CTFR 18/662,081 CTFR 100003 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 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims The following is a final office action in response to the communication filed on 02/09/2026. Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15, and 18-24 are pending and have been examined. Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15, and 18-20 are either amended directly or a claim they depend from. Claims 7, 14, and 16-17 are canceled. Claims 21-24 are new. Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15, and 18-24 are rejected. Response to Arguments Regarding the Objections of the Claims Directed to Minor Informalities: Applicant’s amendments to claims 10 and 13 and the cancellation of claims 7 and 16 have rendered the objections moot. Accordingly, the objections have been withdrawn. Regarding the Claim Rejections under 35 § USC 101: Applicant’s amendments to independent claims 1, 11, and 20, particularly the incorporation of, “changing the flight of the aircraft,” have rendered the rejections directed towards a mental process of determining operation settings of an aircraft moot, as the claims cannot be reasonably interpreted as only executing predictions. Accordingly, the rejections have been withdrawn. Regarding the Claim Rejections under 35 § USC 102/103: Applicant’s arguments and corresponding amendments, see pages 7-10 filed on 02/09/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 have been successful in in traversing the rejections in the first office action due to the subject matter amended into independent claims 1, 11, and 20. However, after further search and consideration, new grounds of rejections have been respectfully made in response to the amendments. The new grounds of rejection have rendered the arguments moot, and will be discussed in the following sections. 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. 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-21-aia AIA Claims 1- 6, 8, 11-13, 15, 22, and 24 are re jected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He rnandez Meza et al. (US 2025/0250024 A1, hereinafter Hernandez Meza) in view of Darbois et al. (US 2015/0323933 A1, hereinafter Darbois) Cl aim 1 Discloses: (Currently Amended) “A method of operating an aircraft to reduce an emission level,” Hernandez Meza teaches, (Abstract, Line 1-2) “A system and method of determining emissions for an aircraft ,” and that, (Paragraph [0029], lines 36-40) “the system can consider different power levels for multiple aircraft 20 among a fleet of aircraft 20 can be considered in order to minimize or reduce emissions .” “the method comprising: monitoring an emission level of the aircraft during a flight; determining that the emission level exceeds an emission level threshold;” Hernandez Meza teaches, (Paragraph [0027], Lines 3-12) “The control data input 60 can be compared against stored data, historical data, or other threshold information relating to the operation of the engine 22, the aircraft, 20, or the flight mission, such that the control data input 60 are within acceptable expected ranges or thresholds . For example, such stored or historical data can be data related to the aircraft 20, such as aircraft type, weight, age, engine number or position, or other information that can be utilized to determine emissions specific to the aircraft 20 ,” and that, (Paragraph [0038], Lines 19-20) “the system 50 can be iterative if total emissions are outside of expected ranges or thresholds .” “[[and]] in response to exceeding the emission level threshold, displaying on a display screen on a flight deck of the aircraft, ” Hernandez Meza teaches, (Paragraph [0044], Lines 1-8) “If the emissions determined by the system 50 in real-time at 92 differ from that as expected based upon the emission index 70 or historical values, then an indication can be output by the system 50, such as on the display 26 (FIG. 1). Such an output can be provided to or displayed to the pilot or aircraft operator on the display 26, or even someone remote from the aircraft 20, such as at the ground station 14 for example while still in real-time .” “multiple flight profiles that each include adjustments to one or more operational settings to the aircraft that will lower the emission level to below the emission level threshold ; receiving from the flight deck a selection of one of the flight profiles and changing the one or more operational settings of the aircraft during the flight according to the selected flight profile and changing the flight of the aircraft and reducing the emission level during the flight to below the emission level threshold.” Hernandez Meza does not explicitly teach displaying multiple flight profiles, but teach capability to implement operational changes to lower emissions in real time. Hernandez Meza teaches, (Paragraph [0044], Lines 8-16) “The emissions can then be managed in real-time, and the system 50 can be iterative to provide an updated determination for the emission index 70 during the flight mission, as well as an updated total emissions 82. Such management of the emissions can be accomplished by varying one or more values defining the control data input 60 (FIG. 2). In a non-limiting example, the engine cycle speed can be varied in order to vary the emissions in real-time.” However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the preceding limitations, particularly the selecting of flight profiles upon a display, in light of Darbois. Darbois teaches, (Abstract, Lines 1-2) “A method implemented by computer for optimizing the cruising trajectory of an aircraft,” wherein, (Paragraph [0121], Lines 5-8) “the method comprises steps which require the determination 420 of candidate alternative trajectories . An alternative trajectory comprises plateaus and transitions between plateaus, which satisfy the demands of air safety,” further wherein, (Paragraph [0121], Lines 22-26) “The determination of one or more alternative trajectories can be triggered in various ways. This determination can be performed on demand 421 (for example on request of the pilot) or be performed in an automatic manner 422 (for example upon overstepping predefined thresholds ).” Darbois additionally teaches in relation to emissions that, (Paragraph [0060]) “the methods and systems described make it possible to optimize the cruising regime of an aircraft ( during the flight profile or the trajectory), to reduce fuel consumption as well as the associated ecological footprint ( emissions of CO2 and NOx).” Darbois additionally teaches with regards to the problem it solves is that, (Paragraphs [0012-0013]) “The prior art does not present any choice between such candidate trajectories (e.g. possibilities of changes of flight level, longer or shorter plateaus, etc). Generally, in existing avionic systems, the display is limited to that of the “next” transition (e.g. within the planned trajectory of the flight plan) and, moreover, a fortiori, there is no display of indicators associated with these candidate trajectories . The candidate solutions are by definition limited to the solutions that are “acceptable” from the point of view of aerial navigation. Stated otherwise, the candidate flight profiles are subjected to the ATC for validation once the computation has been performed.” Darbois additionally teaches with regards to user selection and flight profile implementation that, (Paragraph [0121], Lines 51-53) “In step 430, an alternative trajectory is selected (for example by the pilot , but automatic selection criteria are also possible),” wherein, (Paragraph [0122]) “Various “ economical” modes 450 of transitions between plateaus can be implemented . These transitions can indeed be performed according to different modalities, described previously (“predefined modes”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Hernandez-Meza which is capable of displaying that an emission threshold has been exceeded to a pilot of an aircraft, with the system of Darbois which is capable of presenting multiple choices of flight profiles for a pilot to select on a display upon a threshold being exceeded, one of the benefits being reduced emissions, in order to yield predictable results. Combining the references would implement known solutions to previously identified problems