DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 04/03/2026. The examiner notes the following adjustments to the claims by the applicant:
Claims 1, 9 and 16 are amended;
No additional claims are cancelled (Claim 2 previously cancelled);
No new claims added.
Therefore, Claims 1 and 3-20 are pending examination, in which Claims 1, 9 and 16 are independent claims.
In light of the instant amendments and arguments:
The objection to Claims 1, 9 and 16 for minor informalities is withdrawn.
Amended Claims 1 and 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as detailed below.
Further examination resulted in a new rejection of Claims 1 and 3-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as detailed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following arguments regarding the previous office action:
[A.] To overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection, the applicant has amended each independent claim to include the additional underlined limitations: “monitoring values that include mass ratio of water vapor, pressure, and temperature in an ambient atmospheric environment of an aircraft by the aircraft using at least two of: an optical air data system that determines the values from scattered and reflected light from particles; a pitot static air data system that the pressure and airspeed; a spectroscopy system that determines the values by examining the interaction of electromagnetic radiation with air molecules; and predictive values generated by a weather model";
[B.] “Madden fails to discuss a system that uses at least two of the listed systems for monitoring values that include mass ratio of water vapor, pressure, and temperature in the ambient atmospheric environment of the aircraft. In contrast to the features of claim 1, Madden uses measurements of ambient temperature, ambient pressure, and ambient humidity acquired through a variety of sensors that includes an optical sensor, temperature sensor, pressure sensor, humidity sensor, a positioning system a data downlink, and a PLA. However, while Madden mentions a pitot-static arrangement in paragraph [0074], it fails to teach or suggest the optical air data system, spectroscopy system, or predictive values as described and called for in claim 1 as applied to an ambient atmospheric environment.”;
[C.] “Wei teaches contrail reduction strategies that construct a 3D grid and consider constraints from an air traffic controller's perspective for managing aircraft travelling through the 3D grid. See Abstract. However, Wei fails to teach or suggest the calculation of the mass ratio of water vapor or employing at least two of the sensor systems as called for in claim 1.”.
Applicant's arguments A., B. and C. appear to be directed to the instantly amended subject matter. Accordingly, they have been addressed in the rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1 and 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As described in MPEP § 2106, the analyses as to whether a claim qualifies as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 includes the following determinations:
(1) Whether the claim is to a statutory category, i.e. to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter ("Step 1")- see MPEP §§ 2106, subsection III, and 2106.03.
(2) If the claim is to a statutory category, whether the claim recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes) ("Step 2A, Prong One") - see MPEP §§ 2106, subsection III, and 2106.04.
(3) If the claim recites a judicial exception, whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application ("Step 2A, Prong Two") - see MPEP §§ 2106, subsection III, and 2106.04.
(4) If the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception ("Step 2B") – see MPEP §§ 2106, subsection III, and 2106.05.
Step 1: Claims 1 and 3-8 are a method, and Claims 9-20 are a system. Thus, each independent claim, on its face, is directed to one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. §101 (MPEP 2106.03).
