Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to the Applicant’s arguments
The previous rejection is withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments are entered. Applicant’s remarks are also entered into the record. A new search was made necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
A new reference was found. A new rejection is made herein.
Applicant’s arguments are now moot in view of the new rejection of the claims. The RCE is entered.
Claim 1 is amended to recite and Ryder teaches “….wherein the one or more microbial contamination maintenance tasks comprise adding biocide to the fuel tank”. (see col. 3, lines 5-16 and col. 4, line 56 and col. 12, lines 50-55, and col. 15, lines 1-6 and col. 16, lines 1-10 where the biocide is added with the fuel to the tank and where the fuel that is provided into the fuel tank has a biocide added to this fuel and tank to provide cleaning out the fuel tank as an additive to the fuel; )
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of the primary reference with the teachings of RYDER with a reasonable expectation of success since RYDER teaches that a fuel tank for aviation may include a jet fuel that has a mixture of a jet fuel and also a biocide that can kill fungi and bacteria and genetic organisms in the tank and lines. This can also be sold a petroleum blend for JET A in claims 17-20.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of European Patent Pub. No.: EP2175420B1 to GOPALAN filed in 2009 and in view of United States Patent No.: 7,589,243 B1 to Ryder that was filed in 2009.
In regard to claim 1, 5 and 13, GOPALAN discloses “…1. (Original) A method of maintaining a fuel tank of an aircraft, the method
comprising: (see claims 1-7)
operating a computer to: receive input data,” (see claims 1-7 where the ir camera can determine the amount of sludge and the sediment and if it is growing or not)”. “...determine a microbial contamination
prediction based on the input data, (see paragraph 3, 39-41)
“...determine a maintenance schedule or maintenance
plan based on the microbial contamination prediction, and output the maintenance ( paragraph 22-26 )
schedule or maintenance plan; and (paragraph 22-39 )”.
“...performing one or more microbial contamination maintenance tasks on the fuel tank based on the maintenance schedule or maintenance plan”. (paragraph 22-39)”.
Claim 1 is amended to recite and Ryder teaches “….wherein the one or more microbial contamination maintenance tasks comprise adding biocide to the fuel tank”. (see col. 3, lines 5-16 and col. 4, line 56 and col. 12, lines 50-55, and col. 15, lines 1-6 and col. 16, lines 1-10 where the biocide is added with the fuel to the tank and where the fuel that is provided into the fuel tank has a biocide added to this fuel and tank to provide cleaning out the fuel tank as an additive to the fuel; )
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of the primary reference with the teachings of RYDER with a reasonable expectation of success since RYDER teaches that a fuel tank for aviation may include a jet fuel that has a mixture of a jet fuel and also a biocide that can kill fungi and bacteria and genetic organisms in the tank and lines. This can also be sold a petroleum blend for JET A in claims 17-20.
Claims 1, 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No.: US20130124107A1 to Lam and Ryder.
In regard to claim 1, 5 and 13, LAm discloses “…1. (Original) A method of maintaining a fuel tank of an aircraft, the method
comprising: (see claims 1-17)
operating a computer to: receive input data,” (see claims 1-17 ) “...determine a microbial contamination
prediction based on the input data, (see claim 7 where the amount of contaminant is predicted to be at the end of the time period)
“...determine a maintenance schedule or maintenance
plan based on the microbial contamination prediction, and output the maintenance ( paragraph 1 -10 and claims 1-17 )
schedule or maintenance plan; and (paragraph 11-29 )”.
“...performing one or more microbial contamination maintenance tasks on the fuel tank based on the maintenance schedule or maintenance plan”. (paragraph 11-29 and 2 and claims 1-11)”.
