Office Action 4: Final Rejection (2023-06-29)
Rejection types: 103 - Obviousness, 112 - Written Description/Enablement

CLAIMS:
LISTING OF CLAIMS

This listing of claims will replace all prior versions, and listings, of claims in the application:

1\. (Currently Amended.) A method for fueling and using an aircraft, wherein the method comprises:storing, using a fuel tankthat provides structural support to an airframe of the aircraft and carries shear loads from the airframe, liquified gas fuel;
fueling , using a fuel line, an aircraft, wherein fueling further comprises:filling the fuel tank with liquified gas fuel to a desired level, wherein the desired level comprises fuel for a plurality of flights plus reserves, wherein a sensor connected to the fuel tank detects at least abnormal phenomena related to the fuel tank, wherein the sensor converts the detected at least abnormal phenomena into a signal that is then transmitted to a computing device; and
removing, using the computing device, the fuel line as function of the desired level in the aircraft; and
preparing the fuel tank for flight as a function of the desired level; and flying, using the aircraft, a plurality of flights using the liquid gas fuel.
2\. (Original.) The method of claim 1, wherein the aircraft comprises a blended wing body aircraft.
3\. (Currently Amended.) The method of claim 1, wherein the fuel tank is configured to have a multi-lobe geometry and comprises an insulation material with a thermal conductivity less than 0.10 W/m-K.
4\. (Original.) The method of claim 3, wherein the fuel tank comprises a septum.
5\. (Previously Presented.) The method of claim 3, wherein the multi-lobe geometry provides tension for each fuel tank of the multi-lobe geometry.
6\. (Previously Presented.) The method of claim 1, wherein the fuel tank is prepared as a function of a fill datum.

7\. (Original.) The method of claim 1, further comprising venting, using a vent line, the fuel tank, wherein the vent line is in fluid connection to the fuel tank.

8\. (Original.) The method of claim 7, wherein the vent line is configured to capture gaseous hydrogen from the fuel tank.

9\. (Original.) The method of claim 7, wherein the vent line is configured to release pressure from the fuel tank.

10\. (Original.) The method of claim 7, wherein the vent line includes a pressure regulator.

11\. (Original.) The method of claim 7, wherein the vent line is insulated to prevent the accumulation of frozen gases.

12\. (Original.) The method of claim 7, wherein the vent line includes an inner wall and an outer wall wherein a void resides in between.

13\. (Original.) The method of claim 7, wherein the vent line further comprises a heat exchanger.

14\. (Original.) The method of claim 7, wherein the preparing the fuel tank for flight further includes detaching the vent line from the fuel tank as a function of the desired level.

15\. (Original.) The method of claim 1, wherein the preparing of the fuel tank for flight further includes detaching the fuel line from the fuel tank as a function of the desired level.

16\. (Original.) The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of flights are further configured to:commence at a first refueling station; and
terminate at a second refueling station.

17\. (Previously Presented.) The method of claim 1, wherein no fueling occurs between the flights of the plurality of flights.

18\. (Canceled.)

19\. (Original.) The method of claim 1, wherein the fuel tank may comprise a chamber between an inner wall and an outer wall of the tank.

20\. (Original.) The method of claim 1, wherein the liquified gas fuel is comprised of liquid hydrogen.

\[THE REST OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK\]

OFFICE 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/05/2023 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Amendments do not overcome current rejection on record and raise new 35 USC 112(b) issues.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 first paragraph, filed 06/05/2023, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under Official Notice have been fully considered and are persuasive.  Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.  However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 20130197791 A1 Struzik; Anthony which teaches the claimed subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b)  CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 and 19-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
1.	Claim 1 recites the limitation “a fuel tank that provides structural support to an airframe of the aircraft and carries shear loads from the airframe”. It is unclear how the tank provides structural support or carries shear loads from the airframe. Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claims not addressed above are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA  35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 6-11, 13-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150344143 A1 Epstein; Michael Jay et al., in view of US 6422514 B1 Clark; William James et al. in view of US 20130197791 A1 Struzik; Anthony, and further in view of US 20110042520 A1 Glaser; Daniel et al.
2.	Regarding claim 1 Epstein teaches, a method for fueling and using an aircraft, wherein the method comprises: storing (para 0021 storing), using a fuel tank (fig. 3, element 22)
Epstien fails to teach, that provides structural support to an airframe of the aircraft and carries shear loads from the airframe,
However, Clark teaches, that provides structural support to an airframe of the aircraft (Clark, col 3, lines 43-67) and carries shear loads from the airframe (Clark, col 4 lines 64-col 5 line 10, “The tension septums provide…, … shear load path for reacting vehicle inertial and air loads”),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for fueling an aircraft taught by Epstein with the fuel tank supporting the airframe taught by Clark in order for providing support of the chambers of the tank within the interior of the aerospace vehicle (Clark col 3, lines 43-67),
Epstein further teaches, liquified gas fuel (para 0022 jet fuel, cryogenic fuel, or liquified natural gas); fueling using a fuel line (fig. 3, element 32 is equal to fuel line), an aircraft (fig. 1, element 5),
Epstein fails to teach, wherein fueling further comprises: filling the fuel tank with liquified gas fuel to a desired level, wherein the desired level comprises fuel for a plurality of flights plus reserves, wherein a sensor connected to the fuel tank detects at least abnormal phenomena related to the fuel tank, wherein the sensor converts the detected at least abnormal phenomena into a signal that is then transmitted to a computing device; and removing, using the computing device, the fuel line as function of the desired level in the aircraft; and preparing the fuel tank for flight as a function of the desired level; and flying, using the aircraft, a plurality of flights using the liquid gas fuel.
However, Struzik teaches, wherein fueling further comprises: filling the fuel tank with liquified gas fuel to a desired level, wherein the desired level comprises fuel for a plurality of flights plus reserves (Struzik, fig. 5c tankering, para 0022 including reserve fuel).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for fueling an aircraft taught by Epstein with the fueling optimization taught by in order to reduce “fuel cost across a multi-stop route.” (Struzik, para 0015).
Glaser teaches, wherein a sensor connected to the fuel tank detects at least abnormal phenomena related to the fuel tank (para 0015 sensor and where unintentional shut-off is equal to abnormal phenomena), wherein the sensor converts the detected at least abnormal phenomena into a signal that is then transmitted to a computing device (para 0015 control device equal to computing device); and removing, using the computing device (para 0030 control device is used at end of refueling operation and line detached), the fuel line as function of the desired level in the aircraft (claim 17, disconnecting in response to predetermined parameter); and preparing the fuel tank for flight as a function of the desired level fill datum; and flying , using the aircraft, a plurality of flights using the liquid gas fuel (it is well know that aircraft fly, and have a plurality of flights).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for fueling an aircraft taught by Epstein with the removing the fuel line as a function of fuel level taught by Glaser in order to optimize fueling times (Para 0011).
2.	Regarding claim 6, Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 1, Glasser teaches, wherein the fuel tank is prepared as a function of a fill datum (claim 17, disconnecting in response to predetermined parameter).
3.	Regarding claim 7 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 1, further comprising venting, using a vent line (fig. 3, element 41), the fuel tank (fig. 3, element 22), wherein the vent line is in fluid connection to the fuel tank (fig. 3).
4.	Regarding claim 8 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 7, wherein the vent line is configured to capture gaseous hydrogen from the fuel tank (para 0068 capture gases).
5.	Regarding claim 9 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 7, wherein the vent line is configured to release pressure from the fuel tank (para 0058 “maintains the tank at a desired pressure”).
6.	Regarding claim 10 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 7, wherein the vent line includes a pressure regulator (fig. 3, element 39 valve equal to regulator).
7.	Regarding claim 11 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 7, wherein the vent line is insulated to prevent the accumulation of frozen gases (para 0062 wing LNG, tank, and structural elements insulated).
8.	Regarding claim 13 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 7, wherein the vent line further comprises a heat exchanger (para 0005, 0084 catalytic converter equal to heat exchanger).
9.	Regarding claim 14 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 7, Glaser teaches wherein the preparing the fuel tank for flight further includes detaching the vent line from the fuel tank as a function of the desired level (claim 17, disconnecting in response to predetermined parameter).
10.	Regarding claim 15 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 1, Glaser teaches, wherein the preparing of the fuel tank for flight further includes detaching the fuel line from the fuel tank as a function of the desired level (claim 17, disconnecting in response to predetermined parameter).
11.	Regarding claim 16 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 1, Glaser teaches, wherein the plurality of flights is further configured to: commence at a first refueling station; and terminate at a second refueling station (Examiner takes official notice it is well known an aircraft to takeoff and land at a fueling station).
12.	Regarding claim 17 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 1, but does not teach, wherein no fueling occurs between the flights of the plurality of flights.
Examiner takes official notice it is well known to fill tanks to desired level and that the amount of fuel for more than one flight plus reserves.
13.	Regarding claim 20 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 1, wherein the liquified gas fuel is comprised of liquid hydrogen (abstract).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Epstein, Clark, Struzik and Glaser as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 7281682 B2 D'Auvergne; Hector A.
15.	Regarding claim 2 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the aircraft comprises a blended wing body aircraft.
However, D’Auvergne teaches, wherein the aircraft comprises a blended wing body aircraft (fig. 1, element 28).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for fueling an aircraft taught by Epstein with the blended wing body taught by D'Auvergne in order to form a large surface area (col. 2, limes 25-27).
Claim(s) 3-5, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Epstein and Glaser as applied to claims above, in view of US 6123295 A Wexler; Mark Harry et al and further in view of NPL “What is Aerogel-” by Nick Connor (hereinafter known as Conner).
16.	Regarding claim 3 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 1, but fails to teach, wherein the fuel tank is configured to have a multi-lobe geometry,
However, Wexler teaches, wherein the fuel tank is configured to have a multi-lobe geometry (fig. 4). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for fueling an aircraft taught by Epstein with the multi-lobe fuel tank taught by Wexler in order to “optimize the amount of fuel” (col. 1, lines 18-19).
Epsiten further teaches, and comprises an insulation material (para 0043 “Vacuum insulation or optionally low thermal conductivity insulation material such as aerogels.”) but does not teach the value of thermal conductivity,
However, Connor teaches, with a thermal conductivity less than 0.10 W/m-K  (first paragraph, aerogel thermal conductivity of  0.013 W/m∙K). The motivation would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for fueling an aircraft taught by Epstein with the low thermal conductivity because it reduces thermal conductivity.
17.	Regarding claim 4 Epstein teaches, the method of claim 3, Clark teaches, wherein the fuel tank comprises a septum (fig4, element 202, 204, 206).
18.	Regarding claim 5, Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 3, Wexler teaches, wherein the multi-lobe geometry provides tension for each fuel tank of the multi-lobe geometry (Cols. 2-3 lines 60-6 where hoop tension is provided).
19. 	Regarding claim 19 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 1, Clark teaches, wherein the fuel tank may comprise a chamber between an inner wall and an
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Epstein, Clark, Struzik and Glaser as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 20120119032 A1 Benassi; Eric et al.
20.	Regarding claim 12 Epstein as modified, the method of claim 7, but fails to teach, wherein the vent line includes an inner wall and an outer wall wherein a void resides in between.
However, Benassi teaches, wherein the vent line includes an inner wall (fig. 1, element 16) and an outer wall (see annotated fig. 1 outer wall) wherein a void (see annotated fig. 1 void) resides in between.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for fueling an aircraft taught by Epstein with the hose walls taught by Benassi, “in order to ensure that, in the event of failure of the first hose, the second wall hose contains any leakage.” (para 0002).
Conclusion
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.

APPLICANT REBUTTAL: REMARKS
Claims 1-17 and 19-20 are pending in the present application. Claims 1 and 3 are
amended in this paper. No claims are canceled in this paper. No new claims are added in this paper.
In taking the foregoing actions, Applicant respectfully submits Applicant is not
necessarily conceding in this application that these claims, as originally presented, are not patentable over the references cited by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as pertinent ones of the present claim amendments and cancellations are only for facilitating expeditious prosecution. Applicant respectfully reserves the right to pursue the canceled claims and/or other claims in one or more continuing applications.
Appli
cant-Initiated Interview Summary
A telephonic interview regarding the instant matter was conducted on May 11, 2023 between Examiner Curry and Applicant's representative, Micah Drayton, Reg # 69,906, and Alexander Bost. Patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 was discussed in light of proposed claim amendments. Applicant thanks the Examiner for her time and consideration in conducting the interview. No agreement was reached.
Rej
ection of claims under 35 U.S.C.
&
Epstein/Glaser/James
Claims 1, 6-11, 13-17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly
unpatentable over Epstein et al. (US 2015/0344143), hereinafter Epstein in view of Glaser et al. (US 2011/0042520), hereinafter Glaser, in further view of Rick James (pilotteacher.com NPL reference), hereinafter James. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
Claim 1
Claim 1 as amended recites:
A method for fueling and using an aircraft, wherein the method
comprises:
storing, using a fuel tank that provides structural support to an
airframe of the aircraft and carries shear loads from the airframe,
liquified gas fuel;
fueling, using a fuel line, an aircraft, wherein fueling further
comprises:
filling the fuel tank with liquified gas fuel to a desired level, wherein
the desired level comprises fuel for a plurality