Claim 1 is considered a representative independent claim. The examiner has determined, the following analysis is applicable to each independent claim. With regard to Claim 1:
A method for monitoring for conditions likely to lead to aircraft-induced cirrus cloud formation, the method comprising: monitoring values that include mass ratio of water vapor, pressure, and temperature in an ambient atmospheric environment of an aircraft by the aircraft using at least two of: an optical air data system that determines the values from scattered and reflected light from particles; a pitot static air data system that determines the pressure and airspeed; a spectroscopy system that determines the values by examining the interaction of electromagnetic radiation with air molecules; and predictive values generated by a weather model; calculating a water vapor saturation pressure for ice and for liquid water using a model and the monitored temperature; calculating a ratio of the relative humidity with respect to ice; when the ratio is greater than or equal to 1, providing an indication that the conditions are favorable for aircraft-induced cirrus cloud formation; and identifying options for mitigating the formation of aircraft-induced cirrus cloud formation.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. [See MPEP 2106.04(a)-2106.04(a)(2)]
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a combination of “mental processes” (i.e., concepts performed in the human mind, such an observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion) and “mathematical concepts”.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites the general idea of gathering data (i.e., “A method for monitoring conditions…monitoring values that include mass ratio of water vapor, pressure, and temperature in an ambient atmospheric environment of an aircraft”), performing mathematical calculations (i.e., “calculating a water vapor saturation pressure for ice and for liquid water using a model and the monitored temperature; calculating a ratio of the relative humidity with respect to ice”), and evaluating the results of the calculations (i.e., “when the ratio is greater than or equal to 1, providing an indication that the conditions are favorable for aircraft-induced cirrus cloud formation; and identifying options for mitigating the formation of aircraft-induced cirrus cloud formation.”). But for the additional (underlined) elements, the data gathering, evaluation and calculations steps in this claim can simply be done by a combination of the mathematical skills and mental capabilities of a person, in combination with pen and paper, as needed. Thus, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites an abstract idea. (See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Regarding Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer or processor to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The examiner submits that the foregoing underlined additional limitation does not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. The examiner contends that the additional limitations of “monitoring for conditions likely to lead to aircraft-induced cirrus cloud formation…of an aircraft by the aircraft using at least two of…a pitot static air data system that determines the pressure and airspeed…and predictive values generated by a weather mode” merely links the judicial exception, in a general manner, to a particular technological field of use [MPEP 2106.05(h)]: equipment used to gather ambient conditions during aircraft flight. Thus, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The examiner further submits that the aforementioned additional elements in Claim 1 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason discussed above for Step 2A, Prong 2. Specifically, the additional limitation “monitoring for conditions likely to lead to aircraft-induced cirrus cloud formation” merely links the judicial exception, in a general manner, to a particular technological field of use [MPEP 2106.05(h)]; and the limitation “of an aircraft by the aircraft using at least two of…a pitot static air data system that determines the pressure and airspeed…and predictive values generated by a weather mode” merely links the judicial exception to a particular technology field (i.e., aircrafts) and uses well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry (to gather data about aircraft operational parameters and ambient environmental conditions) and specified at a high level of generality, which is appended to the judicial exception without adding significantly more to the judicial exception [see MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.07(a)III]. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
The examiner finds that independent Claims 9 and 16 include the same limitations as Claim 1 associated with “monitoring for conditions likely to lead to aircraft-induced cirrus cloud formation” (discussed above under Step 2A, Prong 1). In addition, Claims 9 and 16 include the limitation: “at least one processor that executes instructions that cause the at least one processor to”, which implies the use of a generic computer. The courts have deemed that implementation of an abstract idea by a generic computer is equivalent to human performing the abstract idea:
Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).
On the other hand, courts have held computer-implemented processes to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus eligible), where generic computer components are able in combination to perform functions that are not merely generic. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257-59, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1105-07 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Thus, each of these claims, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, constitute an abstract idea comprised of a combination of “mental processes” and “mathematical concepts”, implemented by a generic computer, and thus are not patent eligible.
Dependent: Claims 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For example, with regard to Claims 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20, the claimed invention is directed to additional abstract ideas associated with “mathematical concept” and/or “mental processes”:
Claims 3, 15 and 20: “identifying changes to a vehicle travel path” – mental processes: evaluation and judgement in the form of planning;
Claims 4, 11 and 17: “providing the options…through a user interface” – output from a mental processes, such as a written list of options;
Claim 5: “maintaining a record” - output from a mental processes, such as a written record of data gathered or mathematical calculations;
Claim 6: “record is provided pursuant to a regulatory framework” – mental process – evaluation;
Claims 7, 14 and 19: “calculated using Goff-Gratch equations” – mathematical concept;
use of a generic computer, is deemed by the courts, to be equivalent to human performing the abstract idea; and transmitting data is post-solution activity.