Claim 1 is amended to recite and Ryder teaches “….wherein the one or more microbial contamination maintenance tasks comprise adding biocide to the fuel tank”. (see col. 3, lines 5-16 and col. 4, line 56 and col. 12, lines 50-55, and col. 15, lines 1-6 and col. 16, lines 1-10 where the biocide is added with the fuel to the tank and where the fuel that is provided into the fuel tank has a biocide added to this fuel and tank to provide cleaning out the fuel tank as an additive to the fuel; )
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of the primary reference with the teachings of RYDER with a reasonable expectation of success since RYDER teaches that a fuel tank for aviation may include a jet fuel that has a mixture of a jet fuel and also a biocide that can kill fungi and bacteria and genetic organisms in the tank and lines. This can also be sold a petroleum blend for JET A in claims 17-20.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of Great Britian Patent Pub. No.: 2 577 065 A to Durant et al. assigned to Satavia and in view of NPL, Rauch, et al., Characterization of Microbial Contamination in United States Airforce Aviation fuel Tanks, Journal of Industrial Microbiology, Volume 33, no. 3 (January 1, 2006) and Ryder.
PNG
media_image1.png
870
862
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 1, Durant discloses “....1. (Original) A method of maintaining a fuel tank of an aircraft, the method
comprising: (see Fig. 5 where the flight computer can detect fuel contamination and damage and a reduced lifespan with a high contamination of the fuel)
operating a computer to: receive input data,” (see pages 43-48 where the aircraft has a flight control module and a processor and a memory and a server and a contamination database of the contamination over time via a historical database) (see FIG. 6 where there is a contamination that ca be higher over the flight)”.
Durant is silent but RAUCH teaches “...determine a microbial contamination
prediction based on the input data, (see page 2-4 where the water in the tanks includes a lot of colonies of microbial growth in the tanks and in the fuel and table 1) “.
PNG
media_image2.png
876
1020
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
786
878
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Durant discloses “...determine a maintenance schedule or maintenance
plan based on the microbial contamination prediction, and output the maintenance (see FIG. 6-7b where the contamination of the fuel is severe and can effect that more fuel is needed)
schedule or maintenance plan; and (see Fig. 5 where a maintenance on the aircraft is performed where this can extend the life of the aircraft itself) (see page 9-10 where an engine wash and inspection and removal of the parts is performed for the engine)”.
Durant is silent but RAUCH teaches “...performing one or more microbial contamination maintenance tasks on the fuel tank based on the maintenance schedule or maintenance plan”. (see page 6 where the contaminated fuel is removed and the substance is isolated from the tank)
PNG
media_image4.png
726
1046
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of DURANT with the teachings of RAUCH with a reasonable expectation of success since RAUCH teaches that a fuel tank for aviation may include water that has fungi and bacteria shown in table 1. These are collected from the water in tank sumps. See page 4 of the pdf. The genetic organisms were analyzed and isolated. This can reduce performance of the aircraft and increase fuel rates. This can be remedied with a biocide. See abstract. This can result in higher maintenance costs and hazard. See page 1.
Claim 1 is amended to recite and Durant is silent but Ryder teaches “….wherein the one or more microbial contamination maintenance tasks comprise adding biocide to the fuel tank”. (see col. 3, lines 5-16 and col. 4, line 56 and col. 12, lines 50-55, and col. 15, lines 1-6 and col. 16, lines 1-10 where the biocide is added with the fuel to the tank and where the fuel that is provided into the fuel tank has a biocide added to this fuel and tank to provide cleaning out the fuel tank as an additive to the fuel; )
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of the primary reference with the teachings of RYDER with a reasonable expectation of success since RYDER teaches that a fuel tank for aviation may include a jet fuel that has a mixture of a jet fuel and also a biocide that can kill fungi and bacteria and genetic organisms in the tank and lines. This can also be sold a petroleum blend for JET A in claims 17-20.
PNG
media_image5.png
748
596
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Durant discloses “...2. (Currently Amended) A method according to claim 1, wherein the
maintenance schedule or maintenance plan 1s determined by an
optimization algorithm on a basis of a future operational plan for the
aircraft which indicates timings and locations of future flights of the aircraft”. (see page 43-49 and Fig. 7b to 8b where the contamination is severe and this can increase in using too much fuel per mile due to the degradation and the alternative route can be used or the flight can be cancelled entirely)
Durant is silent but RAUCH teaches “...3. (Currently Amended) A method according to any preceding claim_l,
wherein the input data comprises environmental data indicative of an environmental parameter. (see page 6 where a temperature range of the climate and relative humidity can result in a high correlation of a high growth)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of DURANT with the teachings of RAUCH with a reasonable expectation of success since RAUCH teaches that a fuel tank for aviation may include water that has fungi and bacteria shown in table 1. These are collected from the water in tank sumps. See page 4 of the pdf. The genetic organisms were analyzed and isolated. This can reduce performance of the aircraft and increase fuel rates. This can be remedied with a biocide. See abstract. This can result in higher maintenance costs and hazard. See page 1.
Durant is silent but RAUCH teaches “...4. (Currently Amended) A method according to any preceding claim_l,
wherein the input data comprises temperature data indicative of a temperature; the microbial contamination prediction is determined based on an analysis of the temperature relative to a microbial growth temperature range with upper and lower bounds, and the microbial growth temperature range is a temperature range in which microbial growth is expected. (see page 6-7 where a temperature range of the climate and relative humidity can result in a high correlation of a high growth and where the fatty acids may grow even more in a high temperature environment)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of DURANT with the teachings of RAUCH with a reasonable expectation of success since RAUCH teaches that a fuel tank for aviation may include water that has fungi and bacteria shown in table 1. These are collected from the water in tank sumps. See page 4 of the pdf. The genetic organisms were analyzed and isolated. This can reduce performance of the aircraft and increase fuel rates. This can be remedied with a biocide. See abstract. This can result in higher maintenance costs and hazard. See page 1.
Claims 5-6, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of Great Britian Patent Pub. No.: 2 577 065 A to Durant et al. assigned to Satavia and in view of NPL, Rauch, et al., Characterization of Microbial Contamination in United States Airforce Aviation fuel Tanks, Journal of Industrial Microbiology, Volume 33, no. 3 (January 1, 2006) and Ryder.
Durant discloses “....5. (Original) A method of maintaining a fuel tank of an aircraft, the method
comprising:
operating a computer to: receive a future operational plan for the aircraft which (see page 43-49 and Fig. 7b to 8b where the contamination is severe and this can increase in using too much fuel per mile due to the degradation and the alternative route can be used or the flight can be cancelled entirely)
indicates timings and locations of future flights of the aircraft, determine a maintenance
schedule or maintenance plan based on the future operational plan, and output the
maintenance schedule or maintenance plan; and (see pages 43-48 where the aircraft has a flight control module and a processor and a memory and a server and a contamination database of the contamination over time via a historical database) (see FIG. 6 where there is a contamination that ca be higher over the flight) (see page 43-49 and Fig. 7b to 8b where the contamination is severe and this can increase in using too much fuel per mile due to the degradation and the alternative route can be used or the flight can be cancelled entirely)
Rauch teaches “...performing one or more microbial contamination maintenance tasks on the fuel” (see page 2-4 where the water in the tanks includes a lot of colonies of microbial growth in the tanks and in the fuel and table 1) “.(see page 6 where the contaminated fuel is removed and the substance is isolated from the tank)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of DURANT with the teachings of RAUCH with a reasonable expectation of success since RAUCH teaches that a fuel tank for aviation may include water that has fungi and bacteria shown in table 1. These are collected from the water in tank sumps. See page 4 of the pdf. The genetic organisms were analyzed and isolated. This can reduce performance of the aircraft and increase fuel rates. This can be remedied with a biocide. See abstract. This can result in higher maintenance costs and hazard. See page 1.
Durant discloses “...tank based on the maintenance schedule or maintenance plan. (see page 43-49 and Fig. 7b to 8b where the contamination is severe and this can increase in using too much fuel per mile due to the degradation and the alternative route can be used or the flight can be cancelled entirely) (see Fig. 5 where a maintenance on the aircraft is performed where this can extend the life of the aircraft itself) (see page 9-10 where an engine wash and inspection and removal of the parts is performed for the engine)
Claim 5 is amended to recite and Ryder teaches “….wherein the one or more microbial contamination maintenance tasks comprise adding biocide to the fuel tank”. (see col. 3, lines 5-16 and col. 4, line 56 and col. 12, lines 50-55, and col. 15, lines 1-6 and col. 16, lines 1-10 where the biocide is added with the fuel to the tank and where the fuel that is provided into the fuel tank has a biocide added to this fuel and tank to provide cleaning out the fuel tank as an additive to the fuel; )
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of the primary reference with the teachings of RYDER with a reasonable expectation of success since RYDER teaches that a fuel tank for aviation may include a jet fuel that has a mixture of a jet fuel and also a biocide that can kill fungi and bacteria and genetic organisms in the tank and lines. This can also be sold a petroleum blend for JET A in claims 17-20.
Durant discloses “...6. (Currently Amended) A method according to any preceding claim_l,
wherein a timing of the one or more microbial contamination maintenance tasks is
specified by the maintenance schedule or maintenance plan”. (see page 43-49 and Fig. 7b to 8b where the contamination is severe and this can increase in using too much fuel per mile due to the degradation and the alternative route can be used or the flight can be cancelled entirely) (see Fig. 5 where a maintenance on the aircraft is performed where this can extend the life of the aircraft itself) (see page 9-10 where an engine wash and inspection and removal of the parts is performed for the engine)
7. (Cancelled)
8. (Cancelled)
9. (Cancelled)
Rauch teaches “...10. (Currently Amended) A method according to claim 4 or claim 9,
wherein the input data comprises an indication of accumulated time within the microbial growth temperature range. (see page 6 where a temperature range of the climate and relative humidity can result in a high correlation of a high growth)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of DURANT with the teachings of RAUCH with a reasonable expectation of success since RAUCH teaches that a fuel tank for aviation may include water that has fungi and bacteria shown in table 1. These are collected from the water in tank sumps. See page 4 of the pdf. The genetic organisms were analyzed and isolated. This can reduce performance of the aircraft and increase fuel rates. This can be remedied with a biocide. See abstract. This can result in higher maintenance costs and hazard. See page 1.
Rauch teaches “...11. (Original) A method according to claim 10, wherein the indication comprises an indication of accumulated time within the microbial growth temperature range over a time period during which the temperature moves in and out of the microbial growth temperature range. “ (see page 6 where a temperature range of the climate and relative humidity can result in a high correlation of a high growth)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of DURANT with the teachings of RAUCH with a reasonable expectation of success since RAUCH teaches that a fuel tank for aviation may include water that has fungi and bacteria shown in table 1. These are collected from the water in tank sumps. See page 4 of the pdf. The genetic organisms were analyzed and isolated. This can reduce performance of the aircraft and increase fuel rates. This can be remedied with a biocide. See abstract. This can result in higher maintenance costs and hazard. See page 1.
Durant discloses “...12. (Currently Amended) A method according to any preceding claim_l, wherein the one or more microbial contamination maintenance tasks comprises a plurality of microbial contamination maintenance tasks, and timings of the microbial contamination maintenance tasks are specified by the maintenance schedule or maintenance plan”. . (see page 43-49 and Fig. 7b to 8b where the contamination is severe and this can increase in using too much fuel per mile due to the degradation and the alternative route can be used or the flight can be cancelled entirely) (see Fig. 5 where a maintenance on the aircraft is performed where this can extend the life of the aircraft itself) (see page 9-10 where an engine wash and inspection and removal of the parts is performed for the engine)”.
Rauch teaches “...13. (Currently Amended) A method according to any preceding claim_l, wherein the one or more microbial contamination maintenance tasks comprise adding biocide to the fuel tank, and/or testing a level of microbial contamination of fuel in the fuel tank, and/or cleaning the fuel tank. (see page 1) “
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of DURANT with the teachings of RAUCH with a reasonable expectation of success since RAUCH teaches that a fuel tank for aviation may include water that has fungi and bacteria shown in table 1. These are collected from the water in tank sumps. See page 4 of the pdf. The genetic organisms were analyzed and isolated. This can reduce performance of the aircraft and increase fuel rates. This can be remedied with a biocide. See abstract. This can result in higher maintenance costs and hazard. See page 1.
Claim 14 is cancelled.
Claims 15 and 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of Great Britian Patent Pub. No.: 2 577 065 A to Durant et al. assigned to Satavia and in view of NPL, Rauch, et al., Characterization of Microbial Contamination in United States Airforce Aviation fuel Tanks, Journal of Industrial Microbiology, Volume 33, no. 3 (January 1, 2006) and Ryder.
Durant discloses “...15. (Currently Amended) A method according to claim_1, wherein the microbial contamination prediction is determined by a predictive model, and the method further comprises training the predictive model with training data, wherein the training data is associated with plural aircraft, and the training data
comprises environmental data indicative of an environmental parameter at locations of the plural aircraft, and test data which is indicative of a level of microbial contamination of fuel in fuel tanks of the plural aircraft”. (see FIG. 8b where the health of the aircraft can be performed using a predictive model in block 808-81 and see page 13-16 and 27-34)
16. (Cancelled)
Durant discloses “...17. (Currently Amended) A method comprising:
a method of operating a computer comprising:
determining a maintenance schedule or maintenance plan for a fuel tank of an aircraft, (see pages 43-48 where the aircraft has a flight control module and a processor and a memory and a server and a contamination database of the contamination over time via a historical database) (see FIG. 6 where there is a contamination that ca be higher over the flight)
in a training phase: training a predictive model with training data, wherein the(see FIG. 8b where the health of the aircraft can be performed using a predictive model in block 808-81 and see page 13-16 and 27-34)
training data is associated with fuel tanks of plural aircraft, and the training data (see FIG. 8b where the health of the aircraft can be performed using a predictive model in block 808-81 and see page 13-16 and 27-34)
Rauch teaches “..comprises environmental data indicative of an environmental parameter at locations of
the plural aircraft, and test data which is indicative of a level of microbial contamination
of fuel in fuel tanks of the plural aircraft; and
in a prediction phase: receiving input data, operating the predictive model to
determine a microbial contamination prediction based on the input data, and operating”. (see page 6-7 where a temperature range of the climate and relative humidity can result in a high correlation of a high growth and where the fatty acids may grow even more in a high temperature environment)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of DURANT with the teachings of RAUCH with a reasonable expectation of success since RAUCH teaches that a fuel tank for aviation may include water that has fungi and bacteria shown in table 1. These are collected from the water in tank sumps. See page 4 of the pdf. The genetic organisms were analyzed and isolated. This can reduce performance of the aircraft and increase fuel rates. This can be remedied with a biocide. See abstract. This can result in higher maintenance costs and hazard. See page 1.
Durant discloses “...an optimization algorithm to determine a maintenance schedule or
maintenance plan based on the microbial contamination prediction”. (see pages 43-48 where the aircraft has a flight control module and a processor and a memory and a server and a contamination database of the contamination over time via a historical database) (see FIG. 6 where there is a contamination that ca be higher over the flight) (see page 43-49 and Fig. 7b to 8b where the contamination is severe and this can increase in using too much fuel per mile due to the degradation and the alternative route can be used or the flight can be cancelled entirely)
Claim 17 is amended to recite and Ryder teaches “….wherein the one or more microbial contamination maintenance tasks comprise adding biocide to the fuel tank”. (see col. 3, lines 5-16 and col. 4, line 56 and col. 12, lines 50-55, and col. 15, lines 1-6 and col. 16, lines 1-10 where the biocide is added with the fuel to the tank and where the fuel that is provided into the fuel tank has a biocide added to this fuel and tank to provide cleaning out the fuel tank as an additive to the fuel; )
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of the primary reference with the teachings of RYDER with a reasonable expectation of success since RYDER teaches that a fuel tank for aviation may include a jet fuel that has a mixture of a jet fuel and also a biocide that can kill fungi and bacteria and genetic organisms in the tank and lines. This can also be sold a petroleum blend for JET A in claims 17-20.
Rauch teaches “...18. (Original) A method according to claim 17, wherein the maintenance
schedule or maintenance plan is based on the microbial contamination prediction and (see page 6-7 where a temperature range of the climate and relative humidity can result in a high correlation of a high growth and where the fatty acids may grow even more in a high temperature environment)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of DURANT with the teachings of RAUCH with a reasonable expectation of success since RAUCH teaches that a fuel tank for aviation may include water that has fungi and bacteria shown in table 1. These are collected from the water in tank sumps. See page 4 of the pdf. The genetic organisms were analyzed and isolated. This can reduce performance of the aircraft and increase fuel rates. This can be remedied with a biocide. See abstract. This can result in higher maintenance costs and hazard. See page 1.
Durant discloses “...on a future operational plan for the aircraft which indicates timings and locations of
future flights of the aircraft”. (see pages 43-48 where the aircraft has a flight control module and a processor and a memory and a server and a contamination database of the contamination over time via a historical database) (see FIG. 6 where there is a contamination that ca be higher over the flight) (see page 43-49 and Fig. 7b to 8b where the contamination is severe and this can increase in using too much fuel per mile due to the degradation and the alternative route can be used or the flight can be cancelled entirely)
Rauch teaches “...19. (Currently Amended) A method according to any preceding claim_}, wherein the environmental parameter is a temperature, humidity, proximity to farmland, or air content” (see page 6-7 where a temperature range of the climate and relative humidity can result in a high correlation of a high growth and where the fatty acids may grow even more in a high temperature environment)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of DURANT with the teachings of RAUCH with a reasonable expectation of success since RAUCH teaches that a fuel tank for aviation may include water that has fungi and bacteria shown in table 1. These are collected from the water in tank sumps. See page 4 of the pdf. The genetic organisms were analyzed and isolated. This can reduce performance of the aircraft and increase fuel rates. This can be remedied with a biocide. See abstract. This can result in higher maintenance costs and hazard. See page 1.
Rauch teaches “...20. (Currently Amended) A method according to any preceding claim__l, wherein the microbial contamination prediction predicts a level of microbial contamination at a current time or at a future time. (see page 6-7 where a temperature range of the climate and relative humidity can result in a high correlation of a high growth and where the fatty acids may grow even more in a high temperature environment)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of DURANT with the teachings of RAUCH with a reasonable expectation of success since RAUCH teaches that a fuel tank for aviation may include water that has fungi and bacteria shown in table 1. These are collected from the water in tank sumps. See page 4 of the pdf. The genetic organisms were analyzed and isolated. This can reduce performance of the aircraft and increase fuel rates. This can be remedied with a biocide. See abstract. This can result in higher maintenance costs and hazard. See page 1.
Rauch teaches “...21. (Currently Amended) A method according to any preceding claim_l, wherein the microbial contamination prediction predicts a level of microbial contamination at a future time. (see page 6-7 where a temperature range of the climate and relative humidity can result in a high correlation of a high growth and where the fatty acids may grow even more in a high temperature environment)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of DURANT with the teachings of RAUCH with a reasonable expectation of success since RAUCH teaches that a fuel tank for aviation may include water that has fungi and bacteria shown in table 1. These are collected from the water in tank sumps. See page 4 of the pdf. The genetic organisms were analyzed and isolated. This can reduce performance of the aircraft and increase fuel rates. This can be remedied with a biocide. See abstract. This can result in higher maintenance costs and hazard. See page 1.
Durant discloses “...22. (Currently Amended) A method according to any preceding claim_}, wherein the environmental data is obtained by one or more sensor§. of the aircraft. (see page 20 and Fig. 6 where the sensor can detect a mass flow rate that is sluggish and reduced by 20 percent)
Durant teaches “...23. (Currently Amended) A non-transitory computer readable media
storing a computer program product comprising software code adapted configured to
determine a maintenance schedule or maintenance plan or train a predictive model, the computer program product being configured adapted to perform the method of any of claim 17s 7 to 22 when executed by a computer. (see page 5-8 where the predictive model is trained to detect a flow rate that indicates a high contamination) (see pages 43-48 where the aircraft has a flight control module and a processor and a memory and a server and a contamination database of the contamination over time via a historical database) (see FIG. 6 where there is a contamination that ca be higher over the flight) (see page 43-49 and Fig. 7b to 8b where the contamination is severe and this can increase in using too much fuel per mile due to the degradation and the alternative route can be used or the flight can be cancelled entirely)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN PAUL CASS whose telephone number is (571)270-1934. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 am to 7 pm; Saturday 10 am to 12 noon.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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.
/JEAN PAUL CASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights