DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Duty of Disclosure/Inequitable Conduct
As demonstrated by the §102 rejection below, the reference Irvine et al., “A simple framework for assessing the trade-off between the climate impact and aviation carbon dioxide emissions and contrails for a single flight” reads on and is material to the claimed invention. Applicant filed the provisional application to which this application claims priority on April 19th, 2024. Days later as part of the Integrated Communications, Navigation and Surveillance Conference (ICNS) (April 23-25, 2024), Applicant published an article entitled “How Much Money Could Airlines Make Selling Carbon Offsets from Contrail Avoidance.” In that article Applicant wrote “The method for calculating the CO2 equivalent of a contrail adapts the model developed by Irvine et.al. [13] in the paper “A Simple Framework for Assessing the Tradeoff between the Climate Impact of Aviation Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Contrails for a Single Flight.” The Irvine et.al. model calculates the required distance that would need to be flown to generate the quantity of CO2 that generates the same radiative forcing as the radiative forcing generated by a contrail.” It’s noted that parts of this paper submitted to the ICNS conference makes up the entirety of the provisional application.
Applicant is respectfully remined that under 37 CFR §1.56(a) that “Each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application has a duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the Office, which includes a duty to disclose to the Office all information known to that individual to be material to patentability as defined in this section.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under step 1 of MPEP §2106’s subject matter eligibility guidelines, claims 1-25 fall within the category of a process.
Under Step 2A, prong 1, the claim(s) recite(s) “(Claim 1) computing radiative forcing of an avoided contrail, the avoided contrail resulting from an aircraft performing a contrail reduction procedure; determining a computed distance that the aircraft would need to fly to generate carbon emissions that would have a same radiative forcing as the radiative forcing of the avoided contrail; and computing a carbon-equivalent offset for the aircraft performing the contrail reduction procedure as a quantity of carbon that would be generated by the aircraft flying the computed distance…(Claim 2) wherein the computing the radiative forcing of the avoided contrail is based on at least one of: a length of the avoided contrail (Lcon), a width of the avoided contrail (Wcon), an equilibrium surface temperature response, per unit radiative forcing, relative to that of CO2 (E), or degree of climate impact had the avoided contrail not been avoided (Mcontraii), wherein Mcontraii is based on a time horizon (H) and one of: absolute global warming potential (AGWP), or absolute global temperature potential (AGTP)…(Claim 3) wherein the computing the radiative forcing of the avoided contrail (RFcon) comprises computing the RFcon as: RFcon = Lcon * Wcon * E * Mcontrail(H)…(Claim 4) wherein the determining the computed distance that the aircraft would need to fly to generate carbon emissions that would have the same radiative forcing as the radiative forcing of the avoided contrail is based on at least one of: the radiative forcing of the avoided contrail (RFcon), a fuel burn per distance (FB), an emissions index (EI), or degree of climate impact from the carbon emissions that would have been generated by the aircraft flying the computed distance (Mco2 wherein Mco2 is based on a time horizon (H) and one of: absolute global warming potential (AGWP), or absolute global temperature potential (AGTP)…(Claim 5) the fuel burn per distance is an aircraft-specific value that is specific to the aircraft…(Claim 6) determining the computed distance (Dist) that the aircraft would need to fly to generate carbon emissions that would have the same radiative forcing as the radiative forcing of the avoided contrail comprises computing the Dist as: Dist = RFcon / (FB * El * Mco2(H))…(Claim 7) the computing the carbon-equivalent offset for the aircraft performing the contrail reduction procedure is based on at least one of: the computed distance (Dist) that the aircraft would need to fly to generate carbon emissions that would have the same radiative forcing as the radiative forcing of the avoided contrail, a fuel burn per distance (FB), or an emissions index (EI)…(Claim 8) the fuel burn per distance is an aircraft-specific value that is specific to the aircraft…(Claim 9) the computing the carbon-equivalent offset for the aircraft performing the contrail reduction procedure comprises computing the carbon-equivalent offset as: carbon-equivalent offset = Dist * FB * El…(Claim 10) computing radiative forcing of an avoided contrail, the avoided contrail resulting from an aircraft performing a contrail reduction procedure; determining a computed distance that the aircraft would need to fly to generate carbon emissions that would have a same radiative forcing as the radiative forcing of the avoided contrail; and computing a carbon-equivalent offset for the aircraft performing the contrail reduction procedure as a quantity of carbon that would be generated by the aircraft flying the computed distance…(Claim 11) the computing the radiative forcing of the avoided contrail is based on at least one of: a length of the avoided contrail (Lcon), a width of the avoided contrail (Wcon), an equilibrium surface temperature response, per unit radiative forcing, relative to that of CO2(E), or degree of climate impact had the avoided contrail not been avoided (Mcontraii), wherein Mcontraii is based on a time horizon (H) and one of: absolute global warming potential (AGWP), or absolute global temperature potential (AGTP)…(Claim 12) the computing the radiative forcing of the avoided contrail (RFcon) comprises computing the RFcon as: RFcon = Lcon * Wcon * E * Mcontraii(H)…(Claim 13) the determining the computed distance that the aircraft would need to fly to generate carbon emissions that would have the same radiative forcing as the radiative forcing of the avoided contrail is based on at least one of: the radiative forcing of the avoided contrail (RFcon), a fuel burn per distance (FB),4 an emissions index (EI), or degree of climate impact from the carbon emissions that would have been generated by the aircraft flying the computed distance (Mco2), wherein Mco2 is based on a time horizon (H) and one of: absolute global warming potential (AGWP), or absolute global temperature potential (AGTP)…(Claim 14) the fuel burn per distance is an aircraft-specific value that is specific to the aircraft…(Claim 15) determining the computed distance (Dist) that the aircraft would need to fly to generate carbon emissions that would have the same radiative forcing as the radiative forcing of the avoided contrail comprises computing the Dist as: Dist = RFcon / (FB * El * Mco2(H))…(Claim 16) the computing the carbon-equivalent offset for the aircraft performing the contrail reduction procedure is based on at least one of: the computed distance (Dist) that the aircraft would need to fly to generate carbon emissions that would have the same radiative forcing as the radiative forcing of the avoided contrail, a fuel burn per distance (FB), or an emissions index (EI)…(Claim 17) the fuel burn per distance is an aircraft-specific value that is specific to the aircraft…(Claim 18) the computing the carbon-equivalent offset for the aircraft performing the contrail reduction procedure comprises computing the carbon- equivalent offset as: carbon-equivalent offset = Dist * FB * El…(Claim 19) computing radiative forcing of an avoided contrail, the avoided contrail resulting from an aircraft performing a contrail reduction procedure; determining a computed distance that the aircraft would need to fly to generate carbon emissions that would have a same radiative forcing as the radiative forcing of the avoided contrail; and computing a carbon-equivalent offset for the aircraft performing the contrail reduction procedure as a quantity of carbon that would be generated by the aircraft flying the computed distance…(Claim 20) the computing the carbon- equivalent offset for the aircraft performing the contrail reduction procedure is based on at least one an aircraft-specific value that is specific to the aircraft.” These claims fall within the judicial exception of mathematical concepts as articulated in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Under Step 2A, prong 2, the claims has the additional limitations of: (Claim 1) “at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions” and (Claims 19 and 20) “processor-readable medium”. Regarding these limitations, "use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more." MPEP §2106.05(f). Accordingly, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above in regard to Step 2A, prong 2, the claims recite the additional limitations of: (Claim 1) “at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions” and (Claims 19 and 20) “processor-readable medium”. Regarding these limitations, "use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more." MPEP §2106.05(f). Accordingly, the claims do not recite additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Irvine et al., “A simple framework for assessing the trade-off between the climate impact and aviation carbon dioxide emissions and contrails for a single flight” (hereinafter Irvine).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 19, Irvine teaches a system method and medium comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system at least to perform the method (pg. 6, “detailed calculations of such ‘climate optimal’ routings are currently being performed by the REACT4C project”, i.e. a project carried out on a supercomputer), the method comprising:
computing radiative forcing of an avoided contrail, the avoided contrail resulting from an aircraft performing a contrail reduction procedure (pg. 2, equation 1, “LCON x WCON x MCON x E”);
determining a computed distance that the aircraft would need to fly to generate carbon emissions that would have a same radiative forcing as the radiative forcing of the avoided contrail (pg. 2, equation 1, “
d
x
m
a
x
=
L
C
O
N
x
W
C
O
N
x
M
C
O
N
x
H
x
E
F
F
x
E
I
C
O
2
x
M
C
O
2
(
H
)
…The denominator is the climate impact of the CO2 emissions from flying the additional distance to avoid making the contrail”); and
computing a carbon-equivalent offset for the aircraft performing the contrail reduction procedure as a quantity of carbon that would be generated by the aircraft flying the computed distance (pg. 3, section 2.2., “The amount of additional CO2 emissions is the product of the distance, the fuel flow and ElCO2”).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Irvine teaches the system of claim 1 and method of claim 10, wherein the computing the radiative forcing of the avoided contrail is based on at least one of:
a length of the avoided contrail (Lcon) (pg. 2, equation 1, “
d
x
m
a
x
=
L
C
O
N
x
W
C
O
N
x
M
C
O
N
x
H
x
E
F
F
x
E
I
C
O
2
x
M
C
O
2
(
H
)
,” LCON in the equation)
a width of the avoided contrail (Wcon) (pg. 2, equation 1, “
d
x
m
a
x
=
L
C
O
N
x
W
C
O
N
x
M
C
O
N
x
H
x
E
F
F
x
E
I
C
O
2
x
M
C
O
2
(
H
)
,” WCON in the equation) ,
an equilibrium surface temperature response, per unit radiative forcing, relative to that of CO2 (E) (pg. 2, equation 1, “
d
x
m
a
x
=
L
C
O
N
x
W
C
O
N
x
M
C
O
N
x
H
x
E
F
F
x
E
I
C
O
2
x
M
C
O
2
(
H
)
,” climate efficacy E in the equation), or
degree of climate impact had the avoided contrail not been avoided (Mcontrail), wherein Mcontrail is based on a time horizon (H) (pg. 2, equation 1, “
d
x
m
a
x
=
L
C
O
N
x
W
C
O
N
x
M
C
O
N
x
H
x
E
F
F
x
E
I
C
O
2
x
M
C
O
2
(
H
)
,” MCON X (H) in the equation; pg. 2, “The climate impact is measured by an emission metric M, applied with time horizon H”) and
one of: absolute global warming potential (AGWP), or absolute global temperature potential (AGTP) (pg. 3, section 2.3, “There is no uniquely suitable choice of metric to measure the climate impact of the contrail and CO2 emissions. Here we use both the absolute global warming potential (AGWP) and absolute global temperature potential (AGTP) for pulse emissions (since we consider a single flight), calculated with a time horizon H of 20, 50 or 100 years. The AGWP and AGTP are both frequently-presented metrics (Myhre et al 2013), but the choice of which one is most appropriate (and which time horizon is most appropriate) depends on the context and on the aims of any climate mitigation policy.”).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Irvine teaches the system of claim 2 and method of claim 11, wherein the computing the radiative forcing of the avoided contrail (RFcon) comprises computing the RFcon as: RFcon = Lcon * Wcon * E * Mcontrail(H) (pg. 2, equation 1, “
d
x
m
a
x
=
L
C
O
N
x
W
C
O
N
x
M
C
O
N
x
H
x
E
F
F
x
E
I
C
O
2
x
M
C
O
2
(
H
)
” the denominator).
Regarding claims 4, and 13, Irvine teaches the system of claim 1 and method of claim 10, wherein the determining the computed distance that the aircraft would need to fly to generate carbon emissions that would have the same radiative forcing as the radiative forcing of the avoided contrail is based on at least one of:
the radiative forcing of the avoided contrail (RFcon) (pg. 2, equation 1, “
d
x
m
a
x
=
L
C
O
N
x
W
C
O
N
x
M
C
O
N
x
H
x
E
F
F
x
E
I
C
O
2
x
M
C
O
2
(
H
)
” the numerator),
a fuel burn per distance (FB) (pg. 2, equation 1, “
d
x
m
a
x
=
L
C
O
N
x
W
C
O
N
x
M
C
O
N
x
H
x
E
F
F
x
E
I
C
O
2
x
M
C
O
2
(
H
)
” the FF in the equation; pg. 2, “defined in terms of the fuel flow FF in kg fuel per km”),
an emissions index (EI) (pg. 2, equation 1, “
d
x
m
a
x
=
L
C
O
N
x
W
C
O
N
x
M
C
O
N
x
H
x
E
F
F
x
E
I
C
O
2
x
M
C
O
2
(
H
)
” the EICO2 in the equation), or
degree of climate impact from the carbon emissions that would have been generated by the aircraft flying the computed distance (MCO2) (pg. 2, equation 1, “
d
x
m
a
x
=
L
C
O
N
x
W
C
O
N
x
M
C
O
N
x
H
x
E
F
F
x
E
I
C
O
2
x
M
C
O
2
(
H
)
” the MCO2 in the equation),
wherein MCO2 is based on a time horizon (H) (pg. 2, equation 1, “
d
x
m
a
x
=
L
C
O
N
x
W
C
O
N
x
M
C
O
N
x
H
x
E
F
F
x
E
I
C
O
2
x
M
C
O
2
(
H
)
” the MCO2 (H) in the equation) and
one of: absolute global warming potential (AGWP), or absolute global temperature potential (AGTP) (pg. 3, section 2.3, “There is no uniquely suitable choice of metric to measure the climate impact of the contrail and CO2 emissions. Here we use both the absolute global warming potential (AGWP) and absolute global temperature potential (AGTP) for pulse emissions (since we consider a single flight), calculated with a time horizon H of 20, 50 or 100 years. The AGWP and AGTP are both frequently-presented metrics (Myhre et al 2013), but the choice of which one is most appropriate (and which time horizon is most appropriate) depends on the context and on the aims of any climate mitigation policy.”).
Regarding claims 5, 14, and 20, Irvine teaches the system of claim 4 and method of claim 13, and medium of claim 19, wherein the fuel burn per distance is an aircraft-specific value that is specific to the aircraft (pg. 3, “FF varies depending on the aircraft type. Representative values of FF for different classes of aircraft (referred to as small, medium, large and very large jets) were calculated using the FAST model”.).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Irvine teaches the system of claim 4 and method of claim 13, the determining the computed distance (Dist) that the aircraft would need to fly to generate carbon emissions that would have the same radiative forcing as the radiative forcing of the avoided contrail comprises computing the Dist as: Dist = RFcon / (FB * El * Mco2(H) (pg. 2, equation 1, “
d
x
m
a
x
=
L
C
O
N
x
W
C
O
N
x
M
C
O
N
x
H
x
E
F
F
x
E
I
C
O
2
x
M
C
O
2
(
H
)
”).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Irvine teaches the system of claim 4 and method of claim 13, wherein the computing the carbon-equivalent offset for the aircraft performing the contrail reduction procedure is based on at least one of: the computed distance (Dist) that the aircraft would need to fly to generate carbon emissions that would have the same radiative forcing as the radiative forcing of the avoided contrail (pg. 2, equation 1, “
d
x
m
a
x
=
L
C
O
N
x
W
C
O
N
x
M
C
O
N
x
H
x
E
F
F
x
E
I
C
O
2
x
M
C
O
2
(
H
)
”),
a fuel burn per distance (FB), or an emissions index (EI) (pg. 3, section 2.2., “The amount of additional CO2 emissions is the product of the distance, the fuel flow and ElCO2”).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Irvine teaches the system of claim 7 and method of claim 16, wherein the fuel burn per distance is an aircraft-specific value that is specific to the aircraft. (pg. 3, “FF varies depending on the aircraft type. Representative values of FF for different classes of aircraft (referred to as small, medium, large and very large jets) were calculated using the FAST model”.).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Irvine teaches the system of claim 7 and method of claim 16, wherein the computing the carbon-equivalent offset for the aircraft performing the contrail reduction procedure comprises computing the carbon-equivalent offset as: carbon-equivalent offset = Dist * FB * El (pg. 3, section 2.2., “The amount of additional CO2 emissions is the product of the distance, the fuel flow and ElCO2”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Denis Avila and Lance Sherry, “Method for Calculating Net Radiative Forcing From Contrails From Airline Operations” teaches how to calculate net radiative forcing.
DKRZ, “REACT4C – Reducing emissions from aviation by changing trajectories for the benefit of climate” teaches that the REACT4C “calculations require intensive supercomputing and were carried out on the supercomputer Blizzard at DKRZ. About two million CPU-h were used for testing and for the final simulations.”
Swann (US 2015/0284101) teaches an aircraft vapour trail control system.
Durant (US 2023/0273626) teaches optimizing the atmospheric radiative forcing of aircraft flight operations on climate by forecasting and validating aircraft contrail formation.
Laluque et al. (US 2024/0386517) teaches estimating an environmental footprint of a flight of an aircraft and associated electronic estimating system.
Purves (US 2020/0104813) teaches real-time carbon offset determination.
Lamkin et al. (US Pat. 9,269,205) teaches an aircraft environmental impact measurement system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W WATHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5570. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30pm.
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, James Trujillo can be reached at 571-272-3677. 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.
BRIAN W. WATHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2151
/BRIAN W WATHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
Prosecution Insights