Claim 8: “a portion of at least one of the optical air data system and the spectroscopy system is located remotely from the aircraft” – data gathering (i.e., mental process) and merely links the judicial exception to a technological field, i.e., remote sensing versus onboard sensing for aircraft;
Claim 10: “wherein the at least one processor is part of a flight control system” - merely links the judicial exception to a particular technology field (i.e., aircraft flight), and applies an abstract idea via a generic computer;
Claim 12: Storing data on mitigation efforts – mental process – equivalent to writing information/data on a piece of paper;
Claims 13 and 18: Transmitting data “and a record of the efforts to mitigate the formation of persistent contrails to an external system pursuant to a regulatory framework” – transmitting information/data is post-solution activity.
Therefore, Claims 1 and 3-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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, 3, 7-10, 12, 14-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Madden et al. (US 2021/0277839 A1, henceforth Madden), and Wei et al. ("A Linear Programming Approach to the Development of Contrail Reduction Strategies Satisfying Operationally Feasible Constraints.", henceforth Wei).
Regarding Claim 1, Madden explicitly teaches the limitations: a method for monitoring for conditions likely to lead to aircraft-induced cirrus cloud formation {Schmidt-Appleman criterion, ¶4}, the method comprising: monitoring values that include mass ratio of water vapor, pressure, and temperature {sensors in Fig. 6, including pressure and humidity sensors} in an ambient atmospheric environment of an aircraft by the aircraft {various ambient condition sensors, ¶74} using at least two of: an optical air data system that determines the values from scattered and reflected light from particles {analysis of ambient conditions using optical sensor, such as lidar, ¶73}; a pitot static air data system that determines the pressure and airspeed {pitot-static arrangement, ¶74; and, the discussion of a “wingtip vortex temperature rise model” in ¶111 requires knowledge of the “speed of its descent”, which clearly indicates airspeed is being measured}; a spectroscopy system that determines the values by examining the interaction of electromagnetic radiation with air molecules; and predictive values generated by a weather model {satellite imagery and weather forecasting, ¶73, and weather forecasting couple to Schmidt-Appleman criterion, ¶82}; calculating water vapor saturation pressure for ice and for liquid water using a model and the monitored temperature {application of Contrail Formation Model, such as Schmidt-Appleman criterion, using ambient condition data, ¶79-81}; calculating a ratio of the relative humidity with respect to ice {application of Schmidt-Appleman criterion based on relationship between temperature and humidity, ¶4}; and identifying options for mitigating the formation of aircraft-induced cirrus cloud formation {evaluating water-fuel ratio for injection into turbine engine to mitigate contrails, ¶67}.
Madden does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: calculating a ratio of the relative humidity with respect to ice; when the ratio is greater than or equal to 1, providing an indication that the conditions are favorable for aircraft-induced cirrus cloud formation; and identifying options for mitigating the formation of aircraft-induced cirrus cloud formation.
However, Wei explicitly recites the limitations: calculating a ratio of the relative humidity with respect to ice {determination of supersaturated ambient air conditions, Pg. 2, last paragraph; also see Eq. (1), Pg. 3}; when the ratio is greater than or equal to 1 {relative humidity with respect to ice greater than or equal to 100%, Pg. 3, Section “B. Contrail Formation Model”}, providing an indication that the conditions are favorable for aircraft-induced cirrus cloud formation {weather analysis based on temperature and humidity to identify contrail formation conditions, Pg. 2, last paragraph}; and identifying options for mitigating the formation of aircraft-induced cirrus cloud formation {in the first full paragraph on Pg. 2, a few alternate approaches for contrail avoidance and reduction is discussed.}.
Madden and Wei are analogous art because they both deal with contrails.
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 Madden and Wei before them, to modify the teachings of Madden to include the teachings of Wei to aid in reducing contrail formation over the United States {Abstract}.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Madden and Wei discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Madden explicitly recites the limitation: wherein identifying the options for mitigating the formation of aircraft-induced cirrus cloud formation comprises at least one of: identifying changes to engine settings {evaluating water-fuel ratio for injection into turbine engine to mitigate contrails, ¶67}; and identifying changes to a vehicle travel path.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Madden and Wei discloses all the limitations of Claim 1. Madden does not appear to explicitly disclose limitation: wherein calculating the water vapor saturation pressures for ice and for liquid water is calculated using Goff-Gratch equations.
However, Wei explicitly recites the limitations: wherein calculating the water vapor saturation pressures for ice and for liquid water is calculated using Goff-Gratch equations {persistent contrail formation dependent on temperature and vapor pressure, se Pg. 3, Section “B. Contrail Formation Model” and Eq. (1)}.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Madden and Wei discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Madden explicitly recites the limitation: wherein a portion of at least one of the optical air data system and the spectroscopy system is located remotely from the aircraft {acquisition of satellite imagery and weather forecast data, ¶75}.
Regarding Claim 9, Madden explicitly teaches the limitations: a system comprising: two or more sensors for monitoring values that include mass ratio of water vapor, pressure, and temperature in a region of a vehicle {various ambient condition sensors, ¶74}, where the two or more sensors are mounted on the vehicle {aircraft sensors in Fig. 6, including pressure and humidity sensors } and comprise at least two of: an optical air data system that determines the values from scattered and reflected light from particles {analysis of ambient conditions using optical sensor, such as lidar, ¶73}; a pitot static air data system that determines the pressure and airspeed {pitot-static arrangement, ¶74; and, the discussion of a “wingtip vortex temperature rise model” in ¶111 requires knowledge of the “speed of its descent”, which indicates airspeed is being measured}; and a spectroscopy system that determines the values by examining the interaction of electromagnetic radiation with air molecules; and at least one processor configured to execute instructions that cause the at least one processor {processing modules, ¶25} to: identify water vapor saturation pressure for ice and for liquid water using a model and the monitored temperature {Schmidt-Appleman criterion, ¶4, and discussion of Contrail Formation Model in ¶79-81}; and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to identify mitigation option[s] {evaluating water-fuel ratio for injection into turbine engine to mitigate contrails, ¶67}.
Madden does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: calculate a ratio of the relative humidity with respect to ice; when the ratio is greater than or equal to 1: provide an indication that conditions are favorable for persistent contrail formation; wherein the at least one processor is further configured to identify mitigation options.
However, Wei explicitly recites the limitations: calculate a ratio of the relative humidity with respect to ice {determination of supersaturated ambient air conditions, Pg. 2, last paragraph; also see Eq. (1), Pg. 3}; when the ratio is greater than or equal to 1 {relative humidity with respect to ice greater than or equal to 100%, Pg. 3, Section “B. Contrail Formation Model”}: provide an indication that the conditions are favorable for aircraft-induced cirrus cloud formation {weather analysis based on temperature and humidity to identify contrail formation conditions, Pg. 2, last paragraph}; wherein the at least one processor is further configured to identify mitigation options {in the first full paragraph on Pg. 2, a few alternate approaches for contrail avoidance and reduction is discussed.}.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Madden and Wei discloses all the limitations of Claim 9, as discussed supra. In addition, Madden explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the at least one processor is part of a flight control system {electronic engine controller, ¶25 and ¶41}.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Madden and Wei discloses all the limitations of Claim 9, as discussed supra. In addition, Madden explicitly recites the limitation: further comprising a memory configured to store {memory registers, ¶25} at least one of the identified water vapor saturation pressures {humidity, ¶74, and vapor pressure, ¶79-81}, the ratio, and a record of efforts to mitigate the formation of persistent contrails.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Madden and Wei discloses all the limitations of Claim 9. Madden does not appear to explicitly disclose limitation: wherein the at least one processor is configured to identify the water vapor saturation pressures for ice and for liquid water by calculating the water vapor saturation pressures using Goff-Gratch equations.
However, Wei explicitly recites the limitations: wherein the at least one processor is configured to identify the water vapor saturation pressures for ice and for liquid water by calculating the water vapor saturation pressures using Goff-Gratch equations {persistent contrail formation dependent on temperature and vapor pressure, se Pg. 3, Section “B. Contrail Formation Model” and Eq. (1)}.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Madden and Wei discloses all the limitations of Claim 9, as discussed supra. In addition, Madden explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the at least one processor is further configured to identify mitigation options, wherein the mitigation options comprise at least one of: changes to settings of an engine for the vehicle {evaluating water-fuel ratio for injection into turbine engine to mitigate contrails, ¶67}; and changes to a travel path of the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 16, Madden explicitly teaches the limitations: a system comprising: two or more sensors for monitoring values that include mass ratio of water vapor, pressure, and temperature in an ambient atmospheric environment of a vehicle {various ambient condition sensors, ¶74}, where the two or more sensors are mounted on the vehicle {aircraft sensors in Fig. 6, including pressure and humidity sensors } and comprise at least two of: an optical air data system that determines the values from scattered and reflected light from particles {analysis of ambient conditions using optical sensor, such as lidar, ¶73}; a pitot static air data system that determines the pressure and airspeed {pitot-static arrangement, ¶74; and, the discussion of a “wingtip vortex temperature rise model” in ¶111 requires knowledge of the “speed of its descent”, which indicates airspeed is being measured}; and a spectroscopy system that determines the values by examining the interaction of electromagnetic radiation with air molecules; and at least one processor configured to execute instructions that cause the at least one processor {processing modules, ¶25} to: identify water vapor saturation pressure for ice and for liquid water using a model and the monitored temperature {application of Contrail Formation Model, such as Schmidt-Appleman criterion, using ambient condition data, ¶79-81}; calculate a ratio of the relative humidity with respect to ice {application of Schmidt-Appleman criterion based on relationship between temperature and humidity, ¶4}; and identify mitigation options for avoiding the formation of persistent contrails {evaluating water-fuel ratio for injection into turbine engine to mitigate contrails, ¶67}.
Madden does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: calculate a ratio of the relative humidity with respect to ice; when the ratio is greater than or equal to 1: provide an indication that conditions are favorable for persistent contrail formation; and identify mitigation options for avoiding the formation of persistent contrails.
However, Wei explicitly recites the limitations: calculate a ratio of the relative humidity with respect to ice {determination of supersaturated ambient air conditions, Pg. 2, last paragraph; also see Eq. (1), Pg. 3}; when the ratio is greater than or equal to 1 {relative humidity with respect to ice greater than or equal to 100%, Pg. 3, Section “B. Contrail Formation Model”}: provide an indication that conditions are favorable for persistent contrail formation {weather analysis based on temperature and humidity to identify contrail formation conditions, Pg. 2, last paragraph}; and identify mitigation options for avoiding the formation of persistent contrails. {in the first full paragraph on Pg. 2, a few alternate approaches for contrail avoidance and reduction is discussed.}.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Madden and Wei discloses all the limitations of Claim 16. Madden does not appear to explicitly disclose limitation: wherein the at least one processor is configured to identify the water vapor saturation pressures for ice and for liquid water by calculating the water vapor saturation pressures using Goff-Gratch equations.
However, Wei explicitly recites the limitations: wherein the at least one processor is configured to identify the water vapor saturation pressures for ice and for liquid water by calculating the water vapor saturation pressures using Goff-Gratch equations {persistent contrail formation dependent on temperature and vapor pressure, se Pg. 3, Section “B. Contrail Formation Model” and Eq. (1)}.
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Madden and Wei discloses all the limitations of Claim 16, as discussed supra. In addition, Madden explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the mitigation options comprise at least one of: changes to settings of an engine for the vehicle {evaluating water-fuel ratio for injection into turbine engine to mitigate contrails, ¶67}; and changes to a travel path of the vehicle.
Claims 4-6, 11, 13 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Madden, Wei and Durant (GB 2633483 A).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Madden and Wei discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. The combination of Madden and Wei does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: further comprising providing the options for mitigating the formation of aircraft-induced cirrus cloud formation to a user through a user interface.
However, Durant explicitly recites the limitation: further comprising providing the options for mitigating the formation of aircraft-induced cirrus cloud formation to a user through a user interface {contrail likelihood provided through user interface, Pg. 15, Lns. 12-14}.
The combination of Madden and Wei along with Durant are analogous art because they deal with contrail monitoring and/or mitigation.
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 Madden, Wei and Durant before them, to modify the teachings of the combination of Madden and Wei to include the teachings of Durant to determine a better flight trajectory for contrail mitigation {improved flight trajectory, Pg. 2, Lns. 17-21}.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Madden and Wei discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. The combination of Madden and Wei does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation further comprising maintaining a record of when the options for mitigating the formation of aircraft-induced cirrus cloud formation are pursued.
However, Durant explicitly recites the limitation: further comprising maintaining a record of when the options for mitigating the formation of aircraft-induced cirrus cloud formation are pursued {software for recording data and associated with flight management, Pg. 14, Lns. 27-33}.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Madden, Wei and Durant discloses all the limitations of Claim 5, as discussed supra. The combination of Madden and Wei does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: wherein the record is provided pursuant to a regulatory framework.
However, Durant explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the record is provided pursuant to a regulatory framework {software for recording data and associated with flight management, Pg. 14, Lns. 27-33}.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Madden and Wei discloses all the limitations of Claim 9, as discussed supra. The combination of Madden and Wei does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: further comprising a user interface, wherein the at least one processor provides the indication to a user through the user interface.
However, Durant explicitly recites the limitation: further comprising a user interface, wherein the at least one processor provides the indication to a user through the user interface {contrail likelihood provided through user interface, Pg. 15, Lns. 12-14}.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Madden, Wei and Durant discloses all the limitations of Claim 9, as discussed supra. The combination of Madden and Wei does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: wherein the at least one processor is configured to direct the transmission of at least one of the water vapor saturation pressures, the ratio, and a record of the efforts to mitigate the formation of persistent contrails to an external system pursuant to a regulatory framework.
However, Durant explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the at least one processor is configured to direct the transmission of at least one of the water vapor saturation pressures, the ratio, and a record of the efforts to mitigate the formation of persistent contrails to an external system pursuant to a regulatory framework{software for recording data and associated with flight management, Pg. 14, Lns. 27-33}.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Madden and Wei discloses all the limitations of Claim 16, as discussed supra. The combination of Madden and Wei does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: further comprising a user interface, wherein the at least one processor provides the indication and the mitigation options to a user through the user interface.
However, Durant explicitly recites the limitation: further comprising a user interface, wherein the at least one processor provides the indication and the mitigation options to a user through the user interface {contrail likelihood provided through user interface, Pg. 15, Lns. 12-14}.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Madden and Wei discloses all the limitations of Claim 16, as discussed supra. In addition, Madden explicitly recites the limitation: further comprising a memory configured to store {memory registers, ¶25}.
The combination of Madden and Wei does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: a memory configured to store a record of efforts to mitigate the formation of persistent contrails, wherein the at least one processor transmits the record of the efforts to mitigate to an operations control center pursuant to a regulatory framework.
However, Durant explicitly recites the limitation: a memory configured to store {non-transitory machine-readable data storage medium, Pg. 18, Lns. 27-35} a record of efforts to mitigate the formation of persistent contrails, wherein the at least one processor {processor, Pg. 18, Lns. 21-25} transmits the record of the efforts to mitigate to an operations control center pursuant to a regulatory framework {recording flight, weather data, contrail information, etc. and sharing information with ground based entities, Pg. 14, Lns. 23-33}. .
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kiemle, Christoph, et al. "Detection and analysis of water vapor transport by airborne lidars." IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing 6.3 (2013): 1189-1193. [Measurement of water vapor profiles in ambient air using a differential absorption lidar (DIAL) apparatus onboard an aircraft.]
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