DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-10 were pending and were rejected in the previous non-final office action.
Claims 1, 4-8, and 10 were amended.
Claims 1-10 remain pending and are examined in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections:
Claims 1, 5-8, and 10 were previously objected to for various informalities. Claims 1, 5-7, and 10 are amended to correct the previous issues. The previous objections to claims 1, 5-7 and 10 are withdrawn.
However, it is noted that the amendment in claim 8 does not fully address the previous objection. Claim 8 was objected to as reciting two instances “the airport of departure and the airport of arrival,” where the first instance should recite “an airport of departure and an airport of arrival.” Claim 8 instead appears to be amended to change the second instance of “the airport of departure and the airport of arrival” to recite “an airport of departure and an airport of arrival,” instead of changing the first instances of these terms in the claims. Therefore, the objection is not overcome and is updated below.
35 USC § 112(b):
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous § 112(b) rejections of claims 4 and 5 (pg. 10, remarks filed 8/3/2026) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claims 4 and 5 are amended to address the previous issues that rendered claims 4-5 indefinite. Therefore, the previous § 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
35 USC § 101:
Applicant’s arguments regarding the § 101 rejection of claims 1-10 (pgs. 10-11 of remarks filed 8/3/2026) have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that amendments to claim 1 to recite “generating a representation of the flight, according to trajectory segments, for a user to identify the most emitting segments of the trajectory and determine which segments require optimization” integrates the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A Prong Two, and that “A benefit of the invention is to provide a tool that enables an airline to visualize, for each flight, the sections of the flight path that generate the highest emissions, so as to optimize not the entire flight but only critical sections, thereby limiting operational disruptions caused by the modification” (pgs. 10-11, remarks).
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional limitation of claim 1 for “generating a representation of the flight, according to trajectory segments, for a user to identify the most emitting segments of the trajectory and determine which segments require optimization” merely further describes the abstract idea itself. Generating a representation of the flight in order for a user to identify the most emitting segments and determine which segments require optimization describes mental processes that are capable of being performed via the human mind (with the aid of simple drawing tools such as pen and paper) by drawing a visual representation of the flight that identifies the most emitting segments. The claim does not even recite computer implementation, and thus the amendment merely further describes the abstract idea. The similar amendment to claim 10 (“a user interface generating a representation of the flight, according to trajectory segments, for a user to identify the most emitting segments of the trajectory and determine which segments require optimization”) recites the use of a generic user interface to present information, and the generic user interface is merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea on a computer (“generating a representation of the flight, according to trajectory segments, for a user to identify the most emitting segments of the trajectory and determine which segments require optimization”).
Furthermore, the alleged benefit (“to provide a tool that enables an airline to visualize, for each flight, the sections of the flight path that generate the highest emissions, so as to optimize not the entire flight but only critical sections, thereby limiting operational disruptions caused by the modification”) is not a result of an improvement to the functioning of a computer or an improvement to any other technology or technical field, and merely describes a commercial benefit to an airline.
Therefore, the § 101 rejection over claims 1-10 is maintained. Please see the current § 101 rejection of claims 1-10 below, which is updated in response to applicant’s amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites a first limitation involving “the airport of departure and the airport of arrival” but then later recites a second limitation involving “an airport of departure and an airport of arrival.” It appears that the first limitation should recite “an airport of departure and an airport of arrival” and the second instance should recite “the airport of departure and the airport of arrival.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a first retriever obtaining a previously determined nitrogen oxide emission index” of claim 10
“a second retriever obtaining, from the index, at least by linear regression, a model of emission of nitrogen oxides” of claim 10
“a discretizer discretizing a trajectory” of claim 10
“a first calculator determining, for each segment, a triplet of input data” of claim 10
“a second calculator determining, for each segment…the associated value of the nitrogen oxide emission index” of claim 10
“a generator obtaining, for each segment, a quantity of nitrogen oxides emitted” of claim 10
“a third retriever obtaining a total quantity of nitrogen oxides emitted…by summing…” of claim 10
“a convertor converting the total quantity of nitrogen oxides to equivalent carbon dioxide” of claim 10
“a third calculator determining…a score of environmental impact” of claim 10
“a fourth calculator determining and providing a classification…” of claim 10
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The corresponding structure in the specification is as follows:
a first retriever, a second retriever, a discretizer, a first calculator, a second calculator, a generator, a third retriever, a convertor, a third calculator, a fourth calculator - ¶ 0095-0096 showing processor 48 of an electronic device for executing software modules to perform each of the claimed functions, with ¶ 0067-0092 reciting the functionality
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-9 recite “A method…” (i.e. a process); and claim 10 recites “An electronic device…comprising at least…a first retriever…a second retriever…a discretizer…a first calculator…a second calculator…a generator…a third retriever…a third calculator…a fourth calculator…a user interface” (i.e. a machine; see § 112(f) interpretations above). These claims fall under one of the four categories of statutory subject matter and as a result, pass Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test. However, “Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) in Step 1 does not end the eligibility analysis, because claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (such as a mathematical formula or equation), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection.” See MPEP 2106.04. Accordingly, the examiner continues the subject matter eligibility analysis below.
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claims 1 and 10 recite limitations (using claim 1 as representative) for determining and providing a classification, according to an environmental impact thereof, of a plurality of distinct aeronautical flights, including:
for each aeronautical flight:
obtaining a previously determined nitrogen oxide emission index, the index being a discrete variable including, depending upon an engine of an aircraft configured to carry out the aeronautical flight, four discrete values associated with four distinct phases of flight, respectively, including take-off, climb, approach and idle;
from the index, at least by linear regression, obtaining a model of emission of nitrogen oxides, the model providing the nitrogen oxide emission index associated with each triplet of types of input data including engine thrust, humidity and atmospheric pressure; and
discretizing a trajectory associated with the flight, according to a predetermined constant time step, into a plurality of trajectory segments;
for each segment:
determining a triplet of input data including engine thrust, humidity and atmospheric pressure associated with the segment;
on the basis of the triplet of input data triplet of the segment and of the model of emission of nitrogen oxides, determining the associated value of the nitrogen oxide emission index; and
using a model of predetermined fuel flow, the associated value of the nitrogen oxide emission index, and the predetermined constant time step, obtaining a quantity of nitrogen oxides emitted on the segment;
obtaining a total quantity of nitrogen oxides emitted on the aeronautical flight, comprising summing the quantities of nitrogen oxides emitted on each segment of the plurality of trajectory segments of the flight;
converting the total quantity of nitrogen oxides into equivalent carbon dioxide using a predetermined metric of global warming potential;
determining a score of environmental impact of the aeronautical flight, at least on the basis of the quantity of equivalent carbon dioxide associated with the total quantity of nitrogen oxides emitted on the aeronautical flight;
determining and providing a classification, according to the environmental impact thereof, of the plurality of distinct aeronautical flights, classified by decreasing value of the score of environmental impact of each of the flights; and
generating a representation of the flight, according to trajectory segments, for a user to identify the most emitting segments of the trajectory and determine which segments require optimization
The limitations of independent claims 1 and 10 above are determined to recite an abstract idea (i.e. calculating environmental impacts associated with the segments of a plurality of flights to score environmental impacts of each flight, classify the flights according to their environmental impacts, and output a representation of the flight to identify the most emitting segments and determine which segments require optimization) for the reasons discussed in the following continued Step 2A Prong One analysis. Note that “An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction.” Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
As described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), “[T]he "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” and “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.” The limitations recited by the representative independent claims 1 and 10 above, under the broadest reasonable interpretation and but for the use of generic computer components, cover concepts (e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) that can reasonably be performed in the human mind or by the human mind with the aid of simple tools such as pen and paper. For example, the “obtaining a previously determined nitrogen oxide emission index,” “obtaining a model of emission of nitrogen oxides…,” “obtaining a quantity of nitrogen oxides emitted…,” steps at least recite observations, while the “discretizing a trajectory associated with the flight…,” “determining a triplet of input data…,” “determining the associated value of the nitrogen oxide emission index …,” “obtaining the total quantity of nitrogen oxides emitted…comprising summing the quantities of nitrogen oxides emitted on each segment,” “converting the total quantity of nitrogen oxides into equivalent carbon dioxide…,” “determining a score of environmental impact…,” and “determining and providing a classification…” steps describe evaluations, judgments, and opinions that can be either carried out via the human mind or via the human mind with the aid of simple tools such as pen and paper. Note that any of the various “obtaining” steps previously discussed, to the extent they may read on or include performing determinations or calculations in order to obtain the corresponding information, could also be characterized as evaluations, judgements, or opinions. In addition, the step of generating a representation of the flight in order for a user to identify the most emitting segments and determine which segments require optimization describes mental processes capable of being performed via the human mind (with the aid of simple drawing tools such as pen and paper) by drawing a visual representation of the flight that identifies the most emitting segments. Therefore, as the processes above described by the representative independent claims 1 and 10 can be characterized as mental processes (i.e. observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion), but for the recitation of generic computer components in the claims, the claims fall under the “mental processes” category of judicial exceptions (i.e. abstract ideas).
As described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the ‘mathematical concepts’ grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of “determining” a variable or number using mathematical methods or “performing” a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.” The examiner finds the following limitations, considered together, to recite mathematical concepts (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations):
for each aeronautical flight:
obtaining a previously determined nitrogen oxide emission index, the index being a discrete variable including, depending upon an engine of an aircraft configured to carry out the aeronautical flight, four discrete values associated with four distinct phases of flight, respectively, including take-off, climb, approach and idle;
from the index, at least by linear regression, obtaining a model of emission of nitrogen oxides, the model providing the nitrogen oxide emission index associated with each triplet of types of input data including engine thrust, humidity and atmospheric pressure; and
discretizing a trajectory associated with the flight, according to a predetermined constant time step, into a plurality of trajectory segments;
for each segment:
determining a triplet of input data including engine thrust, humidity and atmospheric pressure associated with the segment;
on the basis of the triplet of input data triplet of the segment and of the model of emission of nitrogen oxides, determining the associated value of the nitrogen oxide emission index; and
using a model of predetermined fuel flow, the associated value of the nitrogen oxide emission index, and the predetermined constant time step, obtaining a quantity of nitrogen oxides emitted on the segment;
obtaining a total quantity of nitrogen oxides emitted on the aeronautical flight, comprising summing the quantities of nitrogen oxides emitted on each segment of the plurality of trajectory segments composing the trajectory of the flight;
converting the total quantity of nitrogen oxides into equivalent carbon dioxide using a predetermined metric of global warming potential;
determining a score of environmental impact of the aeronautical flight, at least on the basis of the quantity of equivalent carbon dioxide associated with the total quantity of nitrogen oxides emitted on the aeronautical flight;
The limitations of claims 1 and 10 above, under the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the specification, recite steps for performing arranging obtained variables into mathematical models and then performing mathematical calculations. See the published application (US20260080416A1) at ¶¶ 0069-0077, ¶ 0085-0091, ¶ 0118-0120, ¶ 0130-0132, ¶ 0150-0157, ¶ 0166-0177 which makes clear that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “obtaining,” “discretizing,” determining,” “converting,” and “determining” steps includes assembling various mathematical variables and performing mathematical calculations using these variables corresponding to nitrogen oxide emissions and carbon dioxide emissions and calculating scores corresponding to each flight. The steps for “from the index, at least by linear regression, obtaining a model of emission of nitrogen oxides,” “discretizing the trajectory,” “summing the quantities of nitrogen oxides emitted on each segment,” and “converting the total quantity of nitrogen oxides into equivalent carbon dioxide,” nonetheless explicitly recite performing mathematical calculations or operations. Furthermore, claim 10 recites “determining and providing a classification” (along with the other “determining” steps) as being performed by a calculator, so under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations also recite mathematical calculations. Therefore, the respective limitations of claims 1 and 10 above also fall under the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
As claims 1 and 10 are identified by the examiner as reciting concepts that fall under more than one abstract idea grouping (i.e. “mental processes” and “mathematical concepts”), the examiner considers the limitations together as a single abstract idea for the purposes of the Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B analysis, in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(II)(B).
Step 2A Prong Two:
The judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) recited in claims 1 and 10 is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. calculating environmental impacts associated with the segments of a plurality of flights to score environmental impacts of each flight, classify the flights according to their environmental impacts, and output a representation of the flight to identify the most emitting segments and determine which segments require optimization) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. an electronic device of claim 1; and an electronic device comprising a first retriever, a second retriever, a discretizer, a first calculator, a second calculator, a generator, a third retriever, a convertor, a third calculator, a fourth calculator, and a user interface of claim 10). As per the § 112(f) interpretations of the elements of claim 10 above in view of the specification, they (“a first retriever, a second retriever, a discretizer, a first calculator, a second calculator, a generator, a third retriever, a convertor, a third calculator, and a fourth calculator”) do not amount to anything more than a generic processor being used to implement software to carry out the steps of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the user interface recited in claim 10 is nothing more than a generic user interface being used in its ordinary capacity to display information and apply the abstract idea on a computer (generating the representation). See MPEP 2106.05(f), showing “[C]laims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp.” Assuming, arguendo, that the field in which the abstract idea is performed (for the purpose of scoring/classifying the environmental impact of aeronautical flights) is somehow considered an “additional element” (linking the abstract idea to aeronautical flights and their impact on environmental emissions), this does not add anything beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Nothing in the claims suggests or reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field.
Therefore, because the claims, considered as a whole, do not recite anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Claims 1 and 10 do not include additional elements, whether considered alone or as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) because as mentioned above, the claims recite mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. calculating environmental impacts associated with the segments of a plurality of flights to score environmental impacts of each flight, classify the flights according to their environmental impacts, and output a representation of the flight to identify the most emitting segments and determine which segments require optimization) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. an electronic device of claim 1; and an electronic device comprising a first retriever, a second retriever, a discretizer, a first calculator, a second calculator, a generator, a third retriever, a convertor, a third calculator, a fourth calculator, and a user interface of claim 10). As per the § 112(f) interpretations of the elements of claim 10 above in view of the specification, they do not amount to anything more than a generic processor being used to implement software to carry out the steps of the abstract idea. As discussed above, the user interface recited in claim 10 is nothing more than a generic user interface being used in its ordinary capacity to display information and apply the abstract idea on a computer (generating the representation). See MPEP 2106.05(f), showing “[C]laims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp.” Assuming, arguendo, that the field in which the abstract idea is performed (for the purpose of scoring/classifying the environmental impact of aeronautical flights) is somehow considered an “additional element” (linking the abstract idea to aeronautical flights and their impact on environmental emissions), this does not add anything beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Nothing in the claims suggests or reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field – and considering the additional elements as an ordered combination does not add anything that amounts to significantly more.
Dependent Claims 2-9:
Dependent claims 2-9 are directed to the same abstract idea as independent claim 1 above as they do not recite anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 2-3 and 6 merely further describe data/variables or describe additional data used in the performance of the abstract idea, including:
wherein the predetermined global warming potential metric is GWP100 (claim 2)
wherein the triplet of input data of the segment is determined from a set of priorly determined test data (claim 3)
wherein the score of environmental impact of each of the aeronautical flights also takes into account at least one of the following coefficients: a coefficient representative of a difficulty of modifying the flight from the point of view of air traffic control; and a coefficient representative of a difficulty of modifying the flight from the point of view of the airline associated with the flight (claim 6)
Claims 4-5, 7-8, and 9 further describe the abstract idea above by reciting limitations for:
for each aeronautical flight, determining an equivalent carbon dioxide impact associated with at least one persistent contrail of the aeronautical flight, and taking the equivalent carbon dioxide impact into account for determining the score of environmental impact of the flight (claim 4)
wherein said determining the equivalent carbon dioxide impact comprises: obtaining, as an input, a mapping of geographical zones of formation of persistent contrails of the flight; superposing the mapping with the trajectory of the aeronautical flight and determining one or more lengths of persistent contrail(s) likely to be generated during the aeronautical flight; and obtaining an equivalent quantity of carbon dioxide associated with at least one length of at least one persistent contrail of the aeronautical flight (claim 5)
obtaining the score using a mathematical equation for calculating C based on various coefficients and variables (see equation recited in claim 7)
obtaining the score using a mathematical equation for calculating C based on various coefficients and variables (see equation recited in claim 8)
for each aeronautical flight, or for a predetermined number of aeronautical flights of the classification, identifying the segment or segments of the trajectory having the maximum quantity or quantities of non-CO2 emission or having the maximum quantity or quantities of CO2 and non-CO2 emission (claim 9)
These limitations further describe mental processes (e.g. observations, analysis, evaluation, determination) and mathematical calculations and only narrow the abstract idea of claim 1 above. Claims 7-8 specifically introduce recited mathematical equations used to perform the mathematical calculations of the score for each flight.
None of the limitations of dependent claims 2-9 add any additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more, but instead they merely further specify how the abstract idea is carried out.
Therefore, claims 1-10 are ineligible under § 101.
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
Claims 1-10 remain novel and nonobvious over the prior art for the same reasons discussed in the non-final rejection mailed 6/3/2026, and an updated search by the examiner did not change the previous determination.
US 20240409238 A1 to Zhang et al. (Zhang) is newly cited as relevant to the instant application because it teaches identifying specific contributions of a plurality of aircraft flight portions (analogous to flight segments) towards an emission score for the flight (Zhang: ¶ 0041-0045).
US 20240370805 A1 to Schulze et al. (Schulze) teaches graphically displaying aviation emissions information for a plurality of flight paths along with one or more potential strategies for reducing aviation emissions over time (Schulze: ¶ 0039-0041, ¶ 0050-0059 generally).
However, the newly cited references do not change the previous determination of novelty/nonobviousness in the previous office action.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hunter Molnar whose telephone number is (571)272-8271. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 - 4:00 EST.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571)272-4602. 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.
/HUNTER MOLNAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights