CTFR 18/333,005 CTFR 85091 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION This action is in response to papers filed on 2/5/2026. Claims 1 and 15 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled. No claims have been added. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1: The claims are directed to a process (method as introduced in Claim 1) and/or system (Claim 15) 1 , thus Claims 1-20 fall within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03. 1 The decision tool and controller module can be implemented as a device/processor executing instructions and/or is alternately referred to as a “system” (see specification at [0001]; [0003]; [0012]; [0016]; [0028]). Step 2A, Prong 1: The claimed invention recites an abstract idea according to MPEP §2106.04. The independent claims which recite the following claim limitations as an abstract idea, are underlined below. Claims 1 recites: determining available SAFs at the departing airport usable by the aircraft; determining a first emission value for each SAF of the available SAFs, with the first emission value corresponding to emissions associated with a production pathway of each SAF of the available SAFs; determining a second emission value for each SAF of the available SAFs, where the second emission value is associated with emissions for the flight from the departing airport to the destination airport; based on the first and second emission values, generating an emission score for the available SAFs; and modeling 2 the emission score for the available SAFs for selection of a selected SAF of the available SAFs, based on the emission score, for refueling of the aircraft and use in completion of the flight between the departing airport and the destination airport; and iteratively updating, in real time, the emission score for the available SAFs and the modeling of the emission score for the available SAFs. 2 It is noted that, the “modeling” is not described in any manner that would clearly indicate that it is any type of machine learning, artificial intelligence, or related concept. For example, see Applicant’s specification at [0063], where modelling emissions scores involves merely comparing the scores to enable a user to make decisions. Subsequent descriptions ([0064], [0065], etc.) merely involve collecting additional data for use in calculating the scores (such as anticipated demand). These “modeling” techniques are described in a general manner without any detail of how the modeling is performed. There is no indication that it involves anything more than simply calculating and comparing scores, nor does it provide any indication that it could not be performed without a computer. It is also noted that no particular calculations or calculation techniques are included in the claims (such as how determinations of values are made). Claims 15 recites: determine available SAFs at the departing airport; determine a first emission value for each SAF of the available SAFs, with the first emission value corresponding to emissions associated with a production pathway of each SAF of the available SAFs; determine a second emission value for each SAF of the available SAFs, where the second emission value is associated with emissions for the flight from the departing airport to the destination airport; generate an emission score for at least one SAF of the available SAFs based on the first emission value and second emission value; iteratively updating, in real time, the emission score for the at least one of the available SAFs; and generate a contractual service agreement for purchase of the at least one SAF of the available SAFs based on the updated emission score. The underlined claim limitations as emphasized above, as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) in the form of selling fuel (see specification at [0009]; [0022]; [0060]; [0072]; [0073]; etc., includes purchasing fuel as part of fueling an aircraft , as related to initiating fueling in Claim 1 ). Other than reciting a computer implementation, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from encompassing the performance of c commercial or legal interactions which represents the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. But for the recitation of generic implementation of computer system components, the claimed invention merely recites a process for determining which fuel type is to be purchased by (or sold to) a consumer. For example, the claims are drawn to a process selecting fuels for a flight which represents operations management in the form of resource-allocation decisions (including, but not limited to, resource selection/optimization and commercial/operational decision-making). Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite additional elements such as: a decision tool for selecting a fuel; and a controller module configured to receive data. In particular, the additional elements cited above beyond the abstract idea are recited at a high-level of generality and simply equivalent to a generic recitation and basic functionality that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer technology components. Accordingly, since the specification describes the additional elements in general terms, without describing the particulars, the additional elements may be broadly but reasonably construed as generic computing components being used to perform the judicial exception (see specification at [0012]; [0013]; [0028]). These claimed additional elements merely recite the words “apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements, individually or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. It is additionally noted that several steps, such as determining available fuels, monitoring flights between airports, selecting fuels for refueling of an aircraft, using fuels for completion of a flight between airports can be considered well-understood, routine conventional activities in the field of flight operations. When viewed as a whole, these elements, considered individually and in combination, represent well-understood, routine conventional ground operations and dispatch activities. The specification discusses standard ground operations and standard fuel selection processes in an aviation environment (see at least [0041], describing well-understood, routine conventional airport/fight activities; [0060], describing well-understood, routine conventional activities regarding fuel selection and purchase; etc.). No non-conventional elements or ordered combination are made apparent from this material. It is also noted that the modeling of the emission scores are performed for refueling of the aircraft and use in completion of the flight and therefore the activities of refueling and use of the fuel for flight are not positively claimed steps. Dependent Claims: Claims 2-14 and 16-20 recite further elements related to the evaluation and scoring steps of the parent claims. These activities fail to differentiate the claims from the related activities in the parent claims and fail to provide any material to render the claimed invention to be significantly more than the identified abstract ideas, as outlined below. Claim 2 recites “purchasing the selected SAF of the available SAFs”, which specifies further steps related to obtaining the fuel, but does not make the claims any less abstract or lead toward eligibility. Claim 3 recites “burning the selected SAF fueling the aircraft to complete the flight between the departing airport and the destination airport”, which specifies how the fuel is used after fueling and does not provide any significant material to make the claims any less abstract or lead toward eligibility. Claim 4 recites “generating a service agreement for purchase of the selected SAF fueling the aircraft”, which specifies further steps related to obtaining the fuel, but does not make the claims any less abstract or lead toward eligibility. Claim 5 recites “selecting at least one SAF of the available SAFs based upon the emission score”, which specifies further steps related to obtaining the fuel, but does not make the claims any less abstract or lead toward eligibility. Claim 6 recites “wherein selecting at least one SAF of the available SAFs further comprises the selecting the lowest emission score”, which specifies further steps related to obtaining the fuel, but does not make the claims any less abstract or lead toward eligibility. Claim 7 recites “reducing a cost of fueling the aircraft by fueling the aircraft with the selected SAF of the available SAFs”, which provides an additional step related to the activities of the parent claims, but does not make the claims any less abstract or lead toward eligibility or lead toward eligibility. Claim 8 recites “wherein the production pathway comprises an upstream portion and a downstream portion”, which specifies further steps related to data sources and/or types of emissions data, but does not make the claims any less abstract or lead toward eligibility. Claim 9 recites “wherein determining the first emission value for the upstream portion further comprises determining emissions generated by feedstock production, feedstock processing, and fuel production”, which specifies further steps related to data sources and/or types of emissions data, but does not make the claims any less abstract or lead toward eligibility. Claim 10 recites “wherein determining the first emission value for the downstream portion further comprises determining emissions generated by fuel distribution, fuel blending, and fuel storage”, which specifies further steps related to data sources and/or types of emissions data, but does not make the claims any less abstract or lead toward eligibility. Claim 11 recites “wherein determining the second emission value includes determining the emissions generated by a departure, the flight, and an arrival between the departing airport and the destination airport”, which specifies further steps related to data sources and/or types of emissions data, but does not make the claims any less abstract or lead toward eligibility. Claims 12 and 18 recite “further comprising determining an availability of emission credits relating to the available SAFs”, which specifies further steps related to the sales and marketing activities of the parent claims, but does not make the claims any less abstract or lead toward eligibility. Claim 13 recites “wherein determining the available SAFs further includes determining a proximity to each SAF of the available SAFs”, which specifies further steps related to the sales and marketing activities of the parent claims, but does not make the claims any less abstract or lead toward eligibility. Claim 14 recites “comparing the emission score for each SAF of the available SAFs”, which specifies further steps related to obtaining/selecting the fuel, but does not make the claims any less abstract or lead toward eligibility. Claim 16 recites “wherein the controller module is further configured to determine a current price of the available SAFs”, which specifies further steps related to purchasing the fuel, but does not make the claims any less abstract or lead toward eligibility. The controller module is recited at a high level of generality and merely using it to determine a current price does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Claim 17 recites “wherein the controller module is further configured to purchase the at least one SAF of the available SAFs by executing the contractual service agreement at the current price”, which specifies further steps related to purchasing the fuel, but does not make the claims any less abstract or lead toward eligibility. The controller module is recited at a high level of generality and merely using it to execute the purchase contract does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Claim 19 recites “wherein the controller module is further configured to determine emissions of flight between the departing airport and the destination airport in real time”. The controller module is recited at a high level of generality and merely specifying that it makes the determinations of the parent claims in real time does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Claim 20 recites “wherein the controller module is further configured to permit a user to execute the contractual service agreement”, which specifies further steps related to purchasing the fuel, but does not make the claims any less abstract or lead toward eligibility. The controller module is recited at a high level of generality and merely using it to execute the purchase contract does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. The claims do not provide any new additional limitations or meaningful limits beyond abstract idea that are not addressed above in the independent claims therefore, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they provide significantly more to the abstract idea. Thus, after considering all claim elements, both individually and as a whole, it has been determined that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Therefore, Claims 2-14 and 16-20 are ineligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-3, 5, 7 ,12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang et al. (WO 2022251352 A1) in view of de Oliveira (Pub. No. US 2021/0103860 A1) . In regards to Claim 1 , Lang discloses: A method of utilizing a sustainable aircraft fuel (SAF) for use in a flight for an aircraft between a departing airport and a destination airport, the method comprising: determining a first emission value for each fuel of the available fuels, with the first emission value corresponding to emissions associated with a production pathway of each fuel of the available fuels; (Fig. 8; [0100], determines emissions for production pathway (feedstock production, fuel production) ; [0056], emissions (such as carbon intensity scores, etc.) can be determined for different fuel types ; [0006]; [0016], transportation types (that require/use the fuel) include aircraft (air transportation) ) determining a second emission value for fuel of the available fuels, where the second emission value is associated with emissions for the flight from the departing airport to the destination airport; (Fig. 8; [0008]; [0100], determines emissions for operations ; Fig. 6; Fig. 7; [0030]; [0098], shows emissions determined for transportation from a starting location to a destination (operations) ; [0013]; [0016]; [0069], transportation includes air vehicles (one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that air transportation vehicles use airports to depart and arrive) ; [0046], “cargo” can include people (which could indicate passengers) ) based on the first and second emission values, generating an emission score for the available fuels; (Fig. 8; [0008]; [0100], “The lifecycle measurements can be the sum of the feedstock, fuel production, and operational emissions productions.”, sum of first and second values ) Lang also discloses the selection of fuel suppliers based on recommendations that are based on information such as fuel type and carbon intensity scores (emissions scores for fuel types ( see [0056]; [0092]). Lang does not explicitly disclose the determination of available fuel types at each location and/or modelling the scores for fuel selection based on emissions scores. However, de Oliveira teaches: determining available fuels at the departing airport usable by the aircraft; ([0065], determines available fuel types available to the aircraft at each landing site and related emission ratings (scores), each landing site would represent a departing airport when refueling to travel to the next airport (legs of the journey, see also abstract; [0027]-[0029] ) ) modeling the emission score for the available fuels for selection of a selected fuel of the available fuels, based on the emission score, for refueling of the aircraft and use in completion of the flight between the departing airport and the destination airport ([0065], emission ratings of fuel types are compared [modeled] to determine which ones match emission standards of the landing site, these standards can be used to select which fuel to use (see also [0050]; [0056] ) ; [0060], shows aircraft being refueled at an airport/landing site (in order to complete a flight to the next destination) ) iteratively updating, in real time, the emission score for the available fuels and the modeling of the emission score for the available fuels ([0065], emission ratings are determined for each fuel type at each landing point (which is part of the refueling estimate/fuel value score) ; [0045]; [0059]; [0063], the fueling plan (including emissions ratings) is updated throughout the flight plan including as changes occur, the refueling estimates and fuel value scores for landing sites are iteratively determined based on changes to the flight plan (updated for potential landing sites for future legs of the flight) ; Fig. 9, shows that the emission rating (modeling of emissions) is part of the fuel value score ; [0043], shows that the refueling estimate also part of the fuel value score ; [0077]-[0079], data is collected from multiple sources (including in real-time) to iteratively update and improve fueling plans/flight plans, including for the purpose of optimizing fuel and related emissions ; [0050], provides an example of remodeling the emission scores based on landing site changes, if an emission standard changes for a location, this would cause the comparison of emission scores to standards for selecting a fuel type to be updated (as some fuels may no longer be desirable) as part of the updated fueling plan/fuel value score/etc. ) 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 system of Lang so as to have included determining available fuels at the departing airport usable by the aircraft and initiating fueling the aircraft with a selected fuel of the available fuels, based on the emission score, for completion of the flight between the departing airport and the destination airport and iteratively updating, in real time, the emission score for the available fuels and the modeling of the emission score for the available fuels, as taught by de Oliveira in order to ensure that the aircraft uses the most environmentally friendly fuel type that is available (Lang, [0047]; [0063]; [0092]; etc.; de Oliveira, [0005]; [0045]; [0056]; [0065]; etc.) Although Lang and de Oliveira do not explicitly refer to the available aviation fuel types a SAF or “sustainable aircraft fuel”, they do disclose aircraft fuel and fuel types including bio-fuels and alternative fuels ( see at least de Oliveira, [0003]; [0039]; [0056], etc.; Lang, [0087]). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the term “sustainable aircraft fuel” (or “sustainable aviation fuel” or other variations) as a term of art that represents types of alternative bio-fuels. As additional evidence, Examiner is providing Sustainable Aviation Fuels (article from the Office of Energy Efficiency, Bioenergy Technologies Office) which discusses the bio-technology aspect of SAFs. In regards to Claim 2 , Lang discloses: further comprising purchasing the selected fuel of the available fuels ( see at least [0046], “…to meet cost and/or emissions-based goals.” ; [0050], “…identifying improvements to emissions production and/or cost.” ; [0088], “…a transporter may want to know the most cost-effective option to ship a product while reducing emission…”, costs associated with fuel demonstrates that fuel is to be purchased for use in transportation ) In regards to Claim 3 , Lang discloses: burning the selected fuel fueling the aircraft to complete the flight between the departing airport and the destination airport ([0060]; [0100], operational consumption and operational emissions are associated with the use of transportation vehicle from one location to a destination, this would include the “burning” (consumption) of fuel to complete the travel (including air vehicles, as described above) ) In regards to Claim 5 , Lang also discloses the selection of fuel suppliers based on recommendations that are based on information such as fuel type and carbon intensity scores (emissions scores for fuel types ( see [0056]; [0092]). Lang does not explicitly disclose the determination of available fuel types at each location and/or initiating refueling at the location based on emissions scores. However, de Oliveira teaches: selecting at least one fuel of the available fuels based upon the emission score ([0065], emission ratings of fuel types are compared to determine which ones match emission standards of the landing site, these standards can be used to select which fuel to use (see also [0050]; [0056] ) ; [0060], shows aircraft being refueled at an airport/landing site (in order to complete a flight to the next destination) ; [0065], determines available fuel types available to the aircraft at each landing site and related emission ratings (scores), each landing site would represent a departing airport when refueling to travel to the next airport (legs of the journey, see also abstract; [0027]-[0029] ) ) 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 system of Lang so as to have included determining available fuels at the departing airport usable by the aircraft and initiating fueling the aircraft with a selected fuel of the available fuels, based on the emission score, for completion of the flight between the departing airport and the destination airport, as taught by de Oliveira in order to ensure that the aircraft uses the most environmentally friendly fuel type that is available (Lang, [0047]; [0063]; [0092]; etc.; de Oliveira, [0005]; [0045]; [0056]; [0065]; etc.). In regards to Claim 7 , Lang discloses: further comprising reducing a cost of fueling the aircraft by fueling the aircraft with the selected fuel of the available fuels ( demonstrates the determination of cost benefits (which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as including recuing cots) while also considering emissions, see [0046], “…to meet cost and/or emissions based goals.” ; [0050], “…identifying improvements to emissions production and/or cost.” ; [0088], “…a transporter may want to know the most cost effective option to ship a product while reducing emission…” ) In regards to Claim 12 , Lang discloses: further comprising determining an availability of emission credits ([0061], “The analysis system 114 can id entify certain carbon offsets to utilize. In some embodiments, the analysis system 114 can identify shipping routes that pass through geographic areas associated with ideal carbon offsets allowing the transporter to save money through the carbon offsets” ; [0074]; 0075], emissions data can be submitted to a system that can verify the data, thus identifying credits available t to the transporter ) In regards to Claim 14 , Lang discloses: comparing the emission score for each fuel of the available fuels ( demonstrates the determination of cost benefits ([0065], emission ratings of fuel types are compared to determine which ones match emission standards of the landing site, these standards can be used to select which fuel to use (see also [0050]; [0056] ) ) 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 4 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang in view of de Oliveira in further view of Leblanc et al. (CA 3108424 A1) . In regards to Claim 4 , Lang/de Oliveira discloses the above system/method for analyzing and selecting fuel types based on emissions data. Lang/de Oliveira also disclose the purchasing of fuel (Lang, see at least [0046], “…to meet cost and/or emissions-based goals.” ; [0050], “…identifying improvements to emissions production and/or cost.” ; [0088], “…a transporter may want to know the most cost-effective option to ship a product while reducing emission…”, costs associated with fuel demonstrates purchases ; de Oliveira, see at least [0039]; [0043]; etc., discusses cost of fuel ). Lang/de Oliveira does not explicitly disclose, but Leblanc teaches: generate a contractual service agreement for purchase of the at least one fuel of the available fuels ([0006] (page 4, Sections 2 and 3); [0021], consumers can include airport and fuel can be delivered and stored in bulk storage tanks at the airport ; [0073]; [0074]; Figure 8b, purchase of a desired fuel type generates a contractual obligation (contract) ) 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 system of Lang/de Oliveira so as to have included generating a contractual service agreement for purchase of the at least one fuel of the available fuels, as taught by Leblanc in order to ensure that the consumers can get the best available price (Leblanc, [0003] (Section 2); [0010]; [0042]; etc.; Lang, [0047]; [0063]; [0092]; etc.; de Oliveira, [0005]; [0045]; [0056]; [0065]; etc.) In regards to Claim 15 , Lang discloses: A decision tool for selecting a sustainable aircraft fuel (SAF) for use in a flight between a departing airport and a destination airport, the decision tool comprising: ([0003]; [0051]; [00256; etc.) a controller module configured to receive data related to the fuels, wherein the controller module is configured use received data to: ([0003]; [0051]; [00256; etc.) determine a first emission value for each fuel of the available fuels, with the first emission value corresponding to emissions associated with a production pathway of each fuel of the available fuels; (Fig. 8; [0100], determines emissions for production pathway (feedstock production, fuel production) ; [0056], emissions (such as carbon intensity scores, etc.) can be determined for different fuel types ) determine a second emission value for each fuel of the available fuels, where the second emission value is associated with emissions for the flight from the departing airport to the destination airport; (Fig. 8; [0008]; [0100], determines emissions for operations ; Fig. 6; Fig. 7; [0030]; [0098], shows emissions determined for transportation from a starting location to a destination (operations) ; [0013]; [0016]; [0069], transportation includes air vehicles (one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that air transportation vehicles use airports to depart and arrive) ; [0046], “cargo” can include people (which could indicate passengers) ) generate an emission score for at least one fuel of the available fuels based on the first emission value and second emission value; (Fig. 8; [0008]; [0100], “The lifecycle measurements can be the sum of the feedstock, fuel production, and operational emissions productions.”, sum of first and second values ) Lang also discloses the selection of fuel suppliers based on recommendations that are based on information such as fuel type and carbon intensity scores (emissions scores for fuel types ( see [0056]; [0092]). Lang does not explicitly disclose the determination of available fuel types at each location and/or initiating refueling at the location based on emissions scores. However, de Oliveira teaches: determining available fuels at the departing airport usable by the aircraft; ([0065], determines available fuel types available to the aircraft at each landing site and related emission ratings (scores), each landing site would represent a departing airport when refueling to travel to the next airport (legs of the journey, see also abstract; [0027]-[0029] ) ) iteratively updating, in real time, the emission score for the at least one of the available fuels; ([0065], emission ratings are determined for each fuel type at each landing point (which is part of the refueling estimate/fuel value score) ; [0045]; [0059]; [0063], the fueling plan (including emissions ratings) is updated throughout the flight plan including as changes occur, the refueling estimates and fuel value scores for landing sites are iteratively determined based on changes to the flight plan (updated for potential landing sites for future legs of the flight) ; Fig. 9, shows that the emission rating (modeling of emissions) is part of the fuel value score ; [0043], shows that the refueling estimate also part of the fuel value score ; [0077]-[0079], data is collected from multiple sources (including in real-time) to iteratively update and improve fueling plans/flight plans, including for the purpose of optimizing fuel and related emissions ; [0050], provides an example of remodeling the emission scores based on landing site changes, if an emission standard changes for a location, this would cause the comparison of emission scores to standards for selecting a fuel type to be updated (as some fuels may no longer be desirable) as part of the updated fueling plan/fuel value score/etc. ) 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 system of Lang so as to have included determining available fuels at the departing airport usable by the aircraft and iteratively updating, in real time, the emission score for the available fuels and the modeling of the emission score for the available fuels, as taught by de Oliveira in order to ensure that the aircraft uses the most environmentally friendly fuel type that is available (Lang, [0047]; [0063]; [0092]; etc.; de Oliveira, [0005]; [0045]; [0056]; [0065]; etc.) Lang/de Oliveira discloses the above system/method for analyzing and selecting fuel types based on emissions data. Lang/de Oliveira also disclose the purchasing of fuel (Lang, see at least [0046], “…to meet cost and/or emissions-based goals.” ; [0050], “…identifying improvements to emissions production and/or cost.” ; [0088], “…a transporter may want to know the most cost-effective option to ship a product while reducing emission…”, costs associated with fuel demonstrates purchases ; de Oliveira, see at least [0039]; [0043]; etc., discusses cost of fuel ). de Oliveira also discloses the updating of emission scores (as described above). de Oliveira updated emission scores effect what fuel types are purchased for refueling and at what landing sites the fuel will be purchased (as landing sites are updated). Therefore, any fuel purchases are affected by update emission scores. Lang/de Oliveira does not explicitly disclose, but Leblanc teaches: generate a contractual service agreement for purchase of the at least one fuel of the available fuels ([0006] (page 4, Sections 2 and 3); [0021], consumers can include airport and fuel can be delivered and stored in bulk storage tanks at the airport ; [0073]; [0074]; Figure 8b, purchase of a desired fuel type generates a contractual obligation (contract) ) 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 system of Lang/de Oliveira so as to have included generating a contractual service agreement for purchase of the at least one fuel of the available fuels, as taught by Leblanc in order to ensure that the consumers can get the best available price (Leblanc, [0003] (Section 2); [0042]; etc.; Lang, [0047]; [0063]; [0092]; etc.; de Oliveira, [0005]; [0045]; [0056]; [0065]; etc.) Within the combination of Lang/ de Oliveira/LeBlanc, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the updating of the emission scores (and related fuel types and locations) would directly affect any contractual purchase agreements for purchasing fuel at a future landing site ( based on the updated emission score ), since the scores are determined prior to selecting a fuel for purchase. Although Lang and de Oliveira do not explicitly refer to the available aviation fuel types a SAF or “sustainable aircraft fuel”, they do disclose aircraft fuel and fuel types including bio-fuels and alternative fuels ( see at least de Oliveira, [0003]; [0039]; [0056], etc.; Lang, [0087]; Leblanc, [0018]; [0085]; Claim 20). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the term “sustainable aircraft fuel” (or “sustainable aviation fuel” or other variations) as a term of art that represents types of alternative bio-fuels. As additional evidence, Examiner is providing Sustainable Aviation Fuels (article from the Office of Energy Efficiency, Bioenergy Technologies Office) which discusses the bio-technology aspect of SAFs. In regards to Claim 16 , Lang/de Oliveira discloses the above system/method for purchasing fuel and selecting fuel types. Lang/de Oliveira does not explicitly disclose, but Leblanc teaches: wherein the controller module is further configured to determine a current price of the available fuels ([0073]; [0074]; Figure 8b, purchase of a desired fuel type generates a contractual obligation (contract) ; [0003], “…based upon a price today…” (current price) ; [0010], “…purchased at the current spot price…” ) 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 system of Lang/de Oliveira so as to have included wherein the controller module is further configured to determine a current price of the available fuels, as taught by Leblanc in order to ensure that the consumers can get the best available price (Leblanc, [0003] (Section 2); [0010]; [0042]; etc.; Lang, [0047]; [0063]; [0092]; etc.; de Oliveira, [0005]; [0045]; [0056]; [0065]; etc.) In regards to Claim 17 , Lang discloses: wherein the controller module is further configured to purchase the at least one fuel of the available fuels ( see at least [0046], “…to meet cost and/or emissions-based goals.” ; [0050], “…identifying improvements to emissions production and/or cost.” ; [0088], “…a transporter may want to know the most cost-effective option to ship a product while reducing emission…”, costs associated with fuel demonstrates that fuel is to be purchased for use in transportation ) Lang/de Oliveira does not explicitly disclose, but Leblanc teaches: by executing the contractual service agreement at the current price ([0073]; [0074]; Figure 8b, purchase of a desired fuel type generates a contractual obligation (contract) ; [0003], “…based upon a price today…” (current price) ; [0010], “…purchased at the current spot price…” ) 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 system of Lang/de Oliveira so as to have included [purchasing the at least one fuel] by executing the contractual service agreement at the current price, as taught by Leblanc in order to ensure that the consumers can get the best available price (Leblanc, [0003] (Section 2); [0010]; [0042]; etc.; Lang, [0047]; [0063]; [0092]; etc.; de Oliveira, [0005]; [0045]; [0056]; [0065]; etc.) In regards to Claim 18 , Lang discloses: wherein the controller module is further configured to determine an availability of emission credits relating to the available fuels ([0061], “The analysis system 114 can id entify certain carbon offsets to utilize. In some embodiments, the analysis system 114 can identify shipping routes that pass through geographic areas associated with ideal carbon offsets allowing the transporter to save money through the carbon offsets” ; [0074]; 0075], emissions data can be submitted to a system that can verify the data, thus identifying credits available t to the transporter ) In regards to Claim 19 , Lang discloses: wherein the controller module is further configured to determine emissions of flight between the departing airport and the destination airport in real time (Fig. 8; [0008]; [0100], determines emissions for operations ; Fig. 6; Fig. 7; [0030]; [0098], shows emissions determined for transportation from a starting location to a destination (operations) ; [0013]; [0016]; [0069], transportation includes air vehicles (one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that air transportation vehicles use airports to depart and arrive) ; [0046], “cargo” can include people (which could indicate passengers) ; [0052], data for transporter can be collected in real-time ) In regards to Claim 20 , Lang/de Oliveira discloses the above system/method for purchasing fuel and selecting fuel types. Lang/de Oliveira does not explicitly disclose, but Leblanc teaches: wherein the controller module is further configured to permit a user to execute the contractual service agreement ([0073]; [0074]; Figure 8b, contracts are executed for purchasing fuel (for example, user has received an invoice) ) 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 system of Lang/de Oliveira so as to have included wherein the controller module is further configured to permit a user to execute the contractual service agreement, as taught by Leblanc in order to ensure that the consumers can get the best available price (Leblanc, [0003] (Section 2); [0010]; [0042]; etc.; Lang, [0047]; [0063]; [0092]; etc.; de Oliveira, [0005]; [0045]; [0056]; [0065]; etc.) 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang in view of de Oliveira in further view of Nüsseler (EP 4261137 A1) . In regards to Claim 6 , Lang/de Oliveira discloses the above steps for selecting a fuel type based on emissions scores. Lang/de Oliveira does not explicitly disclose, but Nüsseler teaches: wherein selecting at least one fuel of the available fuels further comprises the selecting the lowest emission score ([0032]; [0034], fuel is selected based on lowest emissions impact for aircraft operations ; [0014] and throughout reference, discusses SAFs ) 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 system of Lang/de Oliveira so as to have included wherein selecting at least one fuel of the available fuels further comprises the selecting the lowest emission score, as taught by Nüsseler in order to ensure that emissions output are optimized for aircraft operations (Nüsseler, [0032]; de Oliveira [0001]; [0005] etc.; Lang, [0061]; [0062]; [0080]) 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang in view of de Oliveira in further view of King et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0205148 A1) . In regards to Claim 8 , Lang discloses: wherein the production pathway comprises an upstream portion ([0060]; [0100], emissions data includes feedstock production and fuel production (upstream) ) Lang/de Oliveira does not explicitly disclose, but King teaches: wherein the production pathway comprises a downstream portion ([0024]; [0025], emissions data includes emissions associated with transportation and storage tanks (downstream) ) 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 system of Lang/de Oliveira so as to have included a downstream portion in the production pathway, as taught by King in order to ensure that as much relevant information is used to determine accurate emissions data (King, [0024]; [0025]) In regards to Claim 9 , Lang discloses: wherein determining the first emission value for the upstream portion further comprises determining emissions generated by feedstock production, feedstock processing, and fuel production ([0060]; [0100], emissions data includes feedstock production and fuel production (produced by processing feedstock) ) In regards to Claim 10 , Lang/de Oliveira discloses the above elements regarding downstream pathway portions. Lang/de Oliveira does not explicitly disclose, but King teaches: wherein determining the first emission value for the downstream portion further comprises determining emissions generated by fuel distribution, fuel blending, and fuel storage ([0024]; [0025], emissions data includes emissions associated with transportation and storage tanks ; [0048], the processing also includes blending operation which can cause emissions ) 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 system of Lang/de Oliveira so as to have included wherein determining the first emission value for the downstream portion further comprises determining emissions generated by fuel distribution, fuel blending, and fuel storage, as taught by King in order to ensure that as much relevant information is used to determine accurate emissions data (King, [0024]; [0025]) In regards to Claim 11 , Lang discloses: wherein determining the second emission value includes determining the emissions generated by a departure, the flight, and an arrival between the departing airport and the destination airport (Fig. 8; [0008]; [0100], determines emissions for operations ; Fig. 6; Fig. 7; [0030]; [0098], shows emissions determined for transportation from a starting location to a destination (operations) ; [0013]; [0016]; [0069], transportation includes air vehicles (one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that air transportation vehicles use airports to depart and arrive) ; [0109], emissions data includes scores for all activities of a transporter, can include emissions discharge by location (origin, destination) ) 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang in view of de Oliveira in further view of Yasuda (US 2022/0351110 A1) . In regards to Claim 13 , Lang/de Oliveira discloses the ability to determine what fuel types are available at an airport, as described above. Lang/de Oliveira does not explicitly disclose, but Yasuda teaches: wherein determining the available fuels further includes determining a proximity to each fuel of the available fuels; ([0009], when determine fuel available to a refueling base, the geographic relationship with a supplier/supply base can be incorporated, multiple fuel suppliers can be considered ; [0007]; [0063], multiple suppliers and multiple fuel types can be analyzed (and relates to aircraft and aviation fuel) ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the system of Lang/de Oliveira so as to have included wherein determining the available fuels further includes determining a proximity to each fuel of the available fuels, as taught by Yasuda. Lang/de Oliveira discloses a “base” method/system in which the availability of aviation fuels at a particular airport (fueling location) is determined, as shown above. Yasuda teaches a comparable method/system in which the availability of aviation fuels at a particular fueling location is determined, as shown above. Yasuda also teaches an embodiment in which determining the available fuels further includes determining a proximity to each fuel of the available fuels, as shown above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the adaptation of wherein determining the available fuels further includes determining a proximity to each fuel of the available fuels to Lang/de Oliveira could be performed with the technical expertise demonstrated in the applied references. (See KSR [127 S Ct. at 1739] "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.") Additional Prior Art Identified but not Relied Upon Komer (US 2007/0288129 A1). Discloses the ability to identify airports that match fuel type criteria based on proximity (such as closest) ( see at least [0063]) . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant’s arguments filed 2/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. I. Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. §101: Applicant asserts that the claims do not describe the performance of commercial or legal interactions but also provides a specific improvement , however, Applicant merely recites the claim language and provides no arguments or evidence to demonstrate why the claims would not cover commercial or legal interactions and/or how/why the claims provide an improvement (including failing to identify the alleged improvement). Applicant asserts that the claim steps tie the recited limitations to the controller module's ability to process and utilize data in real-time [and] add meaningful limitations to the alleged abstract idea and therefore add significantly more to the abstract idea than mere computer implementation , however, Applicant merely recites the claim language and provides no arguments or evidence to demonstrate how/why these assertions would be true. Applicant fails to provide any arguments or evidence to demonstrate how the steps are tied to the ability of the controller module to perform the steps. The controller modules is recited at high level of generality and merely recited as a tool to perform the steps and does represent a mere computer implementation. There is no detail to demonstrate that the controller module is more than a generic computer processor used to apply the steps. Applicant also fails to provide any arguments or evidence to demonstrate how the steps add meaningful limitations to the alleged abstract and/or add significantly more . Applicant does not identify the alleged meaningful limitations or the alleged significantly more, nor does Applicant explain how they are achieved in a meaningful manner. Applicant refers to Example 42, however, Applicant fails to provide any support to explain why Example 42 is relevant to Applicant’s claims, such as identifying how/why the findings of Example 42 are comparable to the features of Applicant’s claims. III. Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. §103: Applicant’s remarks are drawn to the newly provided claim material and are therefore moot in view of the newly provided prior art rejections, citations, and/or explanations, provided above . 07-37-11 AIA Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. 07-37-12 AIA Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. 07-37-13 AIA In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller , 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAUN D SENSENIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:00am-4:00pm. 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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 571-272-6872. 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. /S.D.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3629 June 12, 2026 /LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/333,005 Page 2 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/333,005 Page 3 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/333,005 Page 4 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/333,005 Page 5 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/333,005 Page 6 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/333,005 Page 7 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/333,005 Page 8 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/333,005 Page 9 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/333,005 Page 10 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/333,005 Page 11 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/333,005 Page 12 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/333,005 Page 13 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/333,005 Page 14 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/333,005 Page 15 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/333,005 Page 16 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/333,005 Page 17 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/333,005 Page 18 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/333,005 Page 19 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/333,005 Page 20 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/333,005 Page 21 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/333,005 Page 22 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/333,005 Page 23 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/333,005 Page 24 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/333,005 Page 25 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/333,005 Page 26 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/333,005 Page 27 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/333,005 Page 28 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/333,005 Page 29 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/333,005 Page 30 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/333,005 Page 31 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/333,005 Page 32 Art Unit: 3629
Prosecution Insights