+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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. GB2205368.0, filed on 04/12/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/17/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 15 Objection (and claims depending therefrom) — Indefinite Article Usage with Non-Count Nouns (“Data”)
Claims 1 and 15 recite the phrases “a contrail forecast data,” “a flight data,” and “an imagery data,” and subsequently refer to “the contrail forecast data,” “the flight data,” and “the imagery data.”
The use of the indefinite articles “a” and “an” with the non-count noun “data” renders the scope of these limitations unclear, as it is uncertain whether the claims are intended to encompass a single datum, a defined dataset, or a collection of data. This construction also introduces ambiguity when later definite references (“the … data”) are made, thereby affecting antecedent clarity.
Accordingly, the claims are objected to as being unclear in form. Applicant is encouraged to amend the claims to employ clearer and standard terminology, for example by reciting “contrail forecast data” (without an article), “a contrail forecast dataset,” “flight data,” or “a set of imagery data,” as supported by the specification.
Objection to Claims 2-14, and 16 - Improper draft form
Claims 2–14 are objected to as being improperly drafted in form because each recites “A method according to claim 1” rather than “The method according to claim 1.” This phrasing is imprecise because it can be read as introducing a new, separate “method” rather than clearly referring back to the method previously recited in claim 1. Applicant is required to correct the dependency language in claims 2–14 to properly refer to the previously claimed subject matter (e.g., by amending each to recite “The method according to claim 1 …”), thereby placing the claims in proper form.
Claim 16 is objected to as being improper in form because it recites “A system according to claim 15” instead of “The system according to claim 15.” The use of the indefinite article “A” in a dependent claim creates ambiguity as to whether claim 16 introduces a new system or properly further limits the system previously recited in claim 15. Dependent claims must clearly and expressly refer back to a previously claimed invention using definite dependency language. Applicant is required to amend claim 16 to replace “A system according to claim 15” with “The system according to claim 15” to place the claim in proper dependent form
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 7, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites “the minimization of the contrail likelihood”. However, the claims do not previously introduce any minimizing step or requirement with respect to contrail likelihood. Claim 1 recites “determining … a contrail likelihood” and “altering … flight parameters … based on … the contrail likelihood,” but does not recite minimizing the contrail likelihood, nor does it specify that the altering step is performed with an objective of minimizing contrail likelihood.
Claim 7 recites “analysing the first contrail climate impact”. However, “the first contrail climate impact” is not introduced in claim 1, from which claim 7 depends. The term “first contrail climate impact” is introduced in claim 5, not in claim 1. Accordingly, the scope of claim 7 is unclear because it is uncertain what “the first contrail climate impact” refers to within the dependency chain of claim 7. Applicant is advised that this defect may be overcome, for example, by amending claim 7 to depend from claim 5, or by re-introducing and defining “a first contrail climate impact” within claim 7 itself.
Claim 16 recites “the first imaging device and/or the second imaging device is/are configured to capture at least one contrail image …”. The phrase “and/or” in combination with the verb construction “is/are configured” creates grammatical and logical ambiguity as to the scope of the claim. Specifically, it is unclear whether:
only the first imaging device must be configured to perform the recited function,
only the second imaging device must be configured to perform the recited function, or
both imaging devices must be configured to perform the recited function.
The use of “is/are” does not resolve this ambiguity, but instead introduces uncertainty regarding whether the claim requires a singular configuration, a plural configuration, or optionally either configuration. As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine, with reasonable certainty, the scope of the claimed subject matter.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, and 11- 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subbu (US 20120215434 A1), in view of HK NG (Aircraft Trajectory Optimization and Contrails Avoidance in the Presence of Winds), and in view of Garrett (US 9311539 B1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Disclosure by Subbu
Subbu teaches:
A method
See at least: “Methods and systems suitable for processing multiple trajectory modification requests received from multiple aircraft within an airspace.” ([Abstract])
Rationale: Subbu expressly teaches “A method” by reciting “Methods…”.
for determining an improved flight trajectory,
See at least: “Trajectory synchronization and negotiation… enable… fly trajectories close to their preferred… trajectories… including fuel and time savings, wind-optimal routing…” ([0002])
Rationale: Subbu expressly teaches trajectory negotiation to achieve “fuel and time savings” and “wind-optimal routing,” which a PHOSITA would understand as “for determining an improved flight trajectory,”.
the method comprising:
See at least: “The DA module monitors… collects… generates… performs… eliminates… selects… output…” ([0059])
Rationale: Subbu expressly describes a sequence of operational steps (monitors/collects/generates/performs/eliminates/selects/outputs), which teaches steps that a PHOSITA would read as “the method comprising:”
receiving one or more flight parameters
See at least: “trajectory modification request… may include… cruise altitude change… lateral… route change… and/or speed change…” ([0026])
Rationale: Subbu expressly teaches receiving requests that include “altitude… route… and/or speed,” which teaches “receiving one or more flight parameters”
associated with at least one aircraft
See at least: “transmission by the aircraft of a trajectory modification request…” ([0026])
Rationale: The request is transmitted “by the aircraft,” so the received parameters are “associated with at least one aircraft”
to determine a flight data
See at least: “converts into a predicted 4DT using supplementary flight plan and state data.” ([0026])
Rationale: Subbu expressly teaches using received amendment/request information together with “flight plan and state data” to produce a “predicted 4DT,” which a PHOSITA would understand as determining aircraft flight information, i.e., “to determine a flight data”.
of the at least one aircraft;
See at least: “converts into a predicted 4DT using supplementary flight plan and state data.” ([0026])
Rationale: “state data” is expressly tied to the aircraft whose request is processed, teaching “of the at least one aircraft;”
receiving a flight schedule”
See at least: “collects… the schedule plan from the Scheduler.” ([0059])
Rationale: Receiving the “schedule plan” teaches “receiving a flight schedule”.
comprising at least one flight plan
See at least: “collects… the predicted trajectory of the aircraft… and the schedule plan… [and] generates… meet-time maneuvers…” ([0059])
Rationale: Subbu expressly uses “predicted trajectory” (trajectory/plan for flight) together with the “schedule plan”; a PHOSITA would understand a schedule plan for aircraft operations to include planned trajectories/flight plans.
of at least one aircraft,
See at least: “collects speed information from the aircraft, the predicted trajectory of the aircraft…” ([0059])
Rationale: The schedule/trajectory collection is for “the aircraft,” teaching “of at least one aircraft,”
wherein the flight schedule pertains to a given period of time;
See at least: “final scheduling horizon… may be defined as… ETA of less than or equal to twenty minutes in the future.” ([0058])
Rationale: A horizon defined as “twenty minutes in the future” teaches the schedule pertains to “a given period of time”
analyzing the at least one flight plan
See at least: “performs a conflict probe of each generated meet-time maneuver…” ([0059])
Rationale: Conflict probing of candidate maneuvers/trajectories teaches “analyzing the at least one flight plan” because the maneuver/trajectory is the flight-plan trajectory to be executed.
to determine at least one navigational avoidance between at least two aircraft;
See at least: “identifies any conflicts (a violation of minimum separation…)… between… potential 4DT… and… background traffic.” ([0057])
Rationale: Identifying “conflicts” (minimum separation violations) between aircraft trajectories teaches “to determine at least one navigational avoidance between at least two aircraft;”
“altering,
See at least: “trajectory modifications may include lateral path changes, altitude changes, and either speed assignments…” ([0057])
Rationale: “trajectory modifications… include… changes” teaches “altering,” (changing flight parameters).
based on the at least one navigational avoidance
See at least: “selects… trajectory modification that does not pose a conflict with 4DTs of other aircraft…” ([0057])
Rationale: Selecting a modification that “does not pose a conflict” teaches altering “based on the at least one navigational avoidance” (conflict avoidance)
the one or more flight parameters of the at least one aircraft
See at least: “trajectory modifications may include lateral path changes, altitude changes, and… speed assignments…” ([0057])
Rationale: “lateral path… altitude… speed” are flight parameters, teaching “the one or more flight parameters of the at least one aircraft”
to determine an improved flight trajectory
See at least: "The DA can generate one or more alternative 4DTs…" ([0057])
Rationale: Generating "alternative 4DTs" (trajectories) based on modifications teaches determining an improved flight trajectory.
for the at least one flight plan;
See at least: "The DA can generate one or more alternative 4DTs…" ([0057])
Rationale: The alternative 4DTs are generated as modifications to the planned trajectory, i.e., for the at least one flight plan.
sending the at least one flight plan
See at least: “initiates an automatic uplink of the clearance to the aircraft…” ([0057])
Rationale: Uplinking “clearance” to the aircraft teaches “sending” operational trajectory/plan information (implicit as permitted) as “sending the at least one flight plan”
including the improved flight trajectory
See at least: “initiates an automatic uplink of the clearance to the aircraft…” ([0057])
Rationale: The “clearance” is the selected trajectory modification that “does not pose a conflict” and is chosen as the operational plan; a PHOSITA would understand the uplinked clearance includes the aircraft’s modified/selected trajectory, satisfying “including the improved flight trajectory”.
to the at least one aircraft;
See at least: “uplink of the clearance to the aircraft…” ([0057])
Rationale: “to the aircraft” teaches “to the at least one aircraft;”.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Subbu
Subbu does not explicitly teach:
receiving one or more weather parameters to determine a contrail forecast data;
determining, based on the contrail forecast data, the flight data and the at least one flight plan, a contrail likelihood associated with the at least one aircraft;”
altering, based on the contrail likelihood,
to determine an improved flight trajectory (to the extent improvement is specifically contrail-driven)
for the at least one flight plan;” (explicitly tied to contrail-driven alteration)
and validating the improved flight trajectory using an imagery data, when the at least one aircraft flies according to the at least one flight plan including the improved flight trajectory.
Disclosure by HK Ng
HK Ng teaches:
receiving one or more weather parameters to determine a contrail forecast data;
See at least: “RUC… has measurements for… (RHw) and environmental temperatures. These measurements are used to compute the RHi…” (Page 2, Sec. II)
Rationale: Receiving “RHw” and “environmental temperatures” from “RUC” and computing “RHi” teaches “receiving one or more weather parameters to determine a contrail forecast data;”.
determining,
See at least: “This study develops an algorithm to calculate a wind-optimal trajectory… while avoiding the regions of airspace that facilitate persistent contrails formation…” (Page 2)
Rationale: “develops an algorithm to calculate” teaches “determining,” as an algorithmic determination.
based on the contrail forecast data,
See at least: “regions of airspace that have RHi greater than 100% are considered favorable to persistent contrails formation.” (Page 2, Sec. II)
Rationale: Using “RHi greater than 100%” regions as contrail-favorable regions teaches reliance “based on the contrail forecast data,” (RHi-derived regions).
the flight data
See at least: “The position of penalty centers and aircraft position are used… to calculate… the penalty cost.” (Page 6, )
Rationale: “aircraft position” is flight-state information, i.e., “the flight data”.
and the at least one flight plan,
See at least: “along the flight trajectory from the origin to destination.” (Page 4, B. Contrails as Penalty Areas)
Rationale: “flight trajectory from the origin to destination” is the planned route/trajectory, i.e., “the at least one flight plan,”
a contrail likelihood
See at least: “the red bar presents the length of periods that a flight travels inside the regions… favorable to persistent contrails formation.” (Page 7)
Rationale: “length of periods… travels inside” contrail-favorable regions is a quantified contrail-exposure measure that a PHOSITA would understand as indicating contrail propensity/likelihood for that flight, satisfying “a contrail likelihood”.
associated with the at least one aircraft;
See at least: “length of periods that a flight travels inside…” (Page 7)
Rationale: The quantified “length of periods” is computed for “a flight” of the aircraft, thus it is “associated with the at least one aircraft;”.
and the contrail likelihood,”
See at least: “modeled as undesirable regions that aircraft should avoid… formulated as soft state constraints.” (Page 2)
Rationale: The “undesirable regions” (contrail-related) are the basis for avoidance and correlate to contrail propensity, providing the contrail-driven factor corresponding to “the contrail likelihood,”.
to determine an improved flight trajectory
See at least: “calculate a wind-optimal trajectory… while avoiding the regions… persistent contrails formation…” (Page 2)
Rationale: A “wind-optimal trajectory” that also “avoids contrail regions teaches “to determine an improved flight trajectory”.
for the at least one flight plan;”
See at least: “the penalty… along the flight trajectory from the origin to destination.” (Page 4)
Rationale: The algorithm evaluates penalties along the “flight trajectory from the origin to destination,” which is the planned trajectory for the flight, satisfying “for the at least one flight plan;”
Motivation to Combine Subbu and HK Ng
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Subbu and HK Ng before them, to incorporate HK Ng’s RUC/RHi-based contrail-region modeling and contrail-avoidance trajectory calculation into Subbu’s conflict-probing, schedule-horizon, and uplink-based trajectory modification process, because both references address trajectory determination for aircraft, Subbu already selects conflict-free speed/altitude/lateral-path changes and uplinks clearances, and HK Ng provides a known additional optimization/constraint objective (avoid “regions… favorable to persistent contrails formation”) derived from weather forecast parameters, yielding the predictable result of trajectories that are both separation-safe and contrail-reducing.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Subbu and HK Ng
After combining the teachings of Subbu and HK Ng, the following is not explicitly taught:
validating the improved flight trajectory using an imagery data, when the at least one aircraft flies according to the at least one flight plan including the improved flight trajectory.
Disclosure by Garrett
Garrett teaches:
validating the improved flight trajectory using an imagery data
See at least: “detection of aircraft contrails… Real time imagery… is received and analyzed for a contrail indicator. When the contrail indicator is detected, it is determined that the aircraft is creating a contrail.” ([Abstract])
Rationale: Garrett expressly teaches an in-flight determination (via imagery) of whether contrails are being created. In the Subbu+Ng combination where the trajectory is improved to avoid contrails, a PHOSITA would use Garrett’s contrail-detection outcome as validation feedback of the contrail-avoidance effectiveness of the flown trajectory, satisfying “validating the improved flight trajectory”
when the at least one aircraft flies
See at least: “real time imagery provided during a flight… from the perspective of the aircraft in flight.” ([Abstract])
Rationale: “during a flight” and “aircraft in flight” teach “when the at least one aircraft flies”.
according to the at least one flight plan including the improved flight trajectory.
See at least: “The aircraft flight data… may include… the current position… the current speed… and the current heading… The contrail detection computer… receives the aircraft flight data…” (Col. 4, ll. 42-53)
Rationale: Receiving “current position… current speed… current heading” during flight is consistent with the aircraft flying along an intended trajectory/plan; in the combined system, the aircraft executes the uplinked modified trajectory (Subbu) that avoids contrail regions (Ng), and Garrett’s in-flight processing occurs while the aircraft is flying that trajectory.
Motivation to Combine Subbu, HK Ng, and Garrett
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Subbu, HK Ng, and Garrett before them, to incorporate Garrett’s real-time imagery contrail-indicator determination performed “during a flight” into the Subbu+Ng contrail-avoidance trajectory modification framework, because Garrett provides a known technique for detecting contrail formation via onboard imagery, and adding that detection as a feedback/verification component to a system that computes and uplinks contrail-avoidance trajectory changes predictably enables confirming whether contrail formation is occurring while flying the modified trajectory.
Regarding Claim 2,
The combination of Subbu, HK Ng, and Garrett establishes the method of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 2.
Disclosure by Subbu
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Subbu
Subbu does not explicitly teach:
further comprising: utilizing the validated improved flight trajectory
to generate at least one climatology
of an average contrail likelihood
over at least one geographical region;
and developing at least one environmentally-friendly flight route
using the at least one climatology.
Disclosure by HK Ng
HK Ng teaches:
utilizing the validated improved flight trajectory
See at least: “This study develops an algorithm that calculates wind-optimal trajectories… while avoiding the regions of airspace prone to persistent contrails formation.” ([Page 1]).
Rationale: HK Ng expressly teaches contrails-avoidance trajectories that are produced/used operationally; in the Claim 1 combination (with Garrett’s in-flight contrail detection), a PHOSITA would understand that the trajectory that is confirmed during flight via contrail detection is then utilizing the validated improved flight trajectory.
to generate at least one climatology
See at least: “Figure 2 shows that the location, shape and size of potential contrail regions vary with time.” ([Page 6]).
Rationale: HK Ng expressly teaches contrail regions varying with time; a PHOSITA would recognize that repeatedly characterizing time-varying contrail regions supports generating a climatological characterization, satisfying to generate at least one climatology.
of an average contrail likelihood
See at least: “The performance of optimal trajectories is evaluated by investigating… the time associated traveling through regions of persistent contrails formation.” ([Page7]).
Rationale: HK Ng expressly quantifies contrail-exposure as “time… traveling through” contrail-formation regions; across repeated cases (including multiple city-pairs), a PHOSITA would understand averaging such exposure metrics yields an “average” propensity metric, satisfying of an average contrail likelihood.
over at least one geographical region;
See at least: “tradeoff… investigated… for 12 city-pairs in the continental United States.” ([Page 1]).
Rationale: “continental United States” is a geographic region, satisfying over at least one geographical region;.
and developing at least one environmentally-friendly flight route
See at least: “It is tempting to reroute aircraft to minimize the impact of persistent contrails on climate.” ([Page 1]).
Rationale: HK Ng expressly teaches rerouting to minimize climate impact, which a PHOSITA would understand as environmentally-friendly routing, satisfying and developing at least one environmentally-friendly flight route.
using the at least one climatology.
See at least: “A flight trajectory optimization algorithm… provides policy makers the necessary data to make tradeoffs between persistent contrails mitigation and aircraft fuel consumption.” ([Page 1, Abstract]).
Rationale: HK Ng expressly teaches generating data for tradeoffs regarding contrails mitigation; when the system produces time-varying contrail-region characterizations (“vary with time”) and evaluates contrail-region travel time, a PHOSITA would use that accumulated regional/time characterization as the basis for route development, satisfying using the at least one climatology.
Motivation to Combine Subbu and HK Ng
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Subbu and HK Ng before them, to incorporate HK Ng’s contrails-mitigation trajectory generation and regional/time-varying contrail-region characterization into Subbu’s trajectory-modification framework, because Subbu already manages trajectory changes for operational objectives while HK Ng provides environmentally driven trajectory objectives and region/time-based contrail characterization, yielding the predictable result of generating routes that reduce contrail impacts across defined operating regions.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Subbu and HK Ng
After combining the teachings of Subbu and HK Ng, the following claim element is not explicitly disclosed:
utilizing the validated improved flight trajectory (i.e., validation via imagery “during a flight”)
Disclosure by Garrett
Garrett provides teachings for the following remaining missing element:
utilizing the validated improved flight trajectory
See at least: “Real time imagery… is received and analyzed for a contrail indicator… it is determined that the aircraft is creating a contrail.” ([Abstract]).
Rationale: Garrett expressly provides an in-flight determination from “real time imagery,” which in the Claim 1 combination is used to validate whether contrail-avoidance routing is effective; once that determination is made, a PHOSITA would then use the confirmed/validated trajectory outputs for downstream analytics (e.g., regional averages/climatology).
Motivation to Combine Subbu, HK Ng, and Garrett
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Subbu, HK Ng, and Garrett before them, to incorporate Garrett’s in-flight imagery-based contrail detection into the Subbu+Ng contrail-avoidance trajectory framework, because HK Ng teaches contrails mitigation objectives and trajectory generation, and Garrett teaches determining contrail presence “during a flight” using “real time imagery,” yielding the predictable result of validating the trajectory outcome and then using the validated outcomes to support regionalized contrail-impact characterization and environmentally-friendly routing decisions.
Regarding Claim 3,
The combination of Subbu, HK Ng, and Garrett establishes the method of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 3.
Disclosure by Subbu (Primary Reference)
Subbu teaches:
wherein the step of altering one or more flight parameters associated with the given flight
See at least: “The DA can generate one or more alternative 4DTs characterized by different changes to altitude, speed and/or lateral route …” ([0057]).
Rationale: Subbu expressly teaches generating alternative trajectories (4DTs) by “changes to altitude, speed and/or lateral route,” which are one or more flight parameters, satisfying wherein the step of altering one or more flight parameters associated with the given flight.
wherein the step of altering one or more flight parameters associated with the given flight is performed
See at least: “These trajectory modifications may include lateral path changes, altitude changes, and either speed assignments or an RTA time constraint.” ([0057]).
Rationale: Subbu expressly states that trajectory modifications “may include” specific parameter changes (lateral path, altitude, speed), confirming the step of altering one or more flight parameters is performed.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Subbu
Subbu does not explicitly teach:
further comprising: determining carbon dioxide emissions for a given flight of a given aircraft, based on a flight plan of the given aircraft and a contrail likelihood associated with the given aircraft;
and calculating a carbon dioxide equivalent for the given flight, based on the carbon dioxide emissions,
wherein the step of altering one or more flight parameters associated with the given flight is performed in a manner that an improved flight trajectory for the flight plan of the given aircraft minimizes the carbon dioxide equivalent for the given flight.
Disclosure by HK Ng
HK Ng teaches:
further comprising: determining carbon dioxide emissions for a given flight of a given aircraft,
See at least: “As an example, in Figure 1, the fuel burn (in Kg) for a typical short to medium jet airliner from Chicago to New York, is shown …” (Page 5 of 13, Section “Aircraft Fuel Consumption Model”).
Rationale: HK Ng expressly determines “fuel burn (in Kg)” for a given aircraft/flight example; a PHOSITA would understand carbon dioxide emissions are determinable from fuel burn, supporting determining carbon dioxide emissions for a given flight of a given aircraft.
based on a flight plan of the given aircraft
See at least: “This section presents results … to calculate an aircraft trajectory … The trajectory computations are done …” (Section IV. Results, Page 6).
Rationale: HK Ng’s fuel/trajectory computations are performed for the computed “aircraft trajectory,” which corresponds to the aircraft’s planned route/trajectory, satisfying based on a flight plan of the given aircraft.
and a contrail likelihood associated with the given aircraft;
See at least: “For each altitude and … Cr combination, … the corresponding amount of travel through potential regions of contrail formation, #c, are computed.” (Section B., Page 8).
Rationale: HK Ng computes “amount of travel through potential regions of contrail formation” for a flight trajectory; a PHOSITA would understand this computed contrail-exposure measure corresponds to a contrail propensity for that aircraft/flight, satisfying and a contrail likelihood associated with the given aircraft.
and calculating a carbon dioxide equivalent for the given flight,
See at least: “A flight trajectory optimization algorithm with fuel and contrails models … provides … data to make tradeoffs between persistent contrails mitigation and aircraft fuel consumption.” (Abstract, Page 1]).
Rationale: HK Ng expressly teaches making “tradeoffs” between contrails mitigation and fuel consumption using “fuel and contrails models”; a PHOSITA would understand implementing such a tradeoff involves expressing combined climate impact in a common metric, i.e., calculating a carbon dioxide equivalent for the given flight.
based on the carbon dioxide emissions,
See at least: “The fuel cost and environmental cost due to aircraft emissions are proportional to the total travel time …” ([Page 9]).
Rationale: HK Ng expressly bases an “environmental cost due to aircraft emissions” on flight/trajectory-dependent quantities; since “aircraft emissions contain … carbon dioxide” ([Page 1]), a PHOSITA would understand the emissions component is based on CO2 emissions, satisfying based on the carbon dioxide emissions.
wherein the step of altering one or more flight parameters associated with the given flight is performed in a manner that an improved flight trajectory for the flight plan of the given aircraft minimizes the carbon dioxide equivalent for the given flight.
See at least: “One can choose the right trajectory that minimizes the climate impact when the relative magnitude of climate impact by emissions and persistent contrails formation is known.” ([Page 9]).
Rationale: HK Ng expressly teaches selecting a “trajectory” that “minimizes the climate impact” based on emissions and contrails impacts; a PHOSITA understands this teaches performing trajectory alteration/selection so the resulting trajectory minimizes a combined climate-impact metric (i.e., the claimed carbon dioxide equivalent), satisfying minimizes the carbon dioxide equivalent for the given flight.
Motivation to Combine Subbu, HK Ng, and Garrett
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Subbu, HK Ng, and Garrett before them, to incorporate HK Ng’s fuel-and-contrails climate-impact optimization (including determining fuel burn for a given flight, computing travel through contrail-formation regions, and selecting a trajectory that “minimizes the climate impact”) into Subbu’s operational trajectory-modification framework that alters altitude, speed, and lateral route, and to further employ Garrett’s in-flight contrail detection via real-time imagery as a verification input for the contrail component of the optimization, because Subbu already provides the practical mechanism for implementing and uplinking trajectory changes across aircraft, HK Ng provides the complementary environmental objective and tradeoff basis between emissions/fuel use and contrail formation for selecting among candidate altered trajectories, and Garrett provides a known technique for determining contrail presence during flight to confirm whether the executed trajectory achieves the intended contrail-related outcome, yielding the predictable result that the altered trajectory minimizes a combined emissions-and-contrails climate-impact metric (i.e., a carbon dioxide equivalent).
Regarding Claim 5,
The combination of Subbu, HK Ng, and Garrett establishes the method of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 5.
Disclosure by Subbu
Subbu does not explicitly teach:
generating a first contrail climate impact
based on the carbon dioxide emissions
that are determined for the given flight,
based on the flight plan of the given aircraft
with the improved flight trajectory;
and quantifying a climate benefit
by comparing the first contrail climate impact of the flight with a second contrail climate impact of the flight,
wherein the second contrail climate impact of the flight is generated based on the carbon dioxide emissions that are determined for the given flight,
based on the flight plan of the given aircraft
with a base-line flight trajectory.
Disclosure by HK Ng
HK Ng teaches:
generating a first contrail climate impact
See at least: "The performance of optimal trajectories is evaluated by investigating... the time associated traveling through regions of persistent contrails formation." ([Page 7, Sec. IV.A])
Rationale: HK Ng expressly teaches evaluating a trajectory by calculating "the time associated traveling through regions of persistent contrails formation," which is a direct metric for generating a... contrail climate impact.
based on the carbon dioxide emissions
See at least: "The fuel burn (in Kg) for a typical short to medium jet airliner from Chicago to New York, is shown..." ([Page 5, Sec. III.C])
Rationale: HK Ng expressly determines fuel burn for a flight. A PHOSITA knows that carbon dioxide emissions are calculated directly from fuel burn using a standard emissions factor. Therefore, generating a contrail climate impact in the context of a flight trajectory analysis is based on the carbon dioxide emissions determined from this fuel burn.
that are determined for the given flight,
See at least: "the fuel burn (in Kg) for a typical short to medium jet airliner from Chicago to New York, is shown..." ([Page 5, Sec. III.C])
Rationale: HK Ng's fuel burn model is applied to a specific, given flight (e.g., Chicago to New York).
based on the flight plan of the given aircraft
See at least: "This section presents results based on applying the optimal trajectory algorithm to calculate an aircraft trajectory..." ([Page 6, Sec. IV])
Rationale: The fuel burn and contrail exposure metrics are calculated for a specific computed aircraft trajectory, which corresponds to the flight plan of the given aircraft.
with the improved flight trajectory;
See at least: "Optimal contrails-avoidance trajectories at these altitudes are generated by increasing the value of Cr..." ([Page 7, Sec. IV.A])
Rationale: HK Ng expressly generates and analyzes "Optimal contrails-avoidance trajectories," which are improved flight trajectories relative to a baseline.
and quantifying a climate benefit
See at least: "One can choose the right trajectory that minimizes the climate impact..." ([Page 9, Sec. IV.B])
Rationale: HK Ng expressly identifies the objective of minimizing climate impact. Selecting a trajectory that reduces contrail exposure relative to a baseline quantifies a climate benefit.
by comparing the first contrail climate impact of the flight with a second contrail climate impact of the flight,
See at least: "The green columns in Table 1 shows... the total travel time for the contrails-avoidance trajectory and the additional travel time compared to that of wind-optimal trajectory." ([Page 8, Sec. IV.A])
Rationale: HK Ng expressly performs a comparison ("compared to") between the contrail exposure (a component of climate impact) of two different trajectories: a contrails-avoidance trajectory and a wind-optimal trajectory.
wherein the second contrail climate impact of the flight is generated based on the carbon dioxide emissions that are determined for the given flight,
See at least: "Flying wind optimal trajectories at other altitudes... will potentially cause persistent contrails formation." ([Page 7, Sec. IV.A])
Rationale: HK Ng analyzes the wind-optimal trajectory (the second trajectory for comparison) and evaluates its potential for contrail formation. This analysis is performed in the context of the same flight-specific fuel burn/CO2 emissions model.
based on the flight plan of the given aircraft
See at least: "At each altitude, Cr is varied from zero to a value where the optimal trajectory completely avoids the contrali region." ([Page 6, Sec. IV.A])
Rationale: The analysis for both the improved and baseline trajectories is performed for the same origin-destination pair (e.g., ORD to EWR), meaning it is based on the flight plan of the given aircraft.
with a base-line flight trajectory.
See at least: "The wind-optimal trajectory is generated... by setting Cr=0." ([Page 6, Sec. IV.A])
Rationale: HK Ng expressly defines and uses the wind-optimal trajectory (with no contrali penalty) as the base-line flight trajectory against which the contrali-avoidance trajectory is compared.
Motivation to Combine Subbu, HK Ng, and Garrett
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Subbu, HK Ng, and Garrett before them, to incorporate HK Ng’s methodology for generating and comparing the contrail-related climate impacts of different trajectories into the method of Claim 1. Subbu and Garrett establish a system that determines and validates an improved, contrail-avoidant trajectory for a flight. HK Ng directly teaches that the environmental value of such a trajectory is determined by comparing its contrail impact (and related emissions) against a baseline scenario. A PHOSITA seeking to validate the effectiveness and quantify the benefits of the operational method in Claim 1 would be motivated to apply HK Ng’s comparative analysis framework, yielding the predictable result of a method that quantifies a climate benefit through the claimed comparison.
Regarding Claim 6,
The combination of Subbu, HK Ng, and Garrett establishes the method of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 6.
Disclosure by Subbu
Subbu teaches:
tracked with aircraft navigational beacon data
See at least: "The Scheduler obtains information from the ground and potentially equipped aircraft which are capable of providing trajectory information. This creates a predicted aircraft trajectory and contains dynamically evolving aircraft state information (for example, 4D position, ground speed, course, and altitude rate)." ([0060])
Rationale: Subbu expressly teaches obtaining aircraft state information (4D position, speed, course) from aircraft. A PHOSITA understands that in modern aviation, such real-time state information is routinely provided by aircraft navigational beacon data systems, such as Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast (ADS-B) or Mode S transponders. Therefore, the tracking of aircraft state as taught by Subbu is accomplished by data tracked with aircraft navigational beacon data.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Subbu
Subbu does not explicitly teach:
wherein the baseline flight trajectory is calculated
by combining historical flown flight trajectories
with historical contrail forecast data.
Disclosure by HK Ng
HK Ng provides teachings for the following missing elements:
wherein the baseline flight trajectory is calculated
See at least: "The wind-optimal trajectory is generated using Eqs. (2, 3, 15) by setting C_r=0." ([Page 6, Sec. IV.A])
Rationale: HK Ng expressly describes generating a wind-optimal trajectory via a calculation (solving specified equations). This trajectory serves as the baseline flight trajectory in its comparative analyses.
by combining historical flown flight trajectories
See at least: "The trajectory computations are done using traffic and atmospheric data in the continental United States for May 24, 2007." ([Page 6, Sec. IV])
Rationale: HK Ng uses traffic data from a specific historical date. A PHOSITA understands that "traffic data" for a past date inherently comprises records of historical flown flight trajectories. This teaches using historical flown flight trajectories for analysis.
with historical contrail forecast data.
See at least: "The blue, green and magenta polygons in Fig. 2 depict the areas at 33,000 feet above sea level in the U.S. national airspace where RHi is greater than 100% at 6 a.m., 7a.m. and 8 a.m. EDT on May 24, 2007, respectively. The RHi values are computed using Eq. (1) with RHw values and temperature data obtained from RUC." ([Page 6, Sec. IV])
Rationale: HK Ng expressly uses time-specific atmospheric data (RHi) from a historical date (May 24, 2007) to identify regions favorable for persistent contrail formation. This constitutes the use of historical contrail forecast data.
Motivation to Combine Subbu, HK Ng, and Garrett
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Subbu, HK Ng, and Garrett before them, to adapt HK Ng's methodology for establishing an environmental baseline into Subbu's operational framework. HK Ng teaches calculating a baseline trajectory (e.g., wind-optimal) using historical traffic data (which includes flown trajectories) and historical contrail forecast data. Subbu teaches the real-world systems that track and manage aircraft trajectories using state data from navigational beacons. A PHOSITA, seeking to create a realistic and operationally relevant baseline flight trajectory for environmental benefit analysis (as in Claim 5), would be motivated to combine these teachings: using historical flown flight trajectories (available from Subbu's ATC/traffic data systems, which are tracked via beacon data) and historical contrail forecast data (as taught by HK Ng) to calculate a representative baseline. This combination yields the predictable result described in Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 7,
The combination of Subbu, HK Ng, and Garrett establishes the method of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 7.
Disclosure by Subbu
Subbu teaches:
reordering a departure of the given flight
See at least: "The schedule algorithm … constructs an empty queue… when an aircraft enters the initial scheduling horizon, this aircraft is pushed into the corresponding scheduling queue and the algorithm updates the STA for each aircraft in the queue if needed." ([0061])
Rationale: Subbu's scheduler manages a queue of aircraft and updates their Scheduled Times of Arrival (STAs). This process of adjusting times within a queue, based on dynamic inputs, inherently involves determining a sequence or order of operations, which a PHOSITA would understand as reordering the planned flow of aircraft, including their effective departure sequence from a scheduling point.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Subbu
Subbu does not explicitly teach:
analysing the first contrail climate impact for the given flight
when departing at different times
to determine an optimal time of departure;
and reordering a departure of the given flight based on the optimal time of departure.
Disclosure by HK Ng
HK Ng teaches:
analysing the first contrail climate impact for the given flight
See at least: "The optimal aircraft trajectories are generated at the beginning of each hour … using hourly updated weather data … The … persistent contrails formation time associated to each trajectory is also recorded." ([Page 10, Sec. IV.C])
Rationale: HK Ng expressly generates flight trajectories and records the "persistent contrails formation time" associated with each. Recording this time-based exposure metric constitutes analysing a primary component of contrail climate impact for the given flight.
when departing at different times
See at least: "The optimal aircraft trajectories are generated at the beginning of each hour … using hourly updated weather data …" ([Page 10, Sec. IV.C])
Rationale: HK Ng expressly performs its analysis (trajectory generation and contrail time recording) repeatedly, at different hourly times. This teaches evaluating flight scenarios when departing at different times.
to determine an optimal time of departure;
See at least: "One can choose the right trajectory that minimizes the climate impact …" ([Page 9, Sec. IV.B])
Rationale: HK Ng expressly teaches the objective of minimizing climate impact. Applying this objective to the variable of departure time (as the analysis is performed hourly) leads directly to the goal of selecting a time that minimizes impact, i.e., determining an optimal time of departure.
Motivation to Combine Subbu and HK Ng
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Subbu and HK Ng before them, to incorporate HK Ng’s time-dependent environmental analysis into Subbu’s schedule management framework. Subbu provides a system that dynamically manages aircraft schedules and sequences based on various inputs. HK Ng teaches that contrail climate impact varies with the time of day due to changing atmospheric conditions and that one should select an operation time to minimize this impact. A PHOSITA, seeking to reduce the environmental footprint of aviation, would be motivated to use HK Ng’s method to analyze contrail impact at different departure times and determine an optimal time. They would then logically integrate this optimal time as a new input into Subbu’s existing system for reordering and managing flight schedules, yielding the predictable result of the claimed method.
Regarding Claim 9,
The combination of Subbu, HK Ng, and Garrett establishes the method of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 9.
Disclosure by Subbu
Subbu does not explicitly teach:
wherein the step of validating the improved flight trajectory using the imagery data comprises: capturing, at least one contrail image,
using a first imaging device associated with an aircraft
and/or a second imaging device associated with a distant observation system away from the aircraft,
wherein the at least one contrail image represents actual contrail formation
during a flight of the aircraft according to a flight plan having the improved flight trajectory;
and comparing the at least one contrail image with the contrail forecast data
to validate the improved flight trajectory of the aircraft for contrail formation at a given time instant.
Disclosure by HK Ng
HK Ng teaches:
and/or a second imaging device associated with a distant observation system away from the aircraft,
See at least: "satellite images" ([Page 2, Section II])
Rationale: HK Ng expressly uses satellite images, which are obtained from satellite-based imaging systems that are distant observation systems away from the aircraft.
and comparing the at least one contrail image with the contrail forecast data
See at least: "measure the validity of contrails formation by comparing them with satellite observation" ([Page 2, Section II])
Rationale: HK Ng expressly teaches comparing observed satellite observation (imagery data) with model predictions of contrail formation.
with the contrail forecast data
See at least: "The RHi is computed using measurements from the Rapid Update Cycle (RUC). ... The RUC produces short-range forecasts every hour." ([Page 2, Section II])
Rationale: HK Ng expressly uses RUC forecasts to compute RHi, which determines regions favorable to persistent contrails formation. This constitutes contrail forecast data.
Motivation to Combine Subbu and HK Ng
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Subbu and HK Ng before them, to incorporate HK Ng's contrail prediction framework (including satellite observation comparison with forecast data) into Subbu's trajectory management system, because both references address aircraft trajectory optimization and a PHOSITA would recognize that environmental considerations like contrail formation are relevant factors in flight planning, making the combination of trajectory management with environmental impact assessment predictable.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Subbu and HK Ng
After combining the teachings of Subbu and HK Ng, the following are not explicitly taught:
wherein the step of validating the improved flight trajectory using the imagery data comprises: capturing,
at least one contrail image,
using a first imaging device associated with an aircraft
wherein the at least one contrail image represents actual contrail formation
during a flight of the aircraft according to a flight plan having the improved flight trajectory;
to validate the improved flight trajectory of the aircraft
for contrail formation
at a given time instant.
Disclosure by Garrett
Garrett teaches:
wherein the step of validating the improved flight trajectory using the imagery data comprises: capturing,
See at least: "Real time imagery encompassing the antisolar point is received and analyzed for a contrail indicator." ([Abstract])
Rationale: Garrett expressly teaches receiving real time imagery, which inherently involves capturing the imagery data.
at least one contrail image,
See at least: "Real time imagery ... is received and analyzed for a contrail indicator." ([Abstract])
Rationale: The real time imagery that is analyzed necessarily includes at least one image containing contrail information.
using a first imaging device associated with an aircraft
See at least: "Real time imagery is examined for shadows created by contrails." (Col. 2, ll. 54-55); "The optical sensors 306 may include video and/or still image cameras mounted on or within the aircraft 102." (Col. 5, ll. 10-12)
Rationale: Garrett expressly teaches using optical sensors/cameras mounted on or within the aircraft, which constitutes a first imaging device associated with an aircraft.
wherein the at least one contrail image represents actual contrail formation
See at least: "When the contrail indicator is detected, it is determined that the aircraft is creating a contrail." ([Abstract])
Rationale: Garrett teaches that the imagery analysis determines actual contrail formation by the aircraft.
during a flight of the aircraft according to a flight plan having the improved flight trajectory;
See at least: "real time imagery provided during a flight" ([Abstract])
Rationale: Garrett's imagery analysis occurs during a flight. In the context of the combined system, this flight would be operating according to the improved flight trajectory from Claim 1.
for contrail formation
See at least: "When the contrail indicator is detected, it is determined that the aircraft is creating a contrail." ([Abstract])
Rationale: Garrett's detection is specifically for contrail formation.
at a given time instant.
See at least: "Real time imagery" ([Abstract])
Rationale: Real time imagery corresponds to imagery captured at specific time instants during flight.
Motivation to Combine Subbu, HK Ng, and Garrett
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Subbu, HK Ng, and Garrett before them, to incorporate Garrett's in-flight contrail detection using onboard imagery into the combined Subbu-HK Ng system, because a PHOSITA seeking to verify the effectiveness of contrail-avoidance trajectories would naturally employ known contrail detection methods during flight execution to provide real-time feedback on trajectory performance, yielding the predictable result of validating whether the improved trajectory achieved its contrail avoidance objective.
Regarding Claim 11,
The combination of Subbu, HK Ng, and Garrett establishes the method of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 11.
Disclosure by Subbu (Primary Reference)
Subbu teaches:
further comprising executing an air navigation service provider (ANSP) software
See at least: "Generally, trajectory negotiation is a process by which information is exchanged to balance the user preferences with safety, capacity and business objectives and constraints of operators or Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs)." ([0004])
Rationale: Subbu expressly describes Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs) and their involvement in trajectory negotiation and management. The described automation systems (conflict probe, queue processor, etc.) constitute ANSP software that is executed as part of the air traffic management process.
for enabling at least one air navigation task to be performed.
See at least: "The methods include receiving multiple trajectory modification requests ... sequentially performing conflict assessments on the multiple trajectory modification requests to determine if any of the multiple trajectory modification requests pose conflicts..." ([0010])
Rationale: Subbu's method performs specific air navigation tasks including conflict assessment, trajectory modification processing, and air traffic management, which are enabled by the ANSP software.
Motivation to Combine Subbu, HK Ng, and Garrett
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Subbu, HK Ng, and Garrett before them, to execute ANSP software for enabling at least one air navigation task to be performed as part of the method of Claim 1, because:
Subbu expressly teaches that air traffic management methods are performed by ANSP systems using automation software
HK Ng's contrail avoidance trajectory optimization and Garrett's contrail validation would naturally be implemented within the ANSP software framework already disclosed by Subbu
Integrating contrail-related trajectory management with existing ANSP software represents nothing more than the predictable implementation of additional environmental considerations within established air traffic management systems
This combination yields the predictable result of enhancing ANSP software capabilities to include contrail-related trajectory management without changing the fundamental principle of ANSP software operation.
Regarding Claim 12,
The combination of Subbu, HK Ng, and Garrett establishes the method of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 12.
Disclosure by Subbu
Subbu teaches:
further comprising providing, on an interactive user interface of a display device,
See at least: "...the ATC system and its ATCos, their graphic/user interfaces ('Interface')..." ([0026])
Rationale: Subbu expressly teaches graphic/user interfaces that are interactive user interfaces of display devices used by air traffic controllers.
at least one of: the one or more weather parameters, the contrail forecast data, the one or more flight parameters, the flight data, the flight schedule, the contrail likelihood, the improved flight trajectory, the imagery data, a validated improved flight trajectory, at least one environmentally-friendly flight route, a carbon dioxide equivalent, a carbon credit value, a fuel burn penalty or fuel savings achieved.
See at least: "The modification request may be a specific trajectory amendment... which automation of the ATC system converts into a predicted 4DT..." ([0026])
Rationale: Subbu teaches that trajectory modification requests containing flight parameters (altitude, lateral route, speed) are processed into predicted 4DTs (improved flight trajectories), and these constitute flight data that would be displayed on the ATC interfaces. Since Subbu explicitly teaches providing flight parameters, flight data, and improved flight trajectories on interactive user interfaces, and the claim requires only at least one item from the list.
Motivation to Combine Subbu, HK Ng, and Garrett
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Subbu, HK Ng, and Garrett before them, to provide the outputs of the Claim 1 method on an interactive user interface, because Subbu already teaches displaying flight parameters and trajectories on ATC interfaces, HK Ng teaches generating contrail-related data that would be relevant for display, and Garrett teaches processing imagery data that would inform interface content. Integrating these data types into a cockpit or ground station interface for operational use is a predictable application of known display systems to present flight management information.
Regarding Claim 13,
The combination of Subbu, HK Ng, and Garrett establishes the method of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 13.
Disclosure by Subbu
Subbu does not explicitly teach:
wherein the one or more weather parameters is selected from: a temperature, a pressure, a water vapor and ice water content, vapor pressure of air and saturated vapor pressure, wind vectors, number of ice particles in the cloud and corresponding particle size, and incoming and outgoing radiation energy in the atmospheric column.
Disclosure by HK Ng
HK Ng teaches:
wherein the one or more weather parameters is selected from: a temperature,
See at least: "where T is temperature measured in Celsius" ([Page 2, Section II])
Rationale: HK Ng expressly uses temperature in its RHi calculation formula for contrail prediction.
a pressure,
See at least: "RUC data has 37 vertical isobaric pressure levels ranging between 100-1000 mb" ([Page 2, Section II])
Rationale: HK Ng's RUC data includes pressure levels as part of the weather forecast system.
a water vapor and ice water content,
See at least: "relative humidity with respect to water (RHw)" ([Page 2, Section II])
Rationale: HK Ng's use of RHw measurements and RHi calculations inherently involves water vapor content in the atmosphere, which is fundamental to contrail formation physics.
vapor pressure of air and saturated vapor pressure,
See at least: "the numerator on the right hand side of Eq. (1) is the saturation vapor pressure over water... and the denominator is the saturation vapor pressure over ice" ([Page 2, Section II])
Rationale: HK Ng's RHi calculation explicitly uses saturation vapor pressure formulas for both water and ice.
wind vectors,
See at least: "The x-component of the wind velocity is u(x,y), and the y-component of the wind velocity is v(x,y)." ([Page 3, Section III.A])
Rationale: HK Ng's trajectory optimization model expressly includes wind vectors (both x and y components) as part of the aircraft motion equations.
Motivation to Combine
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Subbu, HK Ng, and Garrett before them, to use weather parameters selected from the listed set, because HK Ng expressly teaches using multiple parameters from the claimed list (temperature, pressure, water vapor content, vapor pressure, and wind vectors) in its contrail prediction and trajectory optimization methodology. Since HK Ng is already part of the combination establishing Claim 1 for contrail-related trajectory management, using these specific weather parameters represents nothing more than applying them for their established purpose in environmental aviation applications.
Regarding Claim 14,
The combination of Subbu, HK Ng, and Garrett establishes the method of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 14.
Disclosure by Subbu
Subbu teaches:
wherein the one or more flight parameters is selected from: a date and time of a flight, a destination, a trajectory, a flight altitude, an expected arrival at the destination, a speed, a latitude for flying the aircraft, a longitude for flying the aircraft, a heading, a payload, an operating characteristic of a particular aircraft type, and a fuel data.
See at least: "receiving multiple trajectory modification requests that are transmitted from multiple aircraft and request alterations of the altitudes, speeds and/or lateral routes thereof" (Abstract)
Rationale: Subbu expressly teaches receiving flight parameters including altitudes (flight altitude), speeds (speed), and lateral routes (which encompass latitude and longitude for flying the aircraft), as well as trajectories (4D trajectories). Since Subbu alone teaches multiple parameters from the claimed list (trajectory, flight altitude, speed, latitude, longitude, heading), and the claim requires only that the flight parameters are selected from this list, the limitation is satisfied by Subbu's teachings.
Motivation to Combine Subbu, HK Ng, and Garrett
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Subbu, HK Ng, and Garrett before them, to use flight parameters selected from the listed set, because Subbu expressly teaches using altitude, speed, lateral route (latitude/longitude), heading, and trajectory parameters in its trajectory modification and air traffic management methods. The specific parameters listed represent standard flight parameters that are routinely used in aviation operations and trajectory management systems.
Regarding Claim 15,
Disclosure by Subbu
Subbu discloses:
A system
See at least: “Methods and systems suitable for processing multiple trajectory modification requests received from multiple aircraft within an airspace.” ([Abstract])
Rationale: Subbu expressly discloses “A method” by reciting “systems suitable for processing …”.
for determining an improved flight trajectory,
See at least: “Trajectory synchronization and negotiation… enable… fly trajectories close to their preferred… trajectories… including fuel and time savings, wind-optimal routing…” ([0002])
Rationale: Subbu expressly teaches trajectory negotiation to achieve “fuel and time savings” and “wind-optimal routing,” which a PHOSITA would understand as “for determining an improved flight trajectory,”.
the system comprising a processor,
See at least: "Ground automation systems typically provide a four-dimensional trajectory model capable of predicting the paths of aircraft in time and space..." ([0007])
Rationale: Subbu's "ground automation systems" inherently require a processor to perform the described trajectory prediction and automation functions.
wherein the processor is configured to: receive one or more flight parameters
See at least: “trajectory modification request… may include… cruise altitude change… lateral… route change… and/or speed change…” ([0026])
Rationale: Subbu expressly teaches receiving requests that include “altitude… route… and/or speed,” which teaches “receiving one or more flight parameters”
associated with at least one aircraft
See at least: “transmission by the aircraft of a trajectory modification request…” ([0026])
Rationale: The request is transmitted “by the aircraft,” so the received parameters are “associated with at least one aircraft”
to determine a flight data
See at least: “converts into a predicted 4DT using supplementary flight plan and state data.” ([0026])
Rationale: Subbu expressly teaches using received amendment/request information together with “flight plan and state data” to produce a “predicted 4DT,” which a PHOSITA would understand as determining aircraft flight information, i.e., “to determine a flight data”.
of the at least one aircraft;
See at least: “converts into a predicted 4DT using supplementary flight plan and state data.” ([0026])
Rationale: “state data” is expressly tied to the aircraft whose request is processed, teaching “of the at least one aircraft;”
receiving a flight schedule”
See at least: “collects… the schedule plan from the Scheduler.” ([0059])
Rationale: Receiving the “schedule plan” teaches “receiving a flight schedule”.
comprising at least one flight plan
See at least: “collects… the predicted trajectory of the aircraft… and the schedule plan… [and] generates… meet-time maneuvers…” ([0059])
Rationale: Subbu expressly uses “predicted trajectory” (trajectory/plan for flight) together with the “schedule plan”; a PHOSITA would understand a schedule plan for aircraft operations to include planned trajectories/flight plans.
of at least one aircraft,
See at least: “collects speed information from the aircraft, the predicted trajectory of the aircraft…” ([0059])
Rationale: The schedule/trajectory collection is for “the aircraft,” teaching “of at least one aircraft,”
wherein the flight schedule pertains to a given period of time;
See at least: “final scheduling horizon… may be defined as… ETA of less than or equal to twenty minutes in the future.” ([0058])
Rationale: A horizon defined as “twenty minutes in the future” teaches the schedule pertains to “a given period of time”
analyzing the at least one flight plan
See at least: “performs a conflict probe of each generated meet-time maneuver…” ([0059])
Rationale: Conflict probing of candidate maneuvers/trajectories teaches “analyzing the at least one flight plan” because the maneuver/trajectory is the flight-plan trajectory to be executed.
to determine at least one navigational avoidance between at least two aircraft;
See at least: “identifies any conflicts (a violation of minimum separation…)… between… potential 4DT… and… background traffic.” ([0057])
Rationale: Identifying “conflicts” (minimum separation violations) between aircraft trajectories teaches “to determine at least one navigational avoidance between at least two aircraft;”
alter,
See at least: “trajectory modifications may include lateral path changes, altitude changes, and either speed assignments…” ([0057])
Rationale: “trajectory modifications… include… changes” teaches “altering,” (changing flight parameters).
based on the at least one navigational avoidance
See at least: “selects… trajectory modification that does not pose a conflict with 4DTs of other aircraft…” ([0057])
Rationale: Selecting a modification that “does not pose a conflict” teaches altering “based on the at least one navigational avoidance” (conflict avoidance)
the one or more flight parameters of the at least one aircraft
See at least: “trajectory modifications may include lateral path changes, altitude changes, and… speed assignments…” ([0057])
Rationale: “lateral path… altitude… speed” are flight parameters, teaching “the one or more flight parameters of the at least one aircraft”
to determine an improved flight trajectory
See at least: "The DA can generate one or more alternative 4DTs…" ([0057])
Rationale: Generating "alternative 4DTs" (trajectories) based on modifications teaches determining an improved flight trajectory.
for the at least one flight plan;
See at least: "The DA can generate one or more alternative 4DTs…" ([0057])
Rationale: The alternative 4DTs are generated as modifications to the planned trajectory, i.e., for the at least one flight plan.
send the at least one flight plan
See at least: “initiates an automatic uplink of the clearance to the aircraft…” ([0057])
Rationale: Uplinking “clearance” to the aircraft teaches “sending” operational trajectory/plan information (implicit as permitted) as “sending the at least one flight plan”
including the improved flight trajectory
See at least: “initiates an automatic uplink of the clearance to the aircraft…” ([0057])
Rationale: The “clearance” is the selected trajectory modification that “does not pose a conflict” and is chosen as the operational plan; a PHOSITA would understand the uplinked clearance includes the aircraft’s modified/selected trajectory, satisfying “including the improved flight trajectory”.
to the at least one aircraft;
See at least: “uplink of the clearance to the aircraft…” ([0057])
Rationale: “to the aircraft” teaches “to the at least one aircraft;”.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Subbu
Subbu does not explicitly teach:
receive one or more weather parameters to determine a contrail forecast data;
determine, based on the contrail forecast data, the flight data and the at least one flight plan, a contrail likelihood associated with the at least one aircraft;
alter, based on the contrail likelihood, to determine an improved flight trajectory for the at least one flight plan;” (tied to contrail-driven alteration)
and validate the improved flight trajectory using an imagery data, when the at least one aircraft flies according to the at least one flight plan including the improved flight trajectory.
Disclosure by HK Ng
HK Ng discloses:
receive one or more weather parameters to determine a contrail forecast data;
See at least: “RUC… has measurements for… (RHw) and environmental temperatures. These measurements are used to compute the RHi…” (Page 2, Sec. II)
Rationale: Receiving “RHw” and “environmental temperatures” from “RUC” and computing “RHi” teaches “receiving one or more weather parameters to determine a contrail forecast data;”.
determine,
See at least: “This study develops an algorithm to calculate a wind-optimal trajectory… while avoiding the regions of airspace that facilitate persistent contrails formation…” (Page 2)
Rationale: “develops an algorithm to calculate” teaches “determining,” as an algorithmic determination.
based on the contrail forecast data,
See at least: “regions of airspace that have RHi greater than 100% are considered favorable to persistent contrails formation.” (Page 2, Sec. II)
Rationale: Using “RHi greater than 100%” regions as contrail-favorable regions teaches reliance “based on the contrail forecast data,” (RHi-derived regions).
the flight data
See at least: “The position of penalty centers and aircraft position are used… to calculate… the penalty cost.” (Page 6, )
Rationale: “aircraft position” is flight-state information, i.e., “the flight data”.
and the at least one flight plan,
See at least: “along the flight trajectory from the origin to destination.” (Page 4, B. Contrails as Penalty Areas)
Rationale: “flight trajectory from the origin to destination” is the planned route/trajectory, i.e., “the at least one flight plan,”
a contrail likelihood
See at least: “the red bar presents the length of periods that a flight travels inside the regions… favorable to persistent contrails formation.” (Page 7)
Rationale: “length of periods… travels inside” contrail-favorable regions is a quantified contrail-exposure measure that a PHOSITA would understand as indicating contrail propensity/likelihood for that flight, satisfying “a contrail likelihood”.
associated with the at least one aircraft;
See at least: “length of periods that a flight travels inside…” (Page 7)
Rationale: The quantified “length of periods” is computed for “a flight” of the aircraft, thus it is “associated with the at least one aircraft;”.
and the contrail likelihood,
See at least: “modeled as undesirable regions that aircraft should avoid… formulated as soft state constraints.” (Page 2)
Rationale: The “undesirable regions” (contrail-related) are the basis for avoidance and correlate to contrail propensity, providing the contrail-driven factor corresponding to “the contrail likelihood,”.
to determine an improved flight trajectory
See at least: “calculate a wind-optimal trajectory… while avoiding the regions… persistent contrails formation…” (Page 2)
Rationale: A “wind-optimal trajectory” that also “avoids contrail regions teaches “to determine an improved flight trajectory”.
for the at least one flight plan;”
See at least: “the penalty… along the flight trajectory from the origin to destination.” (Page 4)
Rationale: The algorithm evaluates penalties along the “flight trajectory from the origin to destination,” which is the planned trajectory for the flight, satisfying “for the at least one flight plan;”
Motivation to Combine Subbu and HK Ng
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Subbu and HK Ng before them, to incorporate HK Ng’s RUC/RHi-based contrail-region modeling and contrail-avoidance trajectory calculation into Subbu’s conflict-probing, schedule-horizon, and uplink-based trajectory modification process, because both references address trajectory determination for aircraft, Subbu already selects conflict-free speed/altitude/lateral-path changes and uplinks clearances, and HK Ng provides a known additional optimization/constraint objective (avoid “regions… favorable to persistent contrails formation”) derived from weather forecast parameters, yielding the predictable result of trajectories that are both separation-safe and contrail-reducing.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Subbu and HK Ng
After combining the teachings of Subbu and HK Ng, the following is not explicitly disclosed:
validating the improved flight trajectory using an imagery data, when the at least one aircraft flies according to the at least one flight plan including the improved flight trajectory.
Disclosure by Garrett
Garrett discloses:
and validate the improved flight trajectory using an imagery data
See at least: “detection of aircraft contrails… Real time imagery… is received and analyzed for a contrail indicator. When the contrail indicator is detected, it is determined that the aircraft is creating a contrail.” ([Abstract])
Rationale: Garrett expressly teaches an in-flight determination (via imagery) of whether contrails are being created. In the Subbu+ HK Ng combination where the trajectory is improved to avoid contrails, a PHOSITA would use Garrett’s contrail-detection outcome as validation feedback of the contrail-avoidance effectiveness of the flown trajectory, satisfying “validating the improved flight trajectory”
when the at least one aircraft flies
See at least: “real time imagery provided during a flight… from the perspective of the aircraft in flight.” ([Abstract])
Rationale: “during a flight” and “aircraft in flight” teach “when the at least one aircraft flies”.
according to the at least one flight plan including the improved flight trajectory.
See at least: “The aircraft flight data… may include… the current position… the current speed… and the current heading… The contrail detection computer… receives the aircraft flight data…” (Col. 4, ll. 42-53)
Rationale: Receiving “current position… current speed… current heading” during flight is consistent with the aircraft flying along an intended trajectory/plan; in the combined system, the aircraft executes the uplinked modified trajectory (Subbu) that avoids contrail regions (Ng), and Garrett’s in-flight processing occurs while the aircraft is flying that trajectory.
Motivation to Combine Subbu, HK Ng, and Garrett
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Subbu, HK Ng, and Garrett before them, to incorporate Garrett’s real-time imagery contrail-indicator determination performed “during a flight” into the Subbu+Ng contrail-avoidance trajectory modification framework, because Garrett provides a known technique for detecting contrail formation via onboard imagery, and adding that detection as a feedback/verification component to a system that computes and uplinks contrail-avoidance trajectory changes predictably enables confirming whether contrail formation is occurring while flying the modified trajectory.
Regarding Claim 16,
The combination of Subbu, HK Ng, and Garrett establishes the system of Claim 15, which is the basis for Claim 16.
Disclosure by Subbu
Subbu does not explicitly teach:
further comprising a first imaging device
associated with an aircraft
and/or a second imaging device associated with a distant observation system away from the aircraft,
wherein the first imaging device and/or the second imaging device is/are configured to capture at least one contrail image,
wherein the at least one contrail image represents actual contrail formation
during a flight of the aircraft according to a flight plan having the improved flight trajectory,
wherein the processor is configured to compare the at least one contrail image with the contrail forecast data
to validate the improved flight trajectory of the aircraft
for contrail formation
at a given time instant.
Disclosure by HK Ng
HK Ng discloses:
and/or a second imaging device associated with a distant observation system away from the aircraft,
See at least: “satellite images” ([Page 2, Section II])
Rationale: HK Ng expressly uses satellite images, which are obtained from a satellite-based imaging system that is a distant observation system away from the aircraft.
wherein the processor is configured to compare the at least one contrail image with the contrail forecast data
See at least: “measure the validity of contrails formation by comparing them with satellite observation” ([Page 2, Section II])
Rationale: HK Ng expressly teaches comparing observed satellite observation (imagery/contrail images) with model predictions, which is a processor-configured function of comparing the at least one contrail image with the contrail forecast data.
with the contrail forecast data
See at least: “The RHi is computed using measurements from the Rapid Update Cycle (RUC). … The RUC produces short-range forecasts every hour.” ([Page 2, Section II])
Rationale: HK Ng’s use of RUC forecasts to compute Rhi-based contrail-prone regions provides the contrail forecast data used in the comparison.
Motivation to Combine Subbu and HK Ng
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Subbu and HK Ng before them, to incorporate HK Ng’s teaching of a distant imaging system (satellite) and the comparison of its imagery with contrail forecast data into Subbu’s processor-based trajectory management system, because both references address the analysis of aircraft trajectories, and a PHOSITA would recognize the benefit of using available observational data (like satellite images) to assess environmental conditions like contrail formation as part of a comprehensive flight management system.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Subbu and HK Ng
After combining the teachings of Subbu and HK Ng, the following are not explicitly disclosed:
further comprising a first imaging device
associated with an aircraft
wherein the first imaging device and/or the second imaging device is/are configured to capture at least one contrail image,
wherein the at least one contrail image represents actual contrail formation
during a flight of the aircraft according to a flight plan having the improved flight trajectory,
to validate the improved flight trajectory of the aircraft
for contrail formation
at a given time instant.
Disclosure by Garrett
Garrett discloses:
further comprising a first imaging device
See at least: "The optical sensors 306 may include video and/or still image cameras mounted on or within the aircraft 102." (Description, para. relating to FIG. 3)
Rationale: Garrett expressly discloses optical sensors/cameras on the aircraft, which constitutes a first imaging device.
associated with an aircraft
See at least: "cameras mounted on or within the aircraft 102" (Description, para. relating to FIG. 3)
Rationale: The imaging device is expressly mounted on or within the aircraft, i.e., associated with an aircraft.
wherein the first imaging device and/or the second imaging device is/are configured to capture at least one contrail image,
See at least: "Real time imagery … is received and analyzed for a contrail indicator." ([Abstract])
Rationale: Garrett's system receives real time imagery for analysis, meaning the imaging device(s) are configured to capture the imagery, which includes at least one contrail image.
wherein the at least one contrail image represents actual contrail formation
See at least: "When the contrail indicator is detected, it is determined that the aircraft is creating a contrail." ([Abstract])
Rationale: Garrett teaches that analysis of the imagery determines actual contrail formation.
during a flight of the aircraft according to a flight plan having the improved flight trajectory;
See at least: "real time imagery provided during a flight" ([Abstract])
Rationale: Garrett's imagery capture and analysis occur during a flight. In the combined system context, this flight follows the improved flight trajectory.
to validate the improved flight trajectory of the aircraft
See at least: "it is determined that the aircraft is creating a contrail." ([Abstract])
Rationale: Determining contrail presence during flight provides an outcome that can be used to validate the effectiveness of a contrail-avoidance trajectory.
for contrail formation
See at least: "detection of aircraft contrails" ([Abstract])
Rationale: Garrett's system is for contrail detection, i.e., assessing contrail formation.
at a given time instant.
See at least: "Real time imagery" ([Abstract])
Rationale: Real time imagery corresponds to capture and analysis at specific moments or a given time instant.
Motivation to Combine Subbu, HK Ng, and Garrett
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Subbu, HK Ng, and Garrett before them, to incorporate the imaging devices and validation configuration of Claim 16 into the system of Claim 15. Subbu provides the core processor-based trajectory management system. HK Ng teaches the use of a distant imaging system (satellite) and the concept of comparing imagery with contrail forecast data. Garrett teacthe use of an onboard imaging device to capture real-time contrail imagery during flight for validation. A PHOSITA seeking to build a system that validates the environmental performance of contrail-avoidance trajectories would be motivated to combine these teachings, integrating both onboard (Garrett) and distant (HK Ng) imaging sources and configuring the processor (Subbu) to perform the comparison and validation, yielding the predictable result of a comprehensive validation subsystem.
Regarding Claim 17,
The combination of Subbu, HK Ng, and Garrett establishes the system of Claim 16, which is the basis for Claim 17.
Disclosure by Subbu
Subbu does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the at least one contrail image is obtained from at least one of: an active remote sensing system, a passive remote sensing system, and an in-situ measurement system.
Disclosure by HK Ng
HK Ng discloses:
wherein the at least one contrail image is obtained from at least one of: a passive remote sensing system,
See at least: "satellite images" ([Page 2, Section II])
Rationale: HK Ng's use of satellite images constitutes obtaining imagery from a satellite-based passive remote sensing system, as satellites typically perform passive sensing by detecting reflected or emitted radiation.
Disclosure by Garrett
Garrett further discloses:
wherein the at least one contrail image is obtained from at least one of: an in-situ measurement system.
See at least: "Real time imagery is examined for shadows created by contrails." (Col. 2, ll. 54-55); "The optical sensors 306 may include video and/or still image cameras mounted on or within the aircraft 102." (Col. 5, ll. 10-12)
Rationale: Garrett's optical sensors/cameras mounted on or within the aircraft capture imagery from a point local to the aircraft, which a PHOSITA would understand as an in-situ measurement system.
The claim is satisfied because the combination teaches obtaining the contrail image from at least one of the specified systems, namely a passive remote sensing system (HK Ng's satellites) and/or an in-situ measurement system (Garrett's onboard sensors).
Motivation to Combine Subbu, HK Ng, and Garrett
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Subbu, HK Ng, and Garrett before them, that the contrail images used in the system of Claim 16 would be obtained from known types of imaging systems such as passive remote sensing (e.g., HK Ng's satellites) or in-situ measurement systems (e.g., Garrett's onboard cameras). The claim requires the image to come from at least one of the listed system types. HK Ng and Garrett, already part of the combination, teach obtaining images from those very types of systems. A PHOSITA would recognize that implementing the imaging functionality of Claim 16 using standard, known imaging system categories is a predictable design choice.
Regarding Claim 18,
The combination of Subbu, HK Ng, and Garrett establishes the method of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 18.
Disclosure by Subbu
Subbu discloses:
for determining an improved flight trajectory,
See at least: “…to facilitate one or more aircraft … to achieve user-preferred four-dimensional … trajectories (4DT) during flight…” ([0025])
Rationale: Subbu expressly describes achieving “four-dimensional … trajectories (4DT)” during flight, which maps to for determining an improved flight trajectory (i.e., a determined user-preferred 4DT).
cause the processor to execute steps
See at least: “…delegate the request processing to automation …” ([0027])
Rationale: Subbu expressly describes automation performing request processing, which maps to cause the processor to execute steps (i.e., computer-executed processing steps).
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Subbu
Subbu does not explicitly disclose:
A computer program product
the computer program product comprising a non-transitory machine-readable data storage medium
having stored thereon program instructions
that, when accessed by a processor,
cause the processor to execute steps (as a “program instructions stored on a non-transitory … medium” formulation)
of the method of claim 1.
Disclosure by HK Ng
HK Ng provides teachings for the following missing elements:
for determining an improved flight trajectory,
See at least: “…presents a methodology to optimally reroute the aircraft trajectory … to avoid regions of airspace prone to persistent contrails formation.”
Rationale: HK Ng expressly teaches “optimally reroute the aircraft trajectory,” which maps directly to for determining an improved flight trajectory.
Motivation to Combine Subbu and HK Ng
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Subbu and HK Ng before them, to modify Subbu’s automated trajectory negotiation/processing framework to incorporate HK Ng’s expressly taught “optimally reroute the aircraft trajectory” objective (contrail-avoidance rerouting), because HK Ng’s rerouting is a known improvement criterion for trajectory determination and Subbu’s automation expressly processes and implements trajectory changes/4DTs; integrating a known optimization objective into an existing automated trajectory-management framework is a predictable use of prior art elements to yield predictable results (improved trajectory selection).
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Subbu and HK Ng
After combining the teachings of Subbu and HK Ng, the following Claim Limitations are not explicitly disclosed:
A computer program product
the computer program product comprising a non-transitory machine-readable data storage medium
having stored thereon program instructions
that, when accessed by a processor,
cause the processor to execute steps (in the claimed stored-program / storage-medium formulation)
of the method of claim 1.
Disclosure by Garrett (Secondary Reference 2)
Garrett provides teachings for the following remaining missing elements:
the computer program product comprising a non-transitory machine-readable data storage medium
See at least: “The mass storage device 710 and its associated computer readable storage media provide non-volatile storage…”
Rationale: Garrett expressly teaches “computer readable storage media” providing “non-volatile storage,” which maps to a non-transitory machine-readable data storage medium.
having stored thereon program instructions
See at least: “…storage of information such as computer readable and executable instructions…”
Rationale: Garrett expressly teaches storage media storing “computer readable and executable instructions,” which maps to having stored thereon program instructions.
that, when accessed by a processor,
See at least: “…software components described herein may, when loaded into the CPU 702 and executed…”
Rationale: Garrett expressly teaches instructions being “loaded into the CPU … and executed,” which maps to when accessed by a processor.
cause the processor to execute steps
See at least: “…the CPU 702 may operate … in response to executable instructions contained within the software modules…”
Rationale: Garrett expressly teaches executable instructions causing CPU operation, which maps to cause the processor to execute steps.
of the method of claim 1.
See at least: “FIG. 7 shows an illustrative computer architecture … capable of executing the software components described herein. The computer architecture … may be utilized to execute any aspects of the software components presented herein.”
Rationale: Garrett expressly teaches a stored-program architecture “capable of executing” software components that implement method functionality; in the combined rejection, the stored program on the non-transitory medium is used to execute the steps of the already-established method of claim 1.
Motivation to Combine Subbu, HK Ng, and Garrett
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Subbu, HK Ng, and Garrett before them, to implement the combined Subbu/HK Ng method steps in the form of a stored-program product on computer readable storage media with CPU-executable instructions as taught by Garrett, because Subbu/HK Ng expressly rely on automated processing of trajectory data/trajectory rerouting, and Garrett expressly teaches conventional non-volatile “computer readable storage media” storing “computer readable and executable instructions” that are “loaded into the CPU … and executed”; applying a known stored-program implementation to execute known trajectory-processing steps is a predictable substitution yielding predictable results.
Regarding Claim 18,
The combination of Subbu, HK Ng, and Garrett establishes the method of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 18.
Disclosure by Subbu
Subbu teaches a method implemented via automated systems and software modules, but does not explicitly articulate that method in the form of a "computer program product" claim.
for determining an improved flight trajectory,
See at least: "Preference management entails trajectory negotiations, which may be initiated by a trajectory modification request from an aircraft, including requests for changes in altitude, lateral route (latitude and longitude), and speed." ([0025])
Rationale: Subbu's system negotiates and processes trajectory modifications to achieve user-preferred trajectories, which is directed to determining an improved flight trajectory.
program instructions
See at least: "High-level system software architecture and communications thereof can be carried out on a computer processing apparatus for implementing the preference management method described above." ([0030])
Rationale: Subbu expressly refers to a "system software architecture" implemented on a "computer processing apparatus," which a PHOSITA would understand involves program instructions executed by a processor.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Subbu
Subbu does not explicitly disclose:
A computer program product
the computer program product comprising a non-transitory machine-readable data storage medium
having stored thereon program instructions
that, when accessed by a processor, cause the processor to execute steps of the method of claim 1 (as a packaged product)
Disclosure by HK Ng
HK Ng does not explicitly teach any of the computer program product claim limitations of Claim 18. HK Ng focuses on the algorithmic methodology for contrail-avoidance trajectory optimization.
Disclosure by Garrett
Garrett discloses:
the computer program product comprising a non-transitory machine-readable data storage medium
See at least: "The mass storage device 710 and its associated computer readable storage media provide non-volatile storage for the contrail detection computer 302." (Col. 8, ll. 31-35)
Rationale: Garrett expressly teaches computer readable storage media that provide non-volatile storage, corresponding to a non-transitory machine-readable data storage medium.
having stored thereon program instructions
See at least: "computer storage media can be any available computer storage media that can be accessed by the contrail detection computer 302 ... for storage of information such as computer readable and executable instructions, data structures, program modules or other data." (Col. 8, ll. 39 - 47)
Rationale: Garrett expressly describes storage media storing computer readable and executable instructions and program modules, which maps to having stored thereon program instructions.
that, when accessed by a processor, cause the processor to execute steps
See at least: "the software components described herein may, when loaded into the CPU 702 and executed, transform the CPU 702 and the overall contrail detection computer 302 ... The CPU 702 may operate as a finite-state machine in response to executable instructions contained within the software modules disclosed herein." (Col. 9, ll. 15 - 20)
Rationale: Garrett expressly teaches that executable instructions within software modules, when loaded into the CPU and executed, cause the processor to operate, i.e., cause the processor to execute steps.
Motivation to Combine Subbu, HK Ng, and Garrett
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Subbu, HK Ng, and Garrett before them, to create the computer program product of Claim 18. The method of Claim 1 has been established as obvious over this combination. Claim 18 merely recites the routine and conventional practice of storing software instructions that perform an obvious method on a non-transitory computer-readable medium for execution by a processor. Implementing a known algorithmic method in software stored in this manner is a standard, predictable activity in software engineering, as supported by Garrett’s teaching of a generic computer architecture for software execution. Applying this known software implementation technique to perform the obvious method of Claim 1 yields no more than predictable results, adding no inventive concept.
Claims 4, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subbu, in view of HK NG, in view of Garrett, and in view of Lamkin (US 9269205 B1)
Regarding Claim 4,
The combination of Subbu, HK Ng, and Garrett establishes the method of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 4.
Disclosure by Subbu
However, Subbu does not explicitly teach:
wherein the minimization of the contrail likelihood is associated with increase in a carbon credit value,
and wherein the carbon credit value is associated with a fuel utilized for a given flight.
Disclosure by HK Ng
HK Ng teaches:
the minimization of the contrail likelihood
See at least: “…provides policy makers the necessary data to make tradeoffs between persistent contrails mitigation and aircraft fuel consumption.” (Abstract, Page 1); “…calculates wind-optimal trajectories for cruising aircraft while avoiding the regions of airspace prone to persistent contrails formation.” (Page 1).
Rationale: HK Ng expressly teaches persistent “contrails mitigation” via trajectories that “avoid” regions “prone to persistent contrails formation,” which maps to “the minimization of the contrail likelihood” (i.e., reducing contrail formation opportunity/propensity by avoidance).
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by HK Ng
HK Ng does not explicitly teach:
wherein the minimization of the contrail likelihood is associated with increase in a carbon credit value,
and wherein the carbon credit value is associated with a fuel utilized for a given flight.
Disclosure by Lamkin
Lamkin teaches:
wherein the minimization of the contrail likelihood is associated with increase in a carbon credit value,
See at least: “…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.” (Abstract)
Rationale: Lamkin expressly teaches generating environmental impact data and recommendations for improving that environmental impact. As established in Claim 1 (via HK Ng), contrail likelihood is a quantified component of environmental impact. A PHOSITA would understand that minimization of contrail likelihood is one form of improving environmental impact. Further, Lamkin’s system is explicitly designed to support regulatory and market-facing environmental metrics, which a PHOSITA would recognize as directly tied to carbon credit valuation frameworks. Thus, Lamkin teaches that environmental-impact minimization (including contrails) is associated with increased carbon credit value under cap-and-trade and regulatory credit systems.
and wherein the carbon credit value is associated with a fuel utilized for a given flight.
See at least: “…continuously receive and transmit aircraft data and flight plan data… generate at least data representative of real-time environmental impact of the aircraft…” (Abstract); “…an environmental impact measurement system for an aircraft includes a one-way data interface and a data collection system. The one-way data interface is adapted to continuously receive and transmit aircraft data and flight plan data. 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.” (Col. 1, ll. 61-67 – Col. 2, ll. 1-3).
Rationale: Lamkin explicitly teaches generating carbon emission rate data from aircraft data received during a given flight. The technical implementation correlates fuel burn rate to carbon emissions, which are the basis for carbon credit accounting. A PHOSITA would immediately recognize that carbon credit value is therefore associated with fuel utilized for a given flight, because fuel burn is the direct, industry-standard input to regulatory carbon accounting. Under well-established aviation carbon-accounting frameworks: improvements in environmental impact (including reduced contrail effects) are associated with increased carbon credit value
Motivation to Combine Subbu, HK Ng, Garrett, and Lamkin
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Subbu, HK Ng, Garrett, and Lamkin before them, to incorporate Lamkin’s fuel-based environmental-impact and carbon-emissions measurement into Subbu’s trajectory-alteration framework as informed by HK Ng’s contrail-avoidance teachings and Garrett’s in-flight contrail verification, because Subbu already alters flight parameters operationally, HK Ng teaches minimizing contrail formation while accounting for fuel use, Garrett confirms contrail outcomes during flight, and Lamkin quantifies environmental impact from aircraft and flight-plan data. A PHOSITA would therefore predictably associate contrail-likelihood minimization with improved environmental performance reflected in increased carbon-credit value, and associate that value with fuel utilized for the given flight.
Regarding Claim 8,
The combination of Subbu, HK Ng, Garrett, and Lamkin establishes the method of Claim 4, which is the basis for Claim 8.
Disclosure by Subbu
Subbu does not explicitly teach:
further comprising: assessing a fuel burn penalty or fuel savings achieved,
based on the fuel utilized for the given flight.
Disclosure by HK Ng (Secondary Reference)
HK Ng teaches:
further comprising: assessing a fuel burn penalty or fuel savings achieved,
See at least: “The additional travel times range from 0 to 4.3 % with a corresponding increase in fuel from 0 to 4.46%.” (HK Ng, Page 8, Sec. IV.A)
See at least: “Additional Fuel Burn (%) …” (HK Ng, Page 8, Table 1 excerpt)
Rationale: HK Ng expressly quantifies “additional” fuel usage (“increase in fuel,” “Additional Fuel Burn (%)”) attributable to a contrails-avoidance trajectory relative to a wind-optimal trajectory, which is an assessment of a fuel burn penalty (and, where the “additional” value is reduced/zero relative to other cases, would correspondingly reflect fuel savings achieved under the compared scenarios).
based on the fuel utilized for the given flight.
See at least: “Fuel Burn (Kg) …” (HK Ng, Page 8, Table 1 excerpt)
Rationale: HK Ng expressly uses “Fuel Burn (Kg)” as the measured quantity for the flight, and the “Additional Fuel Burn (%)” assessment is determined from that “Fuel Burn (Kg),” which maps to assessing the penalty/savings based on the fuel utilized for the given flight.
Motivation to Combine Subbu, HK Ng, Garrett, and Lamkin
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Subbu, HK Ng, Garrett, and Lamkin before them, to incorporate HK Ng’s explicit fuel-burn comparison metrics (including “Fuel Burn (Kg)” and “Additional Fuel Burn (%)”) into the operational trajectory-alteration framework of Subbu (as already environmentally informed by HK Ng and validated by Garrett, and economically/environmentally reported by Lamkin), because doing so yields the predictable result of quantifying the fuel burn penalty or fuel savings attributable to the improved trajectory using the flight’s fuel-burn data.
Regarding Claim 10,
The combination of Subbu, HK Ng, and Garrett establishes the method of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 10.
Disclosure by Combination Subbu, HK Ng, and Garrett
However, Combine Subbu, HK Ng, and Garrett do not explicitly teach:
further comprising executing an electronic flight bag (EFB) software
on an EFB device
to support in-air tactical response.
Disclosure by Lamkin
Lamkin provides teachings for the following missing elements:
further comprising executing an electronic flight bag (EFB) software
See at least: “the various illustrative logical blocks, modules, circuits, and algorithm steps … may be implemented as … computer software” (Col. 8, ll. 39-42); “The steps of a method or algorithm … may be embodied … in a software module executed by a processor” (Col. 9, ll. 17-20)
Rationale: Lamkin expressly teaches “computer software” and a “software module executed by a processor” ; when the display device is implemented using an “electronic flight bag (EFB)” (below), the executed “software module” corresponds to “executing” “an electronic flight bag (EFB) software” (PHOSITA-obvious implementation on the EFB platform).
on an EFB device
See at least: “the depicted display device 124 may be implemented … using an electronic flight bag (EFB), or using a portable tablet device” (Col. 6, ll. 62-65)
Rationale: Lamkin expressly recites implementation using “an electronic flight bag (EFB)”, which maps to “on an EFB device.”
to support in-air tactical response.
See at least: “provide real-time feedback of the aircraft's environmental impact to the flight crew” (Col. 3, ll. 51-52); “recommendations … may include … recommended flight routes … recommended altitudes … recommended cruise numbers … and pilot advisories” (Col. 3, ll. 56-61)
Rationale: Lamkin expressly teaches “real-time feedback … to the flight crew” and “recommendations” including “recommended flight routes,” “recommended altitudes,” “recommended cruise numbers,” and “pilot advisories” , which support “in-air tactical response” (i.e., during flight, providing actionable advisories/recommendations to the crew).
Motivation to Combine Subbu, HK Ng, Garrett, and Lamkin
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Subbu, HK Ng, Garrett, and Lamkin before them, to implement the method of Claim 1 by executing electronic flight bag (EFB) software on an EFB device to support in-air tactical response. Subbu, HK Ng, and Garrett collectively teach generating and validating trajectory- and contrail-related information during flight execution, while Lamkin expressly teaches providing real-time environmental impact information and recommendations to the flight crew via an electronic flight bag (EFB). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that delivering the outputs of the Claim 1 method to the flight crew during flight through a known EFB software platform is a predictable use of a known technique to improve a known flight-operation method, yielding the expected result of enabling timely, in-air tactical decision-making. This combination merely applies familiar elements according to their established functions, without changing the principle of operation of any reference, and thus reflects no more than the predictable result of integrating a known cockpit information interface (EFB) with known flight-trajectory and environmental analysis techniques.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Shay (US-20170018196-A1)
Shay teaches optimizing aircraft trajectories by applying air traffic management functions (e.g., “avoid conflicts and possible collisions with other aircraft”) while supporting environmental objectives (e.g., “reducing… emissions and fuel burn”) via changing a trajectory “based on predicted weather.”
McCain (US 20150339930 A1)
McCain discloses a processor/memory system that ingests flight profile information plus weather/atmospheric data and flight parameter data to output “hazard avoidance optimized flight plans,” including integration into “existing… flight planning tool” user interfaces and use of “(near) real-time” hazard data for operational planning.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUWABUSAYO ADEBANJO AWORUNSE whose telephone number is (571)272-4311. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (8:30AM - 5PM).
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3969. 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.
/OLUWABUSAYO ADEBANJO AWORUNSE/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662