrail that would have been formed by an original unadjusted flight path; and apply the contrail formation model and the contrail persistence model to the atmospheric data relating to the actual flight path to determine the contrail or absence of contrail that resulted from the actual flight path {determining the level of contrail mitigation requires (i) monitoring for contrails (“the disclosed method enables regular monitoring of the one or more weather parameters and flight parameters for predicting a contrail formation by a given aircraft and using it to determine and reduce the carbon footprint left by the aforesaid aircraft”, ¶[0014]), (ii) the aim and means for mitigating contrails (“Embodiments of the present disclosure substantially eliminate, or at least partially address, the aforementioned problems in the prior art, and enable providing an improved flight trajectory that beneficially mitigates contrail formation and their resultant effect on the climate (namely, climate impact).”, ¶[0104]), and (iii) the modeling (¶[0027]) and computational power (¶[0080]) to calculate a dimensions related to contrail formation (“physics-based models (for example Contrail Cirrus Prediction Model (CoCIP)) may be used for predicting when a contrail will form (based on the one or more weather parameters) and how a contrail will evolve.”, ¶[0018], and “the algorithm quantifies the climate impact caused by an aircraft and changes an aircraft flight plan or in-flight trajectory to prevent contrail formation by using the aforementioned methods.”, ¶[0093], as will be appreciated by one skilled in the art}.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Durant and Scaramellino discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Durant explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the system at least to: provide the carbon offset exchange service; and execute, in the carbon offset exchange service, at least one transaction for the carbon-equivalent offset listing corresponding to the flight, the at least one transaction comprising at least one of: accepting at least one bid for the carbon-equivalent offset, or transferring the carbon-equivalent offset to a purchaser {“the carbon offset values are carbon offset credits for trade between carbon offset vendors (such as parties under various environmental and trade organizations, such as for example, the Kyoto Protocol, EU Emission Trading Scheme) and buyers (such as individuals, companies, governments, or other entities). Moreover, the carbon offset vendors may be organizations that voluntarily offset their contrail likelihood with an aim of promoting sustainability. The buyers of the carbon offset value may be companies that emit various greenhouse gases as a by-product of their business. Such companies are required to either cut their emissions or buy carbon offset values in lieu thereof.”, ¶[0061]}.
Regarding Claim 8, Durant discloses the limitations: a method for facilitating carbon-equivalent offsets from contrails {“Based on the improved flight trajectory, a carbon offset value is generated to compensate for the carbon footprint caused by the flight. Beneficially, the method is an efficient, effective, and robust alternative to conventional approaches for mitigating the carbon footprint resulting from contrail formation caused due to increasing air travel volume by changing flight operations and maintenance.”, ¶[0014]}, the method comprising: identifying a flight designated for a contrail reduction procedure {“ The processor is configured to send the at least one flight plan including the improved flight trajectory to the at least one aircraft.”, ¶[0080]}; determine, after the flight is completed {use of carbon calculator post-flight is described in ¶[0054]}, whether the flight executed the contrail reduction procedure {“the term “improved flight trajectory” as used herein refers to the flight trajectory that reduces a likelihood of the contrail formation by the aircraft when one or more of the flight parameters are improved or altered”, ¶[0017]} and achieved contrail reduction {“validate the improved flight trajectory 208 using an imagery data, such as from a distant observation system 210 away from the aircraft 204, when the at least one aircraft 204 flies according to the at least one flight plan 206 including the improved flight trajectory 208.”, ¶[0120]; and “the EFB software may assist in recording the change in flight trajectories and causal parameters (e.g. bad weather conditions, prohibited zones, high contrail zones, and the like) invoking change in flight trajectories at various instances, and share such recording with an airline or an ANSP operator.”, ¶[0068]}, wherein the determining whether the flight achieved contrail reduction is based on atmospheric data, accessed after the flight is completed, relating to an actual flight path of the flight {“the method generates a climate footprint of the flight path, either prospectively and/or retrospectively, by combining the quantification of the climate impact with carbon calculator approaches, so that passengers and/or operator of the aircraft can pay to offset their non-CO2 climate impact either prospectively (i.e. pre-flight) or retrospectively (i.e. post-flight) or a combination of both approaches.”, ¶[0054]}; based on determining that the flight executed the contrail reduction procedure and achieved contrail reduction {use of carbon calculator post-flight is described in ¶[0054]}, include, in a carbon offset exchange service, wherein the carbon offset exchange service is a market exchange service which provides functionality allowing buyers and sellers to set bid and ask prices for carbon-equivalent offsets {“the carbon credit values are carbon credit credits for trade between carbon credit vendors (such as parties under various environmental and trade organizations, such as for example, the Kyoto Protocol, EU Emission Trading Scheme) and buyers (such as individuals, companies, governments, or other entities). Moreover, the carbon credit vendors may be organizations that voluntarily credit their contrail likelihood with an aim of promoting sustainability. The buyers of the carbon credit value may be companies that emit various greenhouse gases as a by-product of their business”, ¶[0061], and “passengers and/or operator of the aircraft can pay to offset their non-CO2 climate impact either prospectively (i.e. pre-flight) or retrospectively (i.e. post-flight) or a combination of both approaches.”, ¶[0054]}.
Durant does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: a carbon offset exchange service, [with] a carbon-equivalent offset listing corresponding to the flight.
However, Scaramellino explicitly recites the limitation: a carbon offset exchange service, [with] a carbon-equivalent offset listing corresponding to the flight {Fig. 3, shows the tracking of carbon footprint reductions for different types of travel, including the adjusting the carbon footprint 130 for airline flights 168 to account for efforts at carbon-emission reductions 174, this data being storable in a database as represent in Fig. 2: “a specific impact of a particular user action on the end user's overall greenhouse gas emissions and energy usage may be calculated. The impact may be presented in the form of at least one of energy savings or increase, greenhouse gas reduction or increase, cost savings or increase, and resource savings or increase for the particular user action.”, ¶[0045], and carbon footprint reduction related to flight history information: “The flight history information may comprise one of: (a) specific flight information for each flight taken, including at least one of flight length, flight origin and destination, plane type, plane age, layover information, and the like; and (b) estimate of number of flights taken and length of flights taken. A flight class may be determined for each flight based on the flight length. Carbon dioxide emissions may then be determined for each flight based on an emissions factor for the flight class and the flight length.”, ¶[0029]}.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Durant and Scaramellino discloses all the limitations of Claim 8, as discussed supra. In addition, Durant explicitly recites the limitation: wherein determining whether the flight executed the contrail reduction procedure and achieved contrail reduction comprises: after the flight is completed: accessing flight track data for the actual flight path of the flight; determining whether the flight executed the contrail reduction procedure based on the flight track data for the actual flight path; accessing the atmospheric data {“new flight data may be available during flight, e.g., current or up-to-date weather data”, ¶[0088]} relating to the actual flight path; and determining whether the flight achieved contrail reduction based on the atmospheric data relating to the actual flight path {the use of a carbon calculator post-flight is described in ¶[0054] (i.e., “the method generates a climate footprint of the flight path, either prospectively and/or retrospectively, by combining the quantification of the climate impact with carbon calculator approaches), thus enabling the determination of the level of contrail avoidance based on data gathered during flight (i.e., “avoiding flying into…high probability contrail formation zones”, ¶[0041], “validate the improved flight trajectory 208 using an imagery data”, ¶[0120]; including data gathering: “an active remote sensing system, a passive remote sensing system, and an in-situ measurement system” ¶[0082]) via the modeling approaches described in ¶[0018] and ¶[0027]}.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Durant and Scaramellino discloses all the limitations of Claim 9, as discussed supra. In addition, Durant explicitly recites the limitation: wherein determining whether the achieved contrail reduction comprises: after the flight is completed, determining, based on the atmospheric data relating to the actual flight path, whether the actual flight path avoided an atmospheric ice super saturated (ISS) region {the use of a carbon calculator post-flight is described in ¶[0054] (i.e., “the method generates a climate footprint of the flight path, either prospectively and/or retrospectively, by combining the quantification of the climate impact with carbon calculator approaches), thus enabling the determination of the level of contrail avoidance based on data gathered during flight (i.e., “avoiding flying into…high probability contrail formation zones”, ¶[0041], “validate the improved flight trajectory 208 using an imagery data”, ¶[0120]; including data gathering: “an active remote sensing system, a passive remote sensing system, and an in-situ measurement system” ¶[0082]) via the modeling approaches described in ¶[0018] and ¶[0027]}.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Durant and Scaramellino discloses all the limitations of Claim 10, as discussed supra. In addition, Durant explicitly recites the limitation: wherein determining whether the actual flight path avoided an atmospheric ISS region comprises: after the flight is completed, applying a contrail formation model and a contrail persistence model to the atmospheric data relating to the actual flight path {the use of a carbon calculator post-flight is described in ¶[0054] (i.e., “the method generates a climate footprint of the flight path, either prospectively and/or retrospectively, by combining the quantification of the climate impact with carbon calculator approaches), thus enabling the determination of the level of contrail avoidance based on data gathered during flight (i.e., “avoiding flying into…high probability contrail formation zones”, ¶[0041], “validate the improved flight trajectory 208 using an imagery data”, ¶[0120]; including data gathering: “an active remote sensing system, a passive remote sensing system, and an in-situ measurement system” ¶[0082]) via the modeling approaches described in ¶[0018] and ¶[0027]}.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Durant and Scaramellino discloses all the limitations of Claim 8, as discussed supra. In addition, Durant explicitly recites the limitation: determining a contrail reduction distance as a difference between (a) a contrail that would have been formed by an original unadjusted flight path of the flight and (b) a contrail or absence of contrail that resulted from the actual flight path {determining the level of contrail mitigation requires (i) monitoring for contrails (“the disclosed method enables regular monitoring of the one or more weather parameters and flight parameters for predicting a contrail formation by a given aircraft and using it to determine and reduce the carbon footprint left by the aforesaid aircraft”, ¶[0014]), (ii) the aim and means for mitigating contrails (“Embodiments of the present disclosure substantially eliminate, or at least partially address, the aforementioned problems in the prior art, and enable providing an improved flight trajectory that beneficially mitigates contrail formation and their resultant effect on the climate (namely, climate impact).”, ¶[0093]), and (iii) the modeling and computational power (¶[0080]) to calculate a dimensions related to contrail formation (“physics-based models (for example Contrail Cirrus Prediction Model (CoCIP)) may be used for predicting when a contrail will form (based on the one or more weather parameters) and how a contrail will evolve.”, ¶[0018], and “the algorithm quantifies the climate impact caused by an aircraft and changes an aircraft flight plan or in-flight trajectory to prevent contrail formation by using the aforementioned methods.”, ¶[0082], as will be appreciated by one skilled in the art}.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Durant and Scaramellino discloses all the limitations of Claim 12, as discussed supra. In addition, Durant explicitly recites the limitation: wherein in determining the contrail reduction distance, the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system at least to: access atmospheric data relating to the original unadjusted flight path of the flight and atmospheric data relating to the actual flight path {“new flight data may be available during flight, e.g., current or up-to-date weather data”, ¶[0088]}; apply a contrail formation model and a contrail persistence model to the atmospheric data relating to the original unadjusted flight path to determine the contrail that would have been formed by an original unadjusted flight path; and apply the contrail formation model and the contrail persistence model to the atmospheric data relating to the actual flight path to determine the contrail or absence of contrail that resulted from the actual flight path {determining the level of contrail mitigation requires (i) monitoring for contrails (“the disclosed method enables regular monitoring of the one or more weather parameters and flight parameters for predicting a contrail formation by a given aircraft and using it to determine and reduce the carbon footprint left by the aforesaid aircraft”, ¶[0014]), (ii) the aim and means for mitigating contrails (“Embodiments of the present disclosure substantially eliminate, or at least partially address, the aforementioned problems in the prior art, and enable providing an improved flight trajectory that beneficially mitigates contrail formation and their resultant effect on the climate (namely, climate impact).”, ¶[0093]), and (iii) the modeling and computational power (¶[0080]) to calculate a dimensions related to contrail formation (“physics-based models (for example Contrail Cirrus Prediction Model (CoCIP)) may be used for predicting when a contrail will form (based on the one or more weather parameters) and how a contrail will evolve.”, ¶[0018], and “the algorithm quantifies the climate impact caused by an aircraft and changes an aircraft flight plan or in-flight trajectory to prevent contrail formation by using the aforementioned methods.”, ¶[0082], as will be appreciated by one skilled in the art}.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Durant and Scaramellino discloses all the limitations of Claim 8, as discussed supra. In addition, Durant explicitly recites the limitation: further comprising: providing the carbon offset exchange service; and executing, in the carbon offset exchange service, at least one transaction for the carbon-equivalent offset listing corresponding to the flight, the at least one transaction comprising at least one of: accepting at least one bid for the carbon-equivalent offset, or transferring the carbon-equivalent offset to a purchaser {“the carbon offset values are carbon offset credits for trade between carbon offset vendors (such as parties under various environmental and trade organizations, such as for example, the Kyoto Protocol, EU Emission Trading Scheme) and buyers (such as individuals, companies, governments, or other entities). Moreover, the carbon offset vendors may be organizations that voluntarily offset their contrail likelihood with an aim of promoting sustainability. The buyers of the carbon offset value may be companies that emit various greenhouse gases as a by-product of their business. Such companies are required to either cut their emissions or buy carbon offset values in lieu thereof.”, ¶[0061]}.
Regarding Claim 15, Durant discloses a processor-readable medium which, when executed by the at least one processor {“the present disclosure relates to a computer program product for determining an improved flight trajectory.”, ¶[0001], and “Referring to FIG. 2, there is illustrated a system 200 for determining an improved flight trajectory 208, in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure. The system 200 comprises a processor. The processor of the system 200 is coupled to a weather monitoring system 202 and the aircraft 204”, ¶[0120]} of a system for facilitating carbon-equivalent offsets from contrails {“Based on the improved flight trajectory, a carbon offset value is generated to compensate for the carbon footprint caused by the flight. Beneficially, the method is an efficient, effective, and robust alternative to conventional approaches for mitigating the carbon footprint resulting from contrail formation caused due to increasing air travel volume by changing flight operations and maintenance.”, ¶[0014]}, cause the system at least to: identify a flight designated for a contrail reduction procedure {“ The processor is configured to send the at least one flight plan including the improved flight trajectory to the at least one aircraft.”, ¶[0080]}; determine, after the flight is completed {use of carbon calculator post-flight is described in ¶[0054]}, whether the flight executed the contrail reduction procedure {“the term “improved flight trajectory” as used herein refers to the flight trajectory that reduces a likelihood of the contrail formation by the aircraft when one or more of the flight parameters are improved or altered”, ¶[0017]} and achieved contrail reduction {“validate the improved flight trajectory 208 using an imagery data, such as from a distant observation system 210 away from the aircraft 204, when the at least one aircraft 204 flies according to the at least one flight plan 206 including the improved flight trajectory 208.”, ¶[0120]; and “the EFB software may assist in recording the change in flight trajectories and causal parameters (e.g. bad weather conditions, prohibited zones, high contrail zones, and the like) invoking change in flight trajectories at various instances, and share such recording with an airline or an ANSP operator.”, ¶[0068]}, wherein the determining whether the flight achieved contrail reduction is based on atmospheric data, accessed after the flight is completed, relating to an actual flight path of the flight {“the method generates a climate footprint of the flight path, either prospectively and/or retrospectively, by combining the quantification of the climate impact with carbon calculator approaches, so that passengers and/or operator of the aircraft can pay to offset their non-CO2 climate impact either prospectively (i.e. pre-flight) or retrospectively (i.e. post-flight) or a combination of both approaches.”, ¶[0054]}; based on determining that the flight executed the contrail reduction procedure and achieved contrail reduction {use of carbon calculator post-flight is described in ¶[0054]}, include, in a carbon offset exchange service, wherein the carbon offset exchange service is a market exchange service which provides functionality allowing buyers and sellers to set bid and ask prices for carbon-equivalent offsets {“the carbon credit values are carbon credit credits for trade between carbon credit vendors (such as parties under various environmental and trade organizations, such as for example, the Kyoto Protocol, EU Emission Trading Scheme) and buyers (such as individuals, companies, governments, or other entities). Moreover, the carbon credit vendors may be organizations that voluntarily credit their contrail likelihood with an aim of promoting sustainability. The buyers of the carbon credit value may be companies that emit various greenhouse gases as a by-product of their business”, ¶[0061], and “passengers and/or operator of the aircraft can pay to offset their non-CO2 climate impact either prospectively (i.e. pre-flight) or retrospectively (i.e. post-flight) or a combination of both approaches.”, ¶[0054]}.
Durant does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: a carbon offset exchange service, [with] a carbon-equivalent offset listing corresponding to the flight.
However, Scaramellino explicitly recites the limitation: a carbon offset exchange service, [with] a carbon-equivalent offset listing corresponding to the flight {Fig. 3, shows the tracking of carbon footprint reductions for different types of travel, including the adjusting the carbon footprint 130 for airline flights 168 to account for efforts at carbon-emission reductions 174, this data being storable in a database as represent in Fig. 2: “a specific impact of a particular user action on the end user's overall greenhouse gas emissions and energy usage may be calculated. The impact may be presented in the form of at least one of energy savings or increase, greenhouse gas reduction or increase, cost savings or increase, and resource savings or increase for the particular user action.”, ¶[0045], and carbon footprint reduction related to flight history information: “The flight history information may comprise one of: (a) specific flight information for each flight taken, including at least one of flight length, flight origin and destination, plane type, plane age, layover information, and the like; and (b) estimate of number of flights taken and length of flights taken. A flight class may be determined for each flight based on the flight length. Carbon dioxide emissions may then be determined for each flight based on an emissions factor for the flight class and the flight length.”, ¶[0029]}.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Durant and Scaramellino discloses all the limitations of Claim 15, as discussed supra. In addition, Durant explicitly recites the limitation: wherein determining whether the flight executed the contrail reduction procedure and achieved contrail reduction comprises: after the flight is completed: accessing flight track data for the actual flight path of the flight; determining whether the flight executed the contrail reduction procedure based on the flight track data for the actual flight path; accessing the atmospheric data {“new flight data may be available during flight, e.g., current or up-to-date weather data”, ¶[0088]} relating to the actual flight path; and determining whether the flight achieved contrail reduction based on the atmospheric data relating to the actual flight path {the use of a carbon calculator post-flight is described in ¶[0054] (i.e., “the method generates a climate footprint of the flight path, either prospectively and/or retrospectively, by combining the quantification of the climate impact with carbon calculator approaches), thus enabling the determination of the level of contrail avoidance based on data gathered during flight (i.e., “avoiding flying into…high probability contrail formation zones”, ¶[0041], “validate the improved flight trajectory 208 using an imagery data”, ¶[0120]; including data gathering: “an active remote sensing system, a passive remote sensing system, and an in-situ measurement system” ¶[0082]) via the modeling approaches described in ¶[0018] and ¶[0027]}.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Durant and Scaramellino discloses all the limitations of Claim 16, as discussed supra. In addition, Durant explicitly recites the limitation: wherein determining whether the flight achieved contrail reduction comprises: after the flight is completed{the use of a carbon calculator post-flight is described in ¶[0054] (i.e., “the method generates a climate footprint of the flight path, either prospectively and/or retrospectively, by combining the quantification of the climate impact with carbon calculator approaches), thus enabling the determination of the level of contrail avoidance based on data gathered during flight (i.e., “avoiding flying into…high probability contrail formation zones”, ¶[0041], “validate the improved flight trajectory 208 using an imagery data”, ¶[0120]; including data gathering: “an active remote sensing system, a passive remote sensing system, and an in-situ measurement system” ¶[0082]) via the modeling approaches described in ¶[0018] and ¶[0027]}.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Durant and Scaramellino discloses all the limitations of Claim 17, as discussed supra. In addition, Durant explicitly recites the limitation: wherein determining whether the actual flight path avoided an atmospheric ISS region comprises: after the flight is completed, applying a contrail formation model and a contrail persistence model to the atmospheric data relating to the actual flight path {the use of a carbon calculator post-flight is described in ¶[0054] (i.e., “the method generates a climate footprint of the flight path, either prospectively and/or retrospectively, by combining the quantification of the climate impact with carbon calculator approaches), thus enabling the determination of the level of contrail avoidance based on data gathered during flight (i.e., “avoiding flying into…high probability contrail formation zones”, ¶[0041], “validate the improved flight trajectory 208 using an imagery data”, ¶[0120]; including data gathering: “an active remote sensing system, a passive remote sensing system, and an in-situ measurement system” ¶[0082]) via the modeling approaches described in ¶[0018] and ¶[0027]}.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Durant and Scaramellino discloses all the limitations of Claim 15, as discussed supra. In addition, Durant explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the system at least to: determine a contrail reduction distance as a difference between (a) a contrail that would have been formed by an original unadjusted flight path of the flight and (b) a contrail or absence of contrail that resulted from the actual flight path {determining the level of contrail mitigation requires (i) monitoring for contrails (“the disclosed method enables regular monitoring of the one or more weather parameters and flight parameters for predicting a contrail formation by a given aircraft and using it to determine and reduce the carbon footprint left by the aforesaid aircraft”, ¶[0014]), (ii) the aim and means for mitigating contrails (“Embodiments of the present disclosure substantially eliminate, or at least partially address, the aforementioned problems in the prior art, and enable providing an improved flight trajectory that beneficially mitigates contrail formation and their resultant effect on the climate (namely, climate impact).”, ¶[0104]), and (iii) the modeling (¶[0027]) and computational power (¶[0080]) to calculate a dimensions related to contrail formation (“physics-based models (for example Contrail Cirrus Prediction Model (CoCIP)) may be used for predicting when a contrail will form (based on the one or more weather parameters) and how a contrail will evolve.”, ¶[0018], and “the algorithm quantifies the climate impact caused by an aircraft and changes an aircraft flight plan or in-flight trajectory to prevent contrail formation by using the aforementioned methods.”, ¶[0093], as will be appreciated by one skilled in the art}.
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Durant and Scaramellino discloses all the limitations of Claim 19, as discussed supra. In addition, Durant explicitly recites the limitation: wherein in determining the contrail reduction distance, the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system at least to: access atmospheric data relating to the original unadjusted flight path of the flight and atmospheric data relating to the actual flight path {“new flight data may be available during flight, e.g., current or up-to-date weather data”, ¶[0088]}; apply a contrail formation model and a contrail persistence model to the atmospheric data relating to the original unadjusted flight path to determine the contrail that would have been formed by an original unadjusted flight path; and apply the contrail formation model and the contrail persistence model to the atmospheric data relating to the actual flight path to determine the contrail or absence of contrail that resulted from the actual flight path {determining the level of contrail mitigation requires (i) monitoring for contrails (“the disclosed method enables regular monitoring of the one or more weather parameters and flight parameters for predicting a contrail formation by a given aircraft and using it to determine and reduce the carbon footprint left by the aforesaid aircraft”, ¶[0014]), (ii) the aim and means for mitigating contrails (“Embodiments of the present disclosure substantially eliminate, or at least partially address, the aforementioned problems in the prior art, and enable providing an improved flight trajectory that beneficially mitigates contrail formation and their resultant effect on the climate (namely, climate impact).”, ¶[0104]), and (iii) the modeling (¶[0027]) and computational power (¶[0080]) to calculate a dimensions related to contrail formation (“physics-based models (for example Contrail Cirrus Prediction Model (CoCIP)) may be used for predicting when a contrail will form (based on the one or more weather parameters) and how a contrail will evolve.”, ¶[0018], and “the algorithm quantifies the climate impact caused by an aircraft and changes an aircraft flight plan or in-flight trajectory to prevent contrail formation by using the aforementioned methods.”, ¶[0093], as will be appreciated by one skilled in the art}.
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Durant and Scaramellino discloses all the limitations of Claim 15, as discussed supra. In addition, Durant explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the system at least to: provide the carbon offset exchange service; and execute, in the carbon offset exchange service, at least one transaction for the carbon-equivalent offset listing corresponding to the flight, the at least one transaction comprising at least one of: accepting at least one bid for the carbon-equivalent offset, or transferring the carbon-equivalent offset to a purchaser {“the carbon offset values are carbon offset credits for trade between carbon offset vendors (such as parties under various environmental and trade organizations, such as for example, the Kyoto Protocol, EU Emission Trading Scheme) and buyers (such as individuals, companies, governments, or other entities). Moreover, the carbon offset vendors may be organizations that voluntarily offset their contrail likelihood with an aim of promoting sustainability. The buyers of the carbon offset value may be companies that emit various greenhouse gases as a by-product of their business. Such companies are required to either cut their emissions or buy carbon offset values in lieu thereof.”, ¶[0061]}.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Dahlmann, K., Grewe, V., Matthes, S., & Yamashita, H. (2023). “Climate assessment of single flights”, International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 17(1), 29–40. [Published online 26 Sep 2021; Introduction of calculation methods and corresponding formulas to take into account non-CO2 effects, such as contrails, for an individual flight.].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD EDWIN GEIST whose telephone number is (703)756-5854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/R.E.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights