CTFR 18/962,288 CTFR 85091 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION This action is in response to papers filed on 2/24/2026. Claims 1, 2, 6-8, 13-16, and 20 have been amended. Claim 5 has been cancelled. Claim 21 has been added. Claims 1-4 and 6-21 are pending. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-4 and 6-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1: The claims are directed to a process (method as introduced in Claim 1), and/or system (Claim 13), and/or storage machine with executable instructions (Claim 20) thus Claims 1-20 fall within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03. Step 2A, Prong 1: The claimed invention recites an abstract idea according to MPEP §2106.04. The independent claims which recite the following claim limitations as an abstract idea, are underlined below. Claims 1, 13 ,and 20 recite (as represented by the language of Claim 1): receiving , at one or more processors, flight traffic information for a plurality of flights over a select time period ; applying a traffic growth model to the flight traffic information to generate projected flight traffic information over a future time period ; receiving, at the one or more processors, user input indicating one or more parameters for at least a first sustainability strategy model of a plurality of sustainability strategy models ; visually presenting, on a display device, the projected flight traffic information, the adjusted forecasted aviation emissions information, and the emissions reduction potential for at least the first and second sustainability strategy models over the future time period. The underlined claim limitations as emphasized above, as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of fundamental economic principles or practices in the form of reducing the impact and cost of operating emission producing vehicles and services. Other than reciting a computer implementation, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from encompassing the performance of fundamental economic principles or practices which represents the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. But for the recitation of generic implementation of computer system components, the claimed invention merely recites a process for forecasting emissions and analyzing strategies to mitigate the forecasted emissions in order to reduce costs (such as offsets) and reach market goals (See specification at [0002]; [0121]; [0124]; [0128]). Additionally, the claims recite: performing baseline calculations on the projected flight traffic information to generate forecasted aviation emissions information over the future time period; iteratively applying two or more of the plurality of sustainability strategy models to the forecasted aviation emissions information to generate adjusted forecasted aviation emissions information, wherein an output variable of the first sustainability strategy model is used to inform one or more parameters of at least a second sustainability strategy model of the plurality of sustainability strategy models for at least the first and second sustainability strategy models , indicating an emissions reduction potential over the future time period based on the adjusted forecasted aviation emissions information; The underlined claim limitations as emphasized above, as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical formulas, equations, and/or calculations. Other than reciting a computer implementation, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from encompassing the performance of mathematical formulas, equations, and/or calculations which represents the abstract idea of mathematical concepts. But for the recitation of generic implementation of computer system components, the claimed invention merely recites a canulations for producing forecasted outputs (“performing baseline calculations…”), mathematical adjustments and/or processing (“applying two or more of the plurality of sustainability strategy models to the forecasted aviation emissions information …”), and/or deriving and presenting a quantitative result (“ indicating an emissions reduction potential over the future time period …”). Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite additional elements such as: computing system comprising: a logic machine comprising one or more processors; [and] a storage machine comprising executable instructions; and applying a traffic growth model to the flight traffic information; applying first and second sustainability strategy models; and [visually presenting data] on a display device. In particular, the additional elements cited above beyond the abstract idea are recited at a high-level of generality and simply equivalent to a generic recitation and basic functionality that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer technology components. Accordingly, since the specification describes the additional elements in general terms, without describing the particulars, the additional elements may be broadly but reasonably construed as generic computing components being used to perform the judicial exception (see specification at [00155]). Furthermore, model(s) used to perform the recited steps are recited at a high-level of generality and are only nominally and generically recited as a tool for performing these steps. These claimed additional elements merely recite the words “apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements, individually or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. It is additionally noted that several steps, such as “receiving … flight traffic information”, “receiving … user input”, “indicating … emissions reduction potential”, and “visually presenting… the…information” merely present data gathering and post-solution presentation which amount to no more than extra-solution activities (see MPEP 2106.05(g); Elec. Power Grp.). Dependent Claims: Claims 2-4, 6-12, 14-19, and 21 recite further elements related to the analysis and forecasting steps of the parent claims. These activities fail to differentiate the claims from the related activities in the parent claims and fail to provide any material to render the claimed invention to be significantly more than the identified abstract ideas, as outlined below. Claim 2 recites “wherein performing baseline calculations on the projected flight traffic information further comprises further comprising: generating forecasted aviation emissions information comprising per-route emissions information; and applying the two or more of the plurality of sustainability strategy models to the forecasted aviation emissions information on a per-route basis”, which specifies additional analysis and forecasting steps related to the steps of the parent claims, but does not lead toward eligibility. Furthermore, model(s) used to perform the recited steps are recited at a high-level of generality and are only nominally and generically recited as a tool for performing these steps. Claim 3 recites “wherein the per-route emissions information includes one or more of fuel burn per route, energy consumption per route, and CO2 emissions per route”, which specifies additional analysis and forecasting steps related to the steps of the parent claims, but does not lead toward eligibility. Claim 4 recites “receiving user input filtering the flight traffic information for the plurality of flights over the select time period; and applying the traffic growth model to the filtered flight traffic information to generate projected flight traffic information”, which specifies additional steps regarding types of input to be used with the steps of the parent claims, but does not lead toward eligibility. Claims 6 and 14 recite “wherein the plurality of sustainability strategy models includes one or more of aircraft strategy models, operations efficiency strategy models, energy source strategy models, and market-based carbon offset strategy models”. Claims 7 and 15 recite “wherein the aircraft strategy models include one or more of fleet renewal strategy models, future aircraft strategy models, and aircraft route assignment strategy models”. Claims 8 and 16 recite “wherein the energy source strategy models include one or more of sustainable aviation fuel models, hydrogen fuel models, and electricity models”. Claims 9 and 17 recite “wherein the sustainable aviation fuel models include power to liquid fuel models”. These claims specify types of sustainability strategies to be used with the steps of the parent claims, but does not lead toward eligibility. It is noted that the recited sustainability strategies are recited generically and without any detail demonstrating how any particular strategy would affect the processing and/or results of the claimed invention. Furthermore, model(s) used to perform the recited steps are recited at a high-level of generality and are only nominally and generically recited as a tool for performing these steps. Claims 10 and 18 recite “wherein the emissions reduction potential indicates one or more of energy consumption over the future time period and CO2 emissions over the future time period” , which specifies additional steps regarding types of input to be used with the steps of the parent claims, but does not lead toward eligibility. Claims 11 and 19 recite “applying one or more non-CO2 emissions models to the forecasted aviation emissions information to generate a non-CO2 emission reduction potential over the future time period; and indicating an aggregate climate impact over the future time period based on the non-CO2 emissions reduction potential”, which specifies additional steps regarding types of input to be used with the steps of the parent claims, but does not lead toward eligibility. Furthermore, model(s) used to perform the recited steps are recited at a high-level of generality and are only nominally and generically recited as a tool for performing these steps. Claim 12 recites “wherein the non-CO2 emissions reduction potential indicates one or more of water vapor emissions reduction, nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions reduction, sulfur oxides (SOx) emissions reduction, and soot emissions reduction over the future time period” , which specifies additional steps regarding types of input to be used with the steps of the parent claims, but does not lead toward eligibility. Claim 21 recites “wherein the first sustainability strategy model is an aircraft strategy model and wherein the second sustainability strategy model is an energy source strategy model”, which claims types of models, but does not lead toward eligibility. Furthermore, model(s) recited in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality and are only nominally and generically recited as a tool for performing these steps. The claims do not provide any new additional limitations or meaningful limits beyond abstract idea that are not addressed above in the independent claims therefore, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they provide significantly more to the abstract idea. Thus, after considering all claim elements, both individually and as a whole, it has been determined that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Therefore, Claims 2-4, 6-12, 14-19, and 21 are ineligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-4, 6, 7, 10-15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 115470993 A) 1 in view of Cooper et al. (Pub. No. US 2009/0204453 A1) . 1 Applicant provided this reference with the Information Disclosure Statement, filed on 2/14/2025. Applicant’s translation does not provide the referenced equations, however, any referenced equations can be found in the untranslated portion of the document version provided with this office action. Line numbers provide in the citations exclude equations. In regards to Claims 1, 13, and 20 , Chen discloses: A metho/system of modeling sustainability strategies for an aviation industry, the method comprising: receiving flight traffic information for a plurality of flights over a select time period; (page 5, at least “ S1 ” and “ S1.2 ” (lines 1-2 and 17-18), analyses characteristics of traffic demand development trend and traffic flow (traffic growth data) collected over the years (time period), “traffic” demand indicates data for a plurality of flights ) applying a traffic growth model to the flight traffic information to generate projected flight traffic information over a future time period; (page 5, “ S1 ” and “ S1.2 ” (lines 17-18), the traffic demand development trend data is applied to a “dynamic linear model” to predict future traffic demand ) performing baseline calculations on the projected flight traffic information to generate forecasted aviation emissions information over the future time period; (Page 5, “ S1.2 ” and “ S1.3 ” (lines 17-26), “S1.3: Based on the analysis of microscopic aircraft flight dynamics and macroscopic traffic demand development trends, establish a prediction model for the spatial and temporal distribution of carbon emissions in airspace: [equations included in reference] In the formula, E t+k represents the predicted amount of carbon emission in the airspace to be studied in the k-th year; FEa,l,e represent the a-th flight path calculated in step S1.1, the flight level is l, and the engine type is e According to the flight path, it can correspond to the flight stage; Y t+k represents the medium and long-term traffic demand forecast determined in step S1.2 ; pa%, pl%, pe% represent the corresponding flight path, Traffic flow ratio of flight altitude and engine type; r% means the average carbon emission reduction rate; Through the established airspace carbon emission time-space distribution prediction model, the mid- and long-term prediction of aircraft carbon emissions in the airspace to be studied in the future is carried out.”, the traffic data is subjected to baseline calculations using additional data, such as engine model number, altitude, flight path, traffic flow ration, etc. (the additional data that is added to the traffic data in the baseline calculations is data that also affects emissions, see also page 5, “ S1.1 ” (lines 10-16); page 9, “ (1.1) ” (lines 27-31), also includes aircraft model, aircraft weight , fuel consumption data, etc.) ) applying two or more of the plurality of sustainability strategy models to the forecasted aviation emissions information to generate adjusted forecasted aviation emissions information; (page 8, lines 9-11 and “ S4.1 ” to “ 4.2.2 ” (lines 13-23); page 11, lines 27-28, multiple scenes (scenarios) for addressing emissions (sustainability strategies with different parameters) are applied to the forecasted emission data, the application of the scenarios to the forecasted emissions data produces “adjusted forecasted aviation emissions information” (further predictions specifically related to each scenario, such as future environmental impact, economic benefits, further future reductions in emissions, impact drop rates, etc. demonstrating the strategies used for modeling), see also “ (4.1) ” to “ (4.2.2) ” (page 11, line 27 to page 12, line 9) for at least the first and second sustainability strategy models, indicating an emissions reduction potential over the future time period based on the adjusted forecasted aviation emissions information (page 9, lines 3-6, “Carbon emissions can be used to measure, predict, and assess the environmental impact of civil aviation carbon emissions for any airspace, and can analyze the benefits of emission reductions for different development scenarios .” ; Examiner Note: Although S4.2.2 uses the language “…evaluate the negative impact of carbon emissions on the atmospheric environment in each scenario…”, it is noted that this negative impact measurement can be interpreted as a level of reduction in emissions (e.g. a lower negative impact provided by the scenarios indicates a reduction in emissions ). This is based on the material throughout the reference that describes emissions reduction and reduction strategies/scenarios (see at least Abstract ) ) Chen discloses the above system/method for applying the one or more sustainability strategies used to forecast the environmental impact of emissions and potential reductions in the environmental impact of emissions. Chen does not explicitly disclose that parameters of the strategies are input by users. However, Cooper teaches: receiving, at the one or more processors, user input indicating one or more parameters for at least a first sustainability strategy model of a plurality of sustainability strategy models; ([0045]; [0053]; [0060], flight plans (strategies) can be analyzed and optimized for emissions impact/effect reduction ; [0032]; [0048], users input data through an interface to generate flight pans (strategies) ; [0049], demonstrates multiple flight plan variations (analyses multiple strategies with different parameters) ; Fig. 3; [0038]; [0039], system includes one or more processors that receive data ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Chen so as to have included receiving, at the one or more processors, user input indicating one or more parameters for at least a first sustainability strategy model of a plurality of sustainability strategy models, as taught by Cooper in order to allow users to define the parameters of each plan/scenario based on user needs (Cooper, Abstract; [0043]; [0056]; [0071]; Claim 4, etc., data includes policies, objectives, constraints, etc. related to the operation of the aircraft ). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize how apply the parameter inputs that cooper uses for the flight plan analysis to the strategy analysis of Chen. Regardless of the type of plan (scenario, strategy, etc.) being analyzed, the inputting of parameters would be performed in a similar manner and the references demonstrate the necessary level of skill to do so. Chen discloses the above system/method for applying the one or more sustainability strategies used to forecast the environmental impact of emissions and potential reductions in the environmental impact of emissions. Chen does not explicitly disclose iteratively applying the strategy models, wherein an output variable of the first sustainability strategy model is used to inform one or more parameters of at least a second sustainability strategy. However, Cooper teaches: iteratively applying two or more strategy models to generate adjusted forecasted aviation emissions information, wherein an output variable of the first sustainability strategy model is used to inform one or more parameters of at least a second sustainability strategy ; ([0060]; Fig. 5, multiple modelling iterations are used, output from one model (aircraft performance analysis) are input into another model (emissions evaluator), it is noted that the emissions calculator merely makes calculations on the output data to be evaluated emissions evaluator and can be interpreted as part of either scenario model ; [0042], aircraft performance analysis represents a scenario, including, but not limited to, flight plans and aircraft types (see also [0045]; [[0049]; [0061] ) ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the system of Chen so as to have included iteratively applying two or more strategy models to generate adjusted forecasted aviation emissions information, wherein an output variable of the first sustainability strategy model is used to inform one or more parameters of at least a second sustainability strategy, as taught by Cooper. Chen discloses a “base” method/system for modelling and analyzing multiple scenarios to optimize emissions on from flights, as shown above. Cooper teaches a comparable method/system for modelling and analyzing multiple scenarios to optimize emissions on from flights, as shown above. Cooper also teaches an embodiment in which two or more strategy models are iteratively applied to generate adjusted forecasted aviation emissions information, wherein an output variable of the first sustainability strategy model is used to inform one or more parameters of at least a second sustainability strategy, as shown above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the adaptation of iteratively applying two or more strategy models to generate adjusted forecasted aviation emissions information, wherein an output variable of the first sustainability strategy model is used to inform one or more parameters of at least a second sustainability strategy to Chen could be performed with the technical expertise demonstrated in the applied references. (See KSR [127 S Ct. at 1739] "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.") Chen discloses the above system/method for the projecting flight traffic information, adjusted forecasted aviation emissions information, and emissions reduction potential over the future time period for at least the first and second sustainability strategy model (as described above). Additionally, the analysis in Chen is used to determine and provide emission reduction strategies and results are provided to at least one entity (page 3, final 2 lines, “…feed back the results to the ATM environmental protection department…” ). Although one of ordinary skill in the art may find it unlikely that these results would not be visually provided to users in order to implement the strategies for the recited emissions reduction purposes, Chen does not explicitly disclose visually presenting, on a display device, results of the emissions and scenario analysis, modelling, forecasting, etc. However, Cooper teaches: disclose visually presenting, on a display device, results of the emissions and scenario analysis, modelling, forecasting, etc. ([0028]; [0032]; [0086], system/device includes a display for presenting data ; [0047]; [0060], output can include emissions data and analyzed data to generate new emissions data ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Chen so as to have included at a display device, visually presenting disclose visually presenting, on a display device, results of the emissions and scenario analysis, modelling, forecasting, etc., as taught by Cooper in order to allow users to see the results so that they can be useful (Cooper, [0047]; [0060]; Chen, page 3, final 2 lines). Cooper demonstrates all of the necessary skill and components required to provide a display of the emissions data of Chen. In regards to Claim 2 , Chen discloses: wherein performing baseline calculations on the projected flight traffic information further comprises further comprising: generating forecasted aviation emissions information comprising per-route emissions information; and applying the two or more of the plurality of sustainability strategy models to the forecasted aviation emissions information on a per-route basis (page 5, “ S1 ” and “ S1.2 ” (lines 17-18), the data can be calculated for different flight paths (routes), this per route/path data would then be applied to the scenarios/strategies in the same manner as provided above ) In regards to Claim 3 , Chen discloses: wherein the per-route emissions information includes one or more of fuel burn per route, energy consumption per route, and CO2 emissions per route (page 5, “ S1 ” and “ S1.2 ” (lines 17-18), the data can be calculated for different flight paths (routes), this per route/path data would then be applied to the scenarios/strategies in the same manner as provided above in the parent claim rejections ; page 4, lines 8-14; “ (4.1) ” to “ (4.2.2) ” (page 11, line 27 to page 12, line 9), the scenarios described in the parent claim rejection for the reduction of emissions over a future time period, provided above, include emissions calculations for carbon (this is also discussed throughout the reference), it is also noted that the data and calculation throughout the reference include fuel consumption data and rates (energy consumption) ) In regards to Claim 4 , Chen discloses receiving flight traffic information for the plurality of flights and applying the traffic growth model to the flight traffic information to generate projected flight traffic information , as described above. Chen does not explicitly disclose filtering the received flight traffic information, but Cooper teaches: receiving user input filtering flight information ([0049], flight information can be filtered to focus on selected/specific parameters to adjust forecast of emissions under different scenarios (see also [0045]; [0056]; etc. ) ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Chen so as to have included receiving user input filtering flight information, as taught by Cooper in order to allow users to define and redefine the parameters of each plan/scenario based on user needs (Cooper, Abstract; [0043]; [0049]; [0056]; [0071]; Claim 4, etc.). In regards to Claims 6 and 14 , Chen discloses: wherein the plurality of sustainability strategy models include one or more of aircraft strategy models, operations efficiency strategy models, energy source strategy models, and market-based carbon offset strategy models (page 8, lines 29-30, each scenario includes at least a determination of carbon trading amount (market-based carbon offset strategies) In regards to Claims 7 and 15 , Chen discloses the above method/system that includes multiple scenarios/strategies for addressing environmental impact of emissions. Chen does not explicitly disclose, but Cooper teaches: wherein aircraft strategy models include one or more of fleet renewal strategy models, future aircraft strategy models, and aircraft route assignment strategy models ( at least [0045], flight plans and routes of flights can be optimized for emissions reductions, demonstrating strategies regarding aircraft route assignments ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Chen so as to have included wherein aircraft strategies include one or more of fleet renewal strategies, future aircraft strategies, and aircraft route assignment strategies, as taught by Cooper in order to ensure that an optimal flight plan is identified (Cooper, [0045]). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to include the strategies of Cooper with the strategies of Chen and the references demonstrate the necessary skill to do so. It is also noted that Claims 7 and 14 are dependent upon an unselected species of the Markush group of parent Claims 6 and 14. In regards to Claims 10 and 18 , Chen discloses: wherein the emissions reduction potential indicates one or more of energy consumption over the future time period, fuel burn, and CO2 emissions over the future time period (page 4, lines 8-14; “ (4.1) ” to “ (4.2.2) ” (page 11, line 27 to page 12, line 9), the scenarios described in the parent claim rejection for the reduction of emissions over a future time period, provided above, include emissions calculations for carbon (this is also discussed throughout the reference), it is also noted that the data and calculation throughout the reference include fuel consumption data and rates (energy consumption) ) In regards to Claims 11 and 19 , Chen discloses the above system/method for applying the one or more sustainability strategies used to forecast the environmental impact of emissions and potential reductions in the environmental impact of emissions including emissions reduction potential over [a] future time period . Chen does not explicitly disclose that parameters of the strategies are input by users. However, Cooper teaches: applying one or more non-CO2 emissions models to the forecasted aviation emissions information to generate a non-CO2 emission reduction potential over the future time period; ([0060]; [0061]; etc., the calculations for emissions and impact are performed on non-CO2 emissions, such as, but not limited to, carbon monoxide, nitrogen, and unburned hydrocarbons ) indicating an aggregate climate impact based on the non-CO2 ([0065]; Claim 3, the calculations for the emissions/impact of each segment include multiple emission gases/pollutants (“aggregate climate impact”), see also [0060]-[0066]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Chen so as to have included applying one or more non-CO2 emissions models to the forecasted aviation emissions information to generate a non-CO2 emission reduction potential over the future time period and indicating an aggregate climate impact based on the non-CO2, as taught by Cooper in order to ensure that all environment impact data is considered (Cooper, at least [0065], different types or amounts of emissions may have different impacts on the environment ). In regards to Claim 12 , Chen discloses the above system/method for applying the one or more sustainability strategies used to forecast the environmental impact of emissions and potential reductions in the environmental impact of emissions including emissions reduction potential over [a] future time period . Chen does not explicitly disclose, but Cooper teaches: wherein the non-CO2 emissions [include] water vapor emissions, nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions, sulfur oxides (SOx) emissions, and soot emissions ([0004]; [0005]; [0007]; [0060]; [0068]; Claim 3, etc.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Chen so as to have included herein the non-CO2 emissions [include] water vapor emissions, nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions, sulfur oxides (SOx) emissions, and soot emissions, as taught by Cooper in order to ensure that all environment impact data is considered (Cooper, at least [0065], different types or amounts of emissions may have different impacts on the environment ) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 8, 9, 16, 17, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Cooper in further view of Zhang et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0409238 A1) . In regards to Claims 8 and 16 , Chen/Cooper discloses the above method/system that includes multiple scenarios/strategies for addressing environmental impact of emissions. Chen/Cooper does not explicitly disclose, but Zhang teaches: wherein the energy source strategy models include one or more of sustainable aviation fuel models, hydrogen fuel models, and electricity models ([0041]-[0046]; [0054], discusses the relationship between emissions and different power usages of the aircraft, discusses different fuel production pathways (strategies, scenarios, etc.) that can be considered when forecasting emissions (“Therefore, it should be understood that multiple different fuel pathways are contemplated, depending on the particulars of the individual elements of the system 50. With such an understanding, it should be appreciated that each individual fuel pathway can include an individual emission score.”, “It should be understood that individual SAFs, mixes or blends thereof, feedstocks, processing systems, production processes, distribution avenues and strategies, storage, and ultimate use by the aircraft 20 all contribute to emissions resultant from the production and use of the SAF. In this way, individual fuels or mixes can have their own specific fuel pathway, where determining multiple production pathways for different SAFs, mixes, or otherwise is beneficial in comparison of such multiple fuel pathways to reduce fuel costs and emissions.”), demonstrates sustainable aviation fuel models ; [0030], also discusses types of feedstock that can be included in the contemplated fuel lifecycle strategies, such as power-to-liquid, electric, hydrogen, etc. ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Chen/Cooper so as to have included wherein the energy source strategies include one or more of sustainable aviation fuel models, hydrogen fuel models, and electricity models, as taught by Zhang in order to ensure that an optimal strategy/plan is identified (Zhang, at least Abstract; Cooper, [0045]). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to include the strategies of Zhang with the strategies of Chen/Cooper and the references demonstrate the necessary skill to do so. It is also noted that Claims 8 and 16 are dependent upon an unselected species of the Markush group of parent Claims 6 and 14. In regards to Claims 9 and 17 , Chen/Cooper discloses the above method/system that includes multiple scenarios/strategies for addressing environmental impact of emissions. Chen/Cooper does not explicitly disclose, but Zhang teaches: wherein the sustainable aviation fuel models include power to liquid fuel models ([0030], discusses types of feedstock that can be included in the contemplated fuel lifecycle strategies, such as power-to-liquid ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Chen/Cooper so as to have included wherein the sustainable aviation fuel models include power to liquid fuel models, as taught by Zhang in order to ensure that an optimal strategy/plan is identified (Zhang, at least Abstract; [0030]; Cooper, [0045]). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to include the strategies of Zhang with the strategies of Chen/Cooper and the references demonstrate the necessary skill to do so. It is also noted that Claims 9 and 17 are dependent upon an unselected species of the Markush group of parent Claims 6 and 14. In regards to Claim 21 , Chen discloses the above method/system that includes multiple scenarios/strategies for addressing environmental impact of emissions. Chen does not explicitly disclose, but Cooper teaches: wherein the first sustainability strategy model is an aircraft strategy model ( at least [0045], flight plans and routes of flights can be optimized for emissions reductions, demonstrating strategies regarding aircraft route assignments ; [0060]; Fig. 5, multiple modelling iterations are used, output from a first model (aircraft performance analysis) ; see also [0042]; [0045]; [0049]; [0061]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Chen so as to have included wherein the first sustainability strategy model is an aircraft strategy model, as taught by Cooper in order to ensure that an optimal flight plan is identified (Cooper, [0045]). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to include the strategies of Cooper with the strategies of Chen and the references demonstrate the necessary skill to do so. Chen/Cooper discloses the above method/system that includes multiple scenarios/strategies for addressing environmental impact of emissions. Chen/Cooper does not explicitly disclose, but Zhang teaches: wherein [at least one] sustainability strategy model is an energy source strategy model ([0041]-[0046]; [0054], discusses the relationship between emissions and different power usages of the aircraft, discusses different fuel production pathways (strategies, scenarios, etc.) that can be considered when forecasting emissions (“Therefore, it should be understood that multiple different fuel pathways are contemplated, depending on the particulars of the individual elements of the system 50. With such an understanding, it should be appreciated that each individual fuel pathway can include an individual emission score.”, “It should be understood that individual SAFs, mixes or blends thereof, feedstocks, processing systems, production processes, distribution avenues and strategies, storage, and ultimate use by the aircraft 20 all contribute to emissions resultant from the production and use of the SAF. In this way, individual fuels or mixes can have their own specific fuel pathway, where determining multiple production pathways for different SAFs, mixes, or otherwise is beneficial in comparison of such multiple fuel pathways to reduce fuel costs and emissions.”), demonstrates sustainable aviation fuel models ; [0030], also discusses types of feedstock that can be included in the contemplated fuel lifecycle strategies, such as power-to-liquid, electric, hydrogen, etc. ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Chen/Cooper so as to have included wherein [at least one] sustainability strategy model is an energy source strategy model, as taught by Zhang in order to ensure that an optimal strategy/plan is identified (Zhang, at least Abstract; Cooper, [0045]). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to include the strategies of Zhang with the strategies of Chen/Cooper and the references demonstrate the necessary skill to do so. It is also noted that Claim 21 is dependent upon an unselected species of the Markush group of parent Claim 6. Additional References Identified but nit Relied Upon Avadhani et al. (WO 2023/059943 A1). Discloses the use of scenarios to modify emissions source using models ( see at least [0029]; [0033]; [0046]; [0087]; [0112]; [0117]; [0121]; [0123]; [0133]-[0136]). De Oliveira et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0103860 A1). Discloses the optimizing of flight plans and fleets including fueling plans, flight plans, user input, use of aircraft scenarios in conjunction with energy source parameters and flight traffic data, and multiple steps for modeling scenarios ( see at least Abstract; [0001]; [0037]; [0036]; [0034]; [0039]; [0044]; [0059]; [0060]; [0066]; [0071]; [0079]; Claim 1; Claim 13). Fasca (Pub. No. US 2002/0065581 A1). Discloses forecasting simulations relating to controlling/reducing emissions, including multiple models for analyzing scenarios ( see at least Abstract; [0006]; [0007]; [0020]; [0045]). However, the method/system is not applied to vehicle. Lamkin et al. (Patent No. US 9,269,205 B1). Discloses determining and optimizing flight plans including environmental impact, user input regarding parameters, historical flight data, displays and interfaces, etc. ( see at least Abstract; col. 1, ¶ 3; col. 2, ¶ 1; col. 3, ¶ 2-3; col. 5, ¶ 1, 2, & 4, col. 7, ¶ 2; Claim 23; Claim 24). Lang et al. (WO 2022/251352 A1). Discloses modelling scenarios for optimizing emissions reductions, including for aircraft. Modeling includes lifecycle emissions, fuel/energy emissions, etc. ( see at least [0003]; [0010]; [0021]; [0060]; [0063]; [0064]; [0069]; [0070]; [0082]; [0084]; [0086]; [0090]). Ulrich et al. (CA 2655836 A1). Discloses filtering emissions data for selected time periods ( see at least page 63, lines 5-7; page 65, lines 25-29) . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant’s arguments filed 2/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. I. Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. §101: Applicant asserts that "no tools exist to model the system-of-systems problem of decarbonizing aviation, which necessarily requires consideration of the interaction of new forms of renewable energy and aircraft technology" and Those tasked with addressing aviation emissions problems are often experts in only a single approach or sustainability strategy, even though multiple sustainability strategies may inform the same output variables. However, there is not sufficient material to demonstrate that these problems existed other than Applicant’s assertions that they do (along with various summaries of the claim language). Applicant also asserts that a user only need to indicate parameters for one sustainability strategy model, rather than guessing at which other sustainability strategy models may be interrelated . As above, there is not sufficient material to demonstrate that users can only guess at related sustainability strategy models and interrelationships in conventional systems and/or how this would be overcome in a meaningful manner beyond the abstract ideas. None of these remarks clearly indicate a practical application and/or how it is achieved in a meaningful manner. Nor do they clearly indicate how any additional elements amount to significantly more. Applicant asserts that the claimed invention concerns the model of outputs generated by machines and programmatically links two or more sustainability strategy models together . It appears that Applicant is attempting to tie the claimed invention to a computer environment. However, any computer elements recited are recited at high level of generality and represent tools for merely applying the claim steps. Nothing in the claim precludes the claim steps from being performed without benefit of a computer. It is also noted that, based on the disclosure, the ”models” recited are not necessarily tied to a computer (for example the models to not include machine learning, artificial intelligence or other related modelling types). There is no clear indication that the models cannot be performed outside of a machine or without being programmatically linked. See MPEP 2106.05(a), Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field ( “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification . That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement . The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology .” ). The additional elements regarding indicating and displaying the projected flight information (as cited by Applicant) do not provide significantly more. Merely displaying the output to the user does not provide significantly more and how the user can use the displayed information is not part of the claimed invention. In regards to DDR , Applicant fails to provide support or evidence to demonstrate how/why the findings of DDR would be comparable or relevant to the claimed features. Applicant does not explain how the recited steps are inherently tied to the computer rather than the computer merely being used as a tool to perform the steps. II. Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. §103: Applicant’s remarks are drawn to the newly provided claim material and are therefore moot in view of the newly provided prior art rejections, citations, and/or explanations, provided above . 07-37-11 AIA Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. For example, Applicant does not explain why optimize the flight plan to reduce the effect of emissions generated by an aircraft on the atmosphere in Chen (which uses multiple flight plan scenarios and other scenarios to optimize the flight plan) cannot be considered a "sustainability strategy" . Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAUN D SENSENIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:00am-4:00pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 571-272-6872. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /S.D.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3629 June 12, 2026 /LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/962,288 Page 2 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/962,288 Page 3 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/962,288 Page 4 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/962,288 Page 5 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/962,288 Page 6 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/962,288 Page 7 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/962,288 Page 8 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/962,288 Page 9 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/962,288 Page 10 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/962,288 Page 11 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/962,288 Page 12 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/962,288 Page 13 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/962,288 Page 14 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/962,288 Page 15 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/962,288 Page 16 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/962,288 Page 17 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/962,288 Page 18 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/962,288 Page 19 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/962,288 Page 20 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/962,288 Page 21 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/962,288 Page 22 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/962,288 Page 23 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/962,288 Page 24 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/962,288 Page 25 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/962,288 Page 26 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/962,288 Page 27 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/962,288 Page 28 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/962,288 Page 29 Art Unit: 3629
Prosecution Insights