with regards to a pilot’s ability to select an economic choice for a flight profile. As Darbois describes, (Paragraphs [0012-0013]) “The prior art does not present any choice between such candidate trajectories (e.g. possibilities of changes of flight level, longer or shorter plateaus, etc). Generally, in existing avionic systems, the display is limited to that of the “next” transition (e.g. within the planned trajectory of the flight plan) and, moreover, a fortiori , there is no display of indicators associated with these candidate trajectories . The candidate solutions are by definition limited to the solutions that are “acceptable” from the point of view of aerial navigation. Stated otherwise, the candidate flight profiles are subjected to the ATC for validation once the computation has been performed,” and additionally describes that, (Paragraph [0004]) “Airlines and the regulator are currently seeking to decrease the impact of aeroplanes on the environment (decrease in waste from CO2 and NOx) and as a corollary to optimize fuel consumption (decrease in the quantity of kerosene) while complying with the constraints of constantly increasing traffic.” Claim 2 Discloses: (Original) “The method of claim 1, further comprising determining the emission level during one or more of take-off, climb, cruise, descent, and landing of the aircraft.” Hernandez Meza teaches, (Paragraph [0029], lines 36-40) “the system can consider different power levels for multiple aircraft 20 among a fleet of aircraft 20 can be considered in order to minimize or reduce emissions ,” and that, (Paragraph [0029], Lines 1-15) “The controller 54 can be further configured to project the control data input 60, and any that has been updated via a performance correction 64, to different power levels 66 … During the flight mission, the engine 22 (FIG. 1) operates at different power levels , such as takeoff, climb, cruise, descend, or landing in non-limiting examples.” Claim 3 Discloses: (Original) “The method of claim 1, further comprising receiving the emission level threshold from a remote node during the flight.” Hernandez Meza teaches, (Paragraph [0044], Lines 8-11) “The emissions can then be managed in real-time, and the system 50 can be iterative to provide an updated determination for the emission index 70 during the flight mission. ” Hernandez Meza additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0056], Lines 29-48) “the system 50 can change the flight mission (either for a single aircraft 20 (FIG. 1), or across a fleet of aircraft 20) in order to reduce total emissions or meet the emissions goals . Updating the flight mission can include, in non-limiting examples, changing or updating a flight plan, a flight speed, power level, altitude, destination, path, fuel type, fuel consumption rate, engine temperature, or engine cycle speed. Additionally, updating the flight mission can include managing emissions, such that the flight mission is changed or varied in order to meet a specific emissions goal, such as a total volume of emissions across a fleet of aircraft 20. It is further contemplated that the system 50 can update the flight mission automatically if the emission index 70 is representative of emissions or costs that are outside of expectations or predetermined thresholds , which can be tailored to the engine deterioration. In another non-limiting example, updating the flight mission can be accomplished at the discretion or permission of a user, such as the pilot of the aircraft 20 or at the ground station 14. Hernandez Meza additionally teaches the system, (Paragraph [0112]) “further comprising a ground station in communication with the controller wherein the emission index is used by the ground station to determine total emissions for the flight mission.” Claim 4 Discloses: (Original) “The method of claim 1, wherein the emission level threshold value is generated during the flight and based on the operational settings of the aircraft.” Hernandez Meza teaches, (Paragraph [0046], Lines 1-2) “the emission index 70 can be tied to or otherwise related to the engine 22 .” Hernandez Meza additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0044], Lines 8-16) “The emissions can then be managed in real-time, and the system 50 can be iterative to provide an updated determination for the emission index 70 during the flight mission , as well as an updated total emissions 82. Such management of the emissions can be accomplished by varying one or more values defining the control data input 60 (FIG. 2). In a non-limiting example, the engine cycle speed can be varied in order to vary the emissions in real-time.” Claim 5 Discloses: (Original) “The method of claim 4, wherein the operational settings of the aircraft comprises one or more of engine settings and flight settings.” Hernandez Meza teaches, (Paragraph [0044], Lines 8-16) “The emissions can then be managed in real-time, and the system 50 can be iterative to provide an updated determination for the emission index 70 during the flight mission , as well as an updated total emissions 82. Such management of the emissions can be accomplished by varying one or more values defining the control data input 60 (FIG. 2). In a non-limiting example, the engine cycle speed can be varied in order to vary the emissions in real-time.” Claim 6 Discloses: (Original) “The method of claim 1, further comprising responsive to determining that the emission level exceeds the emission level threshold, transmitting the emission level during the flight to a remote node.” Hernandez Meza teaches, (Paragraph [0044], Lines 1-8) “If the emissions determined by the system 50 in real-time at 92 differ from that as expected based upon the emission index 70 or historical values, then an indication can be output by the system 50, such as on the display 26 (FIG. 1). Such an output can be provided to or displayed to the pilot or aircraft operator on the display 26, or even someone remote from the aircraft 20 , such as at the ground station 14 for example while still in real-time .” Hernandez Meza additionally teaches the system, (Paragraph [0112]) “further comprising a ground station in communication with the controller. ” Claim 8 Discloses: (Original) “The method of claim 1, wherein changing the one or more operational settings of the aircraft during the flight comprises determining changing one or more of fuel burn, speed, thrust, and altitude of the aircraft.” Hernandez Meza teaches, (Paragraph [0044], Lines 8-16) “The emissions can then be managed in real-time, and the system 50 can be iterative to provide an updated determination for the emission index 70 during the flight mission , as well as an updated total emissions 82. Such management of the emissions can be accomplished by varying one or more values defining the control data input 60 (FIG. 2). In a non-limiting example, the engine cycle speed can be varied in order to vary the emissions in real-time,” and that, (Paragraph [0043], Lines 11-4) “Management of the emissions can include, in non-limiting examples, changing or updating a flight plan, a flight speed, an altitude , a flight mission, a power level, or a fuel consumption rate .” Claim 11 Discloses: (Currently Amended) “A computing system to operate an aircraft to reduce an emission level during a flight,” Hernandez Meza teaches, (Abstract, Line 1-2) “A system and method of determining emissions for an aircraft ,” and that, (Paragraph [0029], lines 36-40) “the system can consider different power levels for multiple aircraft 20 among a fleet of aircraft 20 can be considered in order to minimize or reduce emissions ,” as well as, (Paragraph [0020], Lines 1-6) “The ground station 14, the fuel storage 16, the aircraft 20, and the database 18, as well as any other aspect connected to the network 12 can include a controller, a memory, and a processor, which can be utilized to receive, send, interpret, or otherwise use information or measurements made of the system 10.” “the computing system comprising: processing circuitry and memory circuitry, the memory circuitry storing instructions executable by the processing circuitry” Hernandez Meza teaches, (Paragraph [0023]) “The system 50 can be controllably implemented or enabled by way of a controller 54 having a processor 56 and memory 58 . The functionalities described herein can be implemented or enabled, at least partially, by the controller 54. In one non-limiting example, the controller 54 can include, or can be incorporated into the system 50, as described herein. For example, the controller 54 can be the incorporated as part of the avionics system 24 on the aircraft 20 (FIG. 1) or can be incorporated into the system 50 incorporated into the ground station 14 (FIG. 1). In one example, the controller 54 can include a non-transitory media, storing programming instructions in order to operate the system 50 . In a non-limiting example, operation of an aircraft, an avionics system, or a turbine engine can be accomplished with the non-transitory media, in order to determine the emission index,” and that, (Paragraph [0024], Lines 11-13) “The system 50 can be in the form of a program or software such as that provided on the controller 54 for storing and executing such a program or software .” “whereby the computing system is configured to: detect an emission level of the aircraft during the flight; determine that the emission level exceeds an emission level threshold;” Hernandez Meza teaches, (Paragraph [0027], Lines 3-12) “The control data input 60 can be compared against stored data, historical data, or other threshold information relating to the operation of the engine 22, the aircraft, 20, or the flight mission, such that the control data input 60 are within acceptable expected ranges or thresholds . For example, such stored or historical data can be data related to the aircraft 20, such as aircraft type, weight, age, engine number or position, or other information that can be utilized to determine emissions specific to the aircraft 20 ,” and that, (Paragraph [0038], Lines 19-20) “the system 50 can be iterative if total emissions are outside of expected ranges or thresholds .” “[[and]] responsive to determining the emission level exceeds the emission level threshold: is generate flight profiles that each adjust one or more operational settings of the aircraft with each of the flight profiles configured to cause the emission level of the aircraft to be below the emission level threshold; display the flight profiles on a display in the aircraft; receive an input comprising a selection of one of the flight profiles that are displayed in the aircraft; and adjust the one or more operational settings of the aircraft to the selected flight profile and changing the flight of the aircraft. elevated, activate an emission control mode during the flight and reduce the emission level below the emission level threshold.” Hernandez Meza does not explicitly teach displaying multiple flight profiles, but teach capability to implement operational changes to lower emissions in real time. Hernandez Meza teaches, (Paragraph [0044], Lines 8-16) “The emissions can then be managed in real-time, and the system 50 can be iterative to provide an updated determination for the emission index 70 during the flight mission, as well as an updated total emissions 82. Such management of the emissions can be accomplished by varying one or more values defining the control data input 60 (FIG. 2). In a non-limiting example, the engine cycle speed can be varied in order to vary the emissions in real-time.” However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the preceding limitations, particularly the selecting of flight profiles upon a display, in light of Darbois. Darbois teaches, (Abstract, Lines 1-2) “A method implemented by computer for optimizing the cruising trajectory of an aircraft,” wherein, (Paragraph [0121], Lines 5-8) “the method comprises steps which require the determination 420 of candidate alternative trajectories . An alternative trajectory comprises plateaus and transitions between plateaus, which satisfy the demands of air safety,” further wherein, (Paragraph [0121], Lines 22-26) “The determination of one or more alternative trajectories can be triggered in various ways. This determination can be performed on demand 421 (for example on request of the pilot) or be performed in an automatic manner 422 (for example upon overstepping predefined thresholds ).” Darbois additionally teaches in relation to emissions that, (Paragraph [0060]) “the methods and systems described make it possible to optimize the cruising regime of an aircraft ( during the flight profile or the trajectory), to reduce fuel consumption as well as the associated ecological footprint ( emissions of CO2 and NOx).” Darbois additionally teaches with regards to the problem it solves is that, (Paragraphs [0012-0013]) “The prior art does not present any choice between such candidate trajectories (e.g. possibilities of changes of flight level, longer or shorter plateaus, etc). Generally, in existing avionic systems, the display is limited to that of the “next” transition (e.g. within the planned trajectory of the flight plan) and, moreover, a fortiori, there is no display of indicators associated with these candidate trajectories . The candidate solutions are by definition limited to the solutions that are “acceptable” from the point of view of aerial navigation. Stated otherwise, the candidate flight profiles are subjected to the ATC for validation once the computation has been performed.” Darbois additionally teaches with regards to user selection and flight profile implementation that, (Paragraph [0121], Lines 51-53) “In step 430, an alternative trajectory is selected (for example by the pilot , but automatic selection criteria are also possible),” wherein, (Paragraph [0122]) “Various “ economical” modes 450 of transitions between plateaus can be implemented . These transitions can indeed be performed according to different modalities, described previously (“predefined modes”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Hernandez-Meza which is capable of displaying that an emission threshold has been exceeded to a pilot of an aircraft, with the system of Darbois which is capable of presenting multiple choices of flight profiles for a pilot to select on a display upon a threshold being exceeded, one of the benefits being reduced emissions, in order to yield predictable results. Combining the references would implement known solutions to previously identified problems with regards to a pilot’s ability to select an economic choice for a flight profile. As Darbois describes, (Paragraphs [0012-0013]) “The prior art does not present any choice between such candidate trajectories (e.g. possibilities of changes of flight level, longer or shorter plateaus, etc). Generally, in existing avionic systems, the display is limited to that of the “next” transition (e.g. within the planned trajectory of the flight plan) and, moreover, a fortiori , there is no display of indicators associated with these candidate trajectories . The candidate solutions are by definition limited to the solutions that are “acceptable” from the point of view of aerial navigation. Stated otherwise, the candidate flight profiles are subjected to the ATC for validation once the computation has been performed,” and additionally describes that, (Paragraph [0004]) “Airlines and the regulator are currently seeking to decrease the impact of aeroplanes on the environment (decrease in waste from CO2 and NOx) and as a corollary to optimize fuel consumption (decrease in the quantity of kerosene) while complying with the constraints of constantly increasing traffic.” Claim 12 Discloses: (Original) “The computing system of claim 11, wherein an emission sensor is onboard the aircraft and is configured to detect the emission level of the aircraft.” Hernandez Meza teaches, (Paragraph [0032], Lines 40-46) “ the system 50 can provide an accurate determination of the emissions emitted during a flight mission, a portion of the flight mission, or at any point during such the flight mission. Additionally, the controller 54 can request or make real-time measurements during the flight mission and can update the emission index 70 in real-time. Existing sensors within the engine 22 (FIG. 1) permit such real-time measurement ,” and that, (Paragraph [0042], Lines 14-17) “Such real-time measurement can occur by sensors provided in or in communication with the engine 22 (FIG. 1), such as temperature sensors, cycle speed sensors, or fuel burn sensors, in non-limiting examples.” Claim 13 Discloses: (Currently Amended) “The computing system of claim 11, wherein the computing system detects the emission level during one or more of a plurality of flight phases comprising a taxi-out, take-off, climb, cruise, descent, landing, and taxi-in, and transmits transmit to a remote node, the emission level during the flight phases.” Hernandez Meza teaches, (Paragraph [0029], lines 36-40) “the system can consider different power levels for multiple aircraft 20 among a fleet of aircraft 20 can be considered in order to minimize or reduce emissions ,” and that, (Paragraph [0029], Lines 1-15) “The controller 54 can be further configured to project the control data input 60, and any that has been updated via a performance correction 64, to different power levels 66 … During the flight mission, the engine 22 (FIG. 1) operates at different power levels , such as takeoff, climb, cruise, descend, or landing in non-limiting examples.” Hernandez Meza additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0044], Lines 1-8) “If the emissions determined by the system 50 in real-time at 92 differ from that as expected based upon the emission index 70 or historical values, then an indication can be output by the system 50, such as on the display 26 (FIG. 1). Such an output can be provided to or displayed to the pilot or aircraft operator on the display 26, or even someone remote from the aircraft 20 , such as at the ground station 14 for example while still in real-time.” Claim 15 Discloses: (Original) “The computing system of claim 11, wherein the computing system is further configured to transmit the emission level to a remote node responsive to a determination that the emission level is over the emission level threshold.” Hernandez Meza teaches, (Paragraph [0044], Lines 1-8) “If the emissions determined by the system 50 in real-time at 92 differ from that as expected based upon the emission index 70 or historical values, then an indication can be output by the system 50, such as on the display 26 (FIG. 1). Such an output can be provided to or displayed to the pilot or aircraft operator on the display 26, or even someone remote from the aircraft 20 , such as at the ground station 14 for example while still in real-time.” Hernandez Meza additionally teaches the system, (Paragraph [0112]) “further comprising a ground station in communication with the controller. ” Claim 22 Discloses: (New) “The computing system of claim 11, wherein each of the flight profiles is stored onboard the aircraft and generated prior to when the emission level exceeds the emission level threshold.” Hernandez Meza does not explicitly teach the preceding limitations. However, Hernandez Meza does teach that, (Paragraph [0013], Lines 20-22) “The operation or functional outcomes can be based on … stored data values .” It would have been obvious to arrive at the preceding limitations in light of Darbois. Darbois teaches that, (Paragraph [0087], Lines 8-11) “Situated within the cockpit is piloting equipment 121 (termed avionic equipment), comprising for example one or more onboard computers (means of computing, saving and storing data ) including an FMS ,” wherein, (Paragraph [0122]) “Various “economical” modes 450 of transitions between plateaus can be implemented. These transitions can indeed be performed according to different modalities, described previously (“ predefined modes ”),” further wherein, (Paragraph [0119], Lines 1-2) “ The various steps of the scheme can be implemented in all or part on the FMS .” Darbois additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0055]) “ The various modalities of transition between plateaus may be—in themselves—associated with gains (i.e. savings) of fuel … During the display (optional) of the indicators of gains or losses in fuel, the values of relative gains that are associated with the various proposed transitions can be individually tailored or totalled and exhibited (i.e. displayed) to the pilot ,” and that, (Paragraph [0056], Lines 1-6) “All or some of the transitions may be performed according to these “economical” predefined modes . For example, an airline can “constrain” (barring exceptions for traffic related ATC constraints or emergency manoeuvres) to particular modes of transition (savings, passenger comfort, etc).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Hernandez Meza with the economical predefined modes taught by Darbois, in order to yield predictable results. Combining the references would yield the well-known benefits of utilizing predefined modes in order to ensure flight profiles comply with, for example, cost savings or passenger comfort. As Darbois describes, (Paragraph [0056], Lines 2-6) “For example, an airline can “constrain” (barring exceptions for traffic related ATC constraints or emergency manoeuvres) to particular modes of transition (savings, passenger comfort, etc).” Claim 24 Discloses: (New) “The computing system of claim 11, wherein the flight profiles are output to the display that is located at a flight deck of the aircraft.” Both Hernandez Meza and Darbois output pertinent information via a display to a pilot. Hernandez Meza teaches, (Paragraph [0046], Lines 1-10) “emission index 70 can be tied to or otherwise related to the engine 22 … Such an indication can be in the form of an alert or recommendation provided on a display , such as on the display 26 (FIG. 1) to the aircraft pilot , or a user at a ground station,” Darbois teaches, (Paragraph [0103]) “the display of corresponding alternative routes on the MMIs is advantageous (all the more as these alternatives are motivated in a graphical manner, that is to say accompanied by the gains in time and in fuel).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Hernandez-Meza which is capable of displaying that an emission threshold has been exceeded to a pilot of an aircraft, with the system of Darbois which is capable of presenting multiple choices of flight profiles for a pilot to select on a display upon a threshold being exceeded, one of the benefits being reduced emissions, in order to yield predictable results. Combining the references would implement known solutions to previously identified problems with regards to a pilot’s ability to select an economic choice for a flight profile. As Darbois describes, (Paragraphs [0012-0013]) “The prior art does not present any choice between such candidate trajectories (e.g. possibilities of changes of flight level, longer or shorter plateaus, etc). Generally, in existing avionic systems, the display is limited to that of the “next” transition (e.g. within the planned trajectory of the flight plan) and, moreover, a fortiori , there is no display of indicators associated with these candidate trajectories . The candidate solutions are by definition limited to the solutions that are “acceptable” from the point of view of aerial navigation. Stated otherwise, the candidate flight profiles are subjected to the ATC for validation once the computation has been performed,” and additionally describes that, (Paragraph [0004]) “Airlines and the regulator are currently seeking to decrease the impact of aeroplanes on the environment (decrease in waste from CO2 and NOx) and as a corollary to optimize fuel consumption (decrease in the quantity of kerosene) while complying with the constraints of constantly increasing traffic.” 07-21-aia AIA Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hernandez Meza in view of Darbois, further in view of Gurumoorthi et al. (US 2018/0312273 A1, hereinafter Gurumoorthi) Claim 10 Discloses: “The method of claim 1, further comprising in response to determining that the emission level exceeds an emission level threshold providing an aural alert to a flight deck during the flight.” Hernandez Meza does not explicitly teach an aural alert in response to the emission level exceeding a threshold. However, Hernandez Meza does teach generating an alert to the flight deck in response to the emission level exceeding a threshold. Hernandez Meza teaches, (Paragraph [0046], Lines 1-10) “emission index 70 can be tied to or otherwise related to the engine 22. For example, the emission index 70 can be related to a serial number for the engine 22, or for the aircraft 20. Utilizing the serial number or other information related to the aircraft 20 or engine 22 can utilize the emission index 70 to indicate additional aircraft maintenance or inspection. Such an indication can be in the form of an alert or recommendation provided on a display , such as on the display 26 (FIG. 1) to the aircraft pilot , or a user at a ground station,” and that, (Paragraph [0133]) “the controller outputs an alert , based on the emission index, when the emission index is outside of a threshold .” Darbois does not teach an aural alert. Despite Gurumoorthi being directed to a system in which, (Abstract, Lines 1-12) “If any emission vapors are detected in proximity to the aircraft, an alert and suggested maneuvers to avoid the emission vapors are sent to the aircraft,” Gurumoorthi is relevant to the Applicant’s disclosure by providing routine and conventional options for providing a pilot of a flight deck with alerts and/or suggestions for what a pilot should do next, one of which is an aural alert. Gurumoorthi teaches, (Paragraph [0016], Lines 17-23) “The alert may be an audio warning , a visual warning or both. Additionally, an avoidance advisory system 120 may generate cues for the pilot of the aircraft with suggested maneuvers 122 to avoid the emission vapors in some embodiments. The suggested maneuvers may be an audio message , a visual message or both.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the system which generates alerts to a pilot when an emission level has exceeded a threshold as taught by Hernandez Meza, which the methodology of providing an aural alert to a pilot who needs to be notified as taught by Gurumoorthi, as it would have been obvious to try.ernandex Selecting an aural alert to notify a pilot is one of a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it is directed to taking advantage of one of the well-known five human senses of hearing. Additionally, aural alerts have exhibited success in notifying pilots such as at least in the audio warning system of Gurumoorthi, and therefore the combination would carry a reasonable expectation of success . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hernandez Meza in view of Darbois, further in view of Chircop et al. (US 9,460, 629 B2, hereinafter Chircop) Claim 18 Discloses: (Currently Amended) “The computing system of claim 11 17 , wherein the flight profiles comprise the adjustments made to one or more of fuel burn, speed, thrust, and altitude of the aircraft.” Hernandez Meza does not explicitly determine a flight profile used to reduce the emission level, but does teach adjusting a flight plan by at least changing a fuel consumption rate to reduce the emission level. Hernandez Meza teaches, (Paragraph [0044], Lines 8-16) “The emissions can then be managed in real-time , and the system 50 can be iterative to provide an updated determination for the emission index 70 during the flight mission , as well as an updated total emissions 82. Such management of the emissions can be accomplished by varying one or more values defining the control data input 60 (FIG. 2). In a non-limiting example, the engine cycle speed can be varied in order to vary the emissions in real-time,” and that, (Paragraph [0043], Lines 11-4) “Management of the emissions can include, in non-limiting examples, changing or updating a flight plan , a flight speed, an altitude, a flight mission, a power level, or a fuel consumption rate .” Darbois does not explicitly teach the preceding limitations, however, Darbois does teach, (Paragraph [0055]) “During the display (optional) of the indicators of gains or losses in fuel , the values of relative gains that are associated with the various proposed transitions can be individually tailored or totalled and exhibited (i.e. displayed) to the pilot.” Chircop does explicitly teach using an updated flight profile used to reduce the emission level of an aircraft by, for example, adjusting fuel burn. Chircop teaches, (Abstract, Lines 1-2) “A method and system and tools for optimizing an aircraft flight trajectory that determine an advantageous flight profile that takes into account developing operational conditions,” and that, (Page 10, Column 2, Lines 14-19) “From a performance perspective, it is understood that by improving the planning of a flight, at both strategic and tactical levels, significant reductions of fuel burn and emissions can be achieved , the former of the order of several percentage points over current levels.” Chircop additionally teaches, (page 11, Column 4, Lines 3-8) “By taking into account aircraft performance and up-to-date operating conditions and operational constraints simultaneously, the method is capable of determining more advantageous flight trajectories and profiles according to criteria set by the operator, such as fuel burn , time of flight, noise, emissions or cost index.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the flight plan adjustment system to reduce emissions of Hernandez Meza, with the explicit teachings of using a flight profile with regards to fuel burn to reduce emissions as taught by Chircop, in order to yield predictable results. Combining the references would take advantage of the well-known benefits of utilizing a flight profile to achieve changes to a flight plan regarding fuel burn in order to reduce emissions. As Chircop describes capability to, (Abstract, Lines 2-6) “ determine an advantageous flight profile that takes into account developing operational conditions, air traffic constraints and aircraft performance in a timely manner that can allow tactical flight plan changes to be incorporated.” 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hernandez Meza in view of Darbois, further in view of Lamkin et al. (US 9,269,205 B1, hereinafter Lamkin) Claim 9 Discloses: “The method of claim 1, further comprising monitoring the emission level of the aircraft when one or more engines are operating and an auxiliary power unit is not operating.” Hernandez Meza and Darbois do not teach monitoring the emission level of the aircraft when one or more engines are operating and an auxiliary power unit is not operating. However, Hernandez Meza does teach, (Paragraph [0002], Line 1 ) “ A turbine engine used to drive an aircraft,” and that, (Paragraph [0002], Lines 6-13) “The combustion gases are channeled to the turbine section which extracts energy from the combustion gases for powering the compressor section, as well as for producing useful work to propel an aircraft in flight or to power a load, such as an electrical generator.” Lamkin does teach monitoring the emission level of the aircraft when one or more engines are operating and an auxiliary power unit is not operating. Lamkin teaches, (Abstract) “An environmental impact measurement system for an aircraft … The processing system is configured, upon receipt of the aircraft data and the flight plan data, to generate at least data representative of real-time environmental impact of the aircraft, and recommendations for improving the real-time environmental impact of the aircraft,” and that, (Page 9, Columns 1, Lines 65-67 and Column 2, Lines 1-3) “The data collection system is in operable communication with the one-way data interface and is configured to receive at least a portion of the aircraft data, determine , based at least in part on the aircraft data, carbon emission rate data , and store the aircraft data and carbon emission rate data.” Lamkin additionally teaches, (Page 11, Column 6, Lines 13-18) “The standard performance metrics 216 include metrics that are likely considered significant to most (if not all) operating platforms. Such metrics include, for example, data representative of global warming potential (GWP) , contrail formation, NOx formation, and instantaneous CO2 emissions, just to name a few,” and that, (Page 12, Column 7, Lines 9-18) “In the depicted example, engine #1 is operating at 97%, engine #2 is operating at 95%, and the APU is off . The GWP Per Mile field 608 displays the instantaneous GWP per mile for the aircraft , the Cost Per Mile field displays the instantaneous cost per mile for the aircraft, and the Altitude field 614 displays the current aircraft altitude. In the depicted example, the instantaneous GWP is 32, the instantaneous cost per mile is $0.50, and the aircraft altitude is 32,000 feet.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the aircraft emission threshold measurement system of Hernandez Meza with the configuration and capability to measure aircraft emissions wherein one or more engines are operating and an auxiliary power unit is not operating as taught by Lamkin, in order to yield predictable results. Combining the references would yield the benefits of being able to determine the emissions levels of the engines alone, allowing turning on the APU to be a potential step to mitigate emissions levels and therefore mitigate negative environmental impact. As Lamkin describes, (Page 12, Column 7, Lines 40-47) “The display device 124 additionally renders recommendations 622 for improving the real-time environmental impact of the aircraft . These recommendations 622, at least in the depicted embodiment, include both textual and graphical recommendations. For example, the display device 124 renders textual recommendations that the flight crew should increase the power output of both engines, and should turn on the APU and increase its power to 40%. ” Claim 19 Discloses: (Original) “The computing system of claim 11, wherein the computing system determines that an auxiliary power unit of the aircraft is disabled prior to detecting the emission level of the aircraft during the flight.” Hernandez Meza and Darbois do not teach monitoring the emission level of the aircraft when one or more engines are operating and an auxiliary power unit is not operating. However, Hernandez Meza does teach, (Paragraph [0002], Line 1 ) “ A turbine engine used to drive an aircraft,” and that, (Paragraph [0002], Lines 6-13) “The combustion gases are channeled to the turbine section which extracts energy from the combustion gases for powering the compressor section, as well as for producing useful work to propel an aircraft in flight or to power a load, such as an electrical generator.” Lamkin does teach monitoring the emission level of the aircraft when one or more engines are operating and an auxiliary power unit is not operating. Lamkin teaches, (Abstract) “An environmental impact measurement system for an aircraft … The processing system is configured, upon receipt of the aircraft data and the flight plan data, to generate at least data representative of real-time environmental impact of the aircraft, and recommendations for improving the real-time environmental impact of the aircraft,” and that, (Page 9, Columns 1, Lines 65-67 and Column 2, Lines 1-3) “The data collection system is in operable communication with the one-way data interface and is configured to receive at least a portion of the aircraft data, determine , based at least in part on the aircraft data, carbon emission rate data , and store the aircraft data and carbon emission rate data.” Lamkin additionally teaches, (Page 11, Column 6, Lines 13-18) “The standard performance metrics 216 include metrics that are likely considered significant to most (if not all) operating platforms. Such metrics include, for example, data representative of global warming potential (GWP) , contrail formation, NOx formation, and instantaneous CO2 emissions, just to name a few,” and that, (Page 12, Column 7, Lines 9-18) “In the depicted example, engine #1 is operating at 97%, engine #2 is operating at 95%, and the APU is off . The GWP Per Mile field 608 displays the instantaneous GWP per mile for the aircraft , the Cost Per Mile field displays the instantaneous cost per mile for the aircraft, and the Altitude field 614 displays the current aircraft altitude. In the depicted example, the instantaneous GWP is 32, the instantaneous cost per mile is $0.50, and the aircraft altitude is 32,000 feet.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the aircraft emission threshold measurement system of Hernandez Meza with the configuration and capability to measure aircraft emissions wherein one or more engines are operating and an auxiliary power unit is not operating as taught by Lamkin, in order to yield predictable results. Combining the references would yield the benefits of being able to determine the emissions levels of the engines alone, allowing turning on the APU to be a potential step to mitigate emissions levels and therefore mitigate negative environmental impact. As Lamkin describes, (Page 12, Column 7, Lines 40-47) “The display device 124 additionally renders recommendations 622 for improving the real-time environmental impact of the aircraft . These recommendations 622, at least in the depicted embodiment, include both textual and graphical recommendations. For example, the display device 124 renders textual recommendations that the flight crew should increase the power output of both engines, and should turn on the APU and increase its power to 40%. ” 07-21-aia AIA Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGregor et al. (US 2015/0362920 A1, hereinafter McGregor) in view of Darbois . Claim 20 Discloses: (Currently Amended) “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a computer program product, the computer program product comprising software instructions that, when run on a computing device, cause the computing device to:” McGregor teaches, (Paragraph [0027]) “Aspects of the present disclosure may be embodied as a computer method, computer system, or computer program product …Furthermore, aspects of the present disclosure may take the form of a computer program product embodied in a computer-readable medium (or media) having computer readable program code/instructions embodied thereon.” “operate the aircraft using a first flight profile; determine during flight an emission level of an aircraft that is operating according to the first flight profile;” McGregor teaches, (Paragraph [0026], Lines 1-13) “In general, a departure profile generator in accordance with aspects of the present disclosure may include a flight performance data generator module that receives as inputs a desired flight profile and current conditions such as weather, runway condition, and aircraft configuration. Based on the desired profile and the conditions, the module generates flight performance data (also referred to as parameters) for the aircraft such as altitude, velocity, and thrust vs. distance. This data may be received by a simulation and compliance module that determines environmental emissions (e.g., noise, carbon, greenhouse gases, etc.) from the aircraft that can be expected at known monitoring stations based on the flight performance data .” “determine that the emission level exceeds an emission level threshold;” McGregor teaches, (Paragraph [0026], Lines 13-15) “The emissions are then compared to criteria such as abatement limits , and one or more relationships between the emissions and the criteria are determined.” “generate one or more additional flight profiles with each of the additional flight profiles comprising different operational settings having an expected emission level that is below the emission level threshold;” McGregor teaches, (Paragraph [0136]) “C0. A method for generating a flight departure profile that is compliant with an emission limit at a monitoring location , the method including: receiving a desired flight departure profile and one or more current ambient conditions; generating flight performance data describing a flight path of a selected aircraft following the desired flight departure profile under the current ambient conditions; determining an expected environmental emission of the aircraft as sensed at a selected monitoring location; comparing the expected environmental emission of the aircraft to an emission abatement limit to determine a relationship therebetween; and communicating the relationship.” McGregor additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0139]) “The method of C0, further including modifying the desired flight departure profile in response to the relationship between the expected environmental emission and the emission abatement limit.” McGregor additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0055]) “Changing one or more aspects of input departure profile 18 may be assisted in part or performed entirely by a recommendation module 24, shown in FIG. 2 … For example, if simulated noise levels at a noise monitor are found to be in violation of a peak dBA limit, recommendation module 24 may determine that compliance is more likely if a throttle reduction is performed earlier in the departure profile . For example, throttle reduction may be scheduled to happen when the aircraft reaches 1,000 feet in altitude. If that condition occurs after the aircraft passes over the monitoring station, recommendation module 24 may determine that throttle reduction should happen at a lower altitude (e.g., 900 feet), i.e., before reaching the noise monitor.” “ … receive a response of a selection of one of the additional flight profiles;” McGregor teaches, (Paragraph [0052]) “The relationship(s) between the emissions and the criteria are provided by compliance module 14, such that a user may determine whether changes should be made to input profile 18. Changes may be necessary, for example, where one or more criteria are violated. Changes may be necessary or desired, for example, where the margin of compliance is greater than a selected margin. A minimum margin may be desired to ensure compliance while accounting for uncertainty of conditions, operational factors such as transition time between throttle or flap settings, and operator error. However, in some examples, a maximum margin may also be desired such that the aircraft is not experiencing an economic cost without the justification of complying with regulations.” McGregor additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0053]) “In response to the relationship being communicated by compliance module 14, a user may change one or more aspects of the input departure profile such that emission (e.g., noise) levels are brought into the desired relationship. For example, if noise levels exceed a limit at a certain noise monitor, changes may be made to the departure profile to reduce the noise that will be sensed at that noise monitor. For example, this may include reducing thrust (or delaying an increase in thrust) and/or increasing altitude in the vicinity of the monitor .” McGregor additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0057], Lines 10-13) “In some examples, the recommendation may be communicated exclusively to the user , such as in an advisory mode, for approval before further processing or as a recommended course of action for the user to pursue independently.” “… and change one or more of the operational settings of the aircraft and change the flight of operate the aircraft using the one additional flight profile.” McGregor teach in an example, (Paragraph [0075], Lines 6-12) “step 108 will recommend a full-power takeoff to cause the aircraft to reach a higher altitude earlier, thereby causing the aircraft to reach the thrust reduction altitude sooner. This will cause the thrust level to drop before the aircraft reaches position C , thereby lowering the noise level.” “display the additional flight profiles on a display on the flight deck of the aircraft; output the additional flight profiles; McGregor does not explicitly teach displaying additional flight profiles on a display on the flight deck of the aircraft. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the preceding limitations, particularly the selecting of flight profiles upon a display, in light of Darbois. Darbois teaches, (Abstract, Lines 1-2) “A method implemented by computer for optimizing the cruising trajectory of an aircraft,” wherein, (Paragraph [0121], Lines 5-8) “the method comprises steps which require the determination 420 of candidate alternative trajectories . An alternative trajectory comprises plateaus and transitions between plateaus, which satisfy the demands of air safety,” further wherein, (Paragraph [0121], Lines 22-26) “The determination of one or more alternative trajectories can be triggered in various ways. This determination can be performed on demand 421 (for example on request of the pilot) or be performed in an automatic manner 422 (for example upon overstepping predefined thresholds ).” Darbois additionally teaches in relation to emissions that, (Paragraph [0060]) “the methods and systems described make it possible to optimize the cruising regime of an aircraft ( during the flight profile or the trajectory), to reduce fuel consumption as well as the associated ecological footprint ( emissions of CO2 and NOx).” Darbois additionally teaches with regards to the problem it solves is that, (Paragraphs [0012-0013]) “The prior art does not present any choice between such candidate trajectories (e.g. possibilities of changes of flight level, longer or shorter plateaus, etc). Generally, in existing avionic systems, the display is limited to that of the “next” transition (e.g. within the planned trajectory of the flight plan) and, moreover, a fortiori, there is no display of indicators associated with these candidate trajectories . The candidate solutions are by definition limited to the solutions that are “acceptable” from the point of view of aerial navigation. Stated otherwise, the candidate flight profiles are subjected to the ATC for validation once the computation has been performed.” Darbois additionally teaches with regards to user selection and flight profile implementation that, (Paragraph [0121], Lines 51-53) “In step 430, an alternative trajectory is selected (for example by the pilot , but automatic selection criteria are also possible),” wherein, (Paragraph [0122]) “Various “ economical” modes 450 of transitions between plateaus can be implemented . These transitions can indeed be performed according to different modalities, described previously (“predefined modes”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the system of McGregor with the system of Darbois which is capable of presenting multiple choices of flight profiles for a pilot to select on a display upon a threshold being exceeded, one of the benefits being reduced emissions, in order to yield predictable results. Combining the references would implement known solutions to previously identified problems with regards to a pilot’s ability to select an economic choice for a flight profile. As Darbois describes, (Paragraphs [0012-0013]) “The prior art does not present any choice between such candidate trajectories (e.g. possibilities of changes of flight level, longer or shorter plateaus, etc). Generally, in existing avionic systems, the display is limited to that of the “next” transition (e.g. within the planned trajectory of the flight plan) and, moreover, a fortiori , there is no display of indicators associated with these candidate trajectories . The candidate solutions are by definition limited to the solutions that are “acceptable” from the point of view of aerial navigation. Stated otherwise, the candidate flight profiles are subjected to the ATC for validation once the computation has been performed,” and additionally describes that, (Paragraph [0004]) “Airlines and the regulator are currently seeking to decrease the impact of aeroplanes on the environment (decrease in waste from CO2 and NOx) and as a corollary to optimize fuel consumption (decrease in the quantity of kerosene) while complying with the constraints of constantly increasing traffic.” 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 21 and 23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hernandez Meza in view of Darbois, further in view of McGregor . Claim 21 Discloses: “The method of claim 1, further comprising generating the one or more flight profiles after determining that the emission level exceeds the emission level threshold.” Hernandez Meza and Darbois do not explicitly teach comprising generating the one or more flight profiles after determining that the emission level exceeds the emission level threshold. Hernandez Meza does teach that the, (Paragraph [0038], Lines 19-20) “the system 50 can be iterative if total emissions are outside of expected ranges or thresholds ,” and Darbois does teach that, (Paragraph [0121], Lines 22-26) “The determination of one or more alternative trajectories can be triggered in various ways. This determination can be performed on demand 421 (for example on request of the pilot) or be performed in an automatic manner 422 (for example upon overstepping predefined thresholds ).” However, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive of the preceding limitations in light of McGregor. McGregor teaches, (Paragraph [0026]) “in general, a departure profile generator in accordance with aspects of the present disclosure may include a flight performance data generator module that receives as inputs a desired flight profile and current conditions such as weather, runway condition, and aircraft configuration. Based on the desired profile and the conditions, the module generates flight performance data (also referred to as parameters) for the aircraft such as altitude, velocity, and thrust vs. distance … The emissions are then compared to criteria such as abatement limits, and one or more relationships between the emissions and the criteria are determined. The relationship is then communicated, such as to the user, so that the desired flight profile may be modified to change the relationship . For example, if noise emissions exceed allowable noise abatement limits, the desired profile can be modified to reduce noise .” Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the systems of Hernandez Meza and Darbois with the methodology to generate a flight profile in response to a determination that an emission level has exceeded a threshold as evidenced by McGregor, in order to yield predictable results. Combining the references would yield the benefits of generating new profiles in order to adapt to changing conditions that may be undesirable with reference to an emission threshold. As McGregor describes, (Paragraph [0026], Lines 16-18) “ The relationship is then communicated, such as to the user , so that the desired flight profile may be modified to change the relationship .” Claim 23 Discloses: (New) “The computing system of claim 11, wherein the flight profiles are determined based on the operational settings of the aircraft at a time the emission level exceeds the emission level threshold.” Hernandez Meza and Darbois do not explicitly teach determining the flight profiles based on the operational settings of the aircraft at a time the emission level exceeds the emission level threshold. However, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive of the preceding limitations in light of McGregor. McGregor teaches, (Paragraph [0026]) “in general, a departure profile generator in accordance with aspects of the present disclosure may include a flight performance data generator module that receives as inputs a desired flight profile and current conditions such as weather, runway condition, and aircraft configuration. Based on the desired profile and the conditions, the module generates flight performance data (also referred to as parameters) for the aircraft such as altitude, velocity, and thrust vs. distance … The emissions are then compared to criteria such as abatement limits, and one or more relationships between the emissions and the criteria are determined. The relationship is then communicated, such as to the user, so that the desired flight profile may be modified to change the relationship . For example, if noise emissions exceed allowable noise abatement limits, the desired profile can be modified to reduce noise .” Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the systems of Hernandez Meza and Darbois with the methodology to generate a flight profile in response to a determination that an emission level has exceeded a threshold based on current aircraft operating parameters as evidence by McGregor, in order to yield predictable results. Combining the references would yield the benefits of generating new profiles in order to adapt to changing conditions that may be undesirable with reference to an emission threshold. As McGregor describes, (Paragraph [0026], Lines 16-18) “ The relationship is then communicated, such as to the user , so that the desired flight profile may be modified to change the relationship .” RELEVANT, BUT NOT CITED PRIOR ART 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant'sdisclosure. Ziarno (US 10,703,504 B2) discloses, (Abstract) “A wireless engine monitoring system for an aircraft engine includes a housing and wireless transceiver that receives engine data, including engine data relating to environmental engine emissions. A processor processes the engine data and generates an alarm report when the environmental engine emissions exceed a threshold .” Bailey (US 20160093221-A1) discloses, (Paragraph [0059] Lines 7-14) “In various embodiments described herein, a tool is described that allows pilots to evaluate, view, organize, update, and manipulate the flight plan in real time, and annotate, communicate and synchronize the changes across multiple or local systems, among other functions. The tool is generally referred to herein as an efficiency and operational flight object system that can be implemented on one or more computing devices,” and that, (Paragraph [0082], Lines 9-15) “The flight object services component 120 is also configured to process and determine several functions to be performed. One or more of these functions is used to determine an optimization or flight efficiency (time, fuel, cost, emissions) advisory which is provided to an authorized subscriber such as a pilot , air traffic controller or airline dispatcher,” as well as, (Paragraph [0087], Lines 20-30) “The flight information message is reviewed and accepted by the flight crew and then autoloaded into the flight management computer. In the case of an updated flight plan/route message, the message constructor 132 takes the payload data representing the updated flight plan/route from the flight object services component 120 and constructs an outgoing message for the end user(s) in a specified user message format . In the case of an updated flight plan/route message uplinked to an aircraft, the updated flight plan/route is reviewed and accepted by the flight crew on a device executing mobile application 150 .” 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER V. GENTILE whose telephone number is (703)756-1501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5. 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, Kito R. Robinson can be reached at (571)270-3921. 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. /ALEXANDER V GENTILE/Examiner, Art Unit 3664 /KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/662,081 Page 2 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/662,081 Page 3 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/662,081 Page 4 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/662,081 Page 5 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/662,081 Page 6 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/662,081 Page 7 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/662,081 Page 8 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/662,081 Page 9 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/662,081 Page 10 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/662,081 Page 11 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/662,081 Page 12 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/662,081 Page 13 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/662,081 Page 14 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/662,081 Page 15 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/662,081 Page 16 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/662,081 Page 17 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/662,081 Page 18 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/662,081 Page 19 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/662,081 Page 20 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/662,081 Page 22 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/662,081 Page 23 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/662,081 Page 24 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/662,081 Page 25 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/662,081 Page 26 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/662,081 Page 27 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/662,081 Page 28 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/662,081 Page 29 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/662,081 Page 30 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/662,081 Page 31 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/662,081 Page 32 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/662,081 Page 33 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/662,081 Page 34 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/662,081 Page 35 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/662,081 Page 36 Art Unit: 3664
Prosecution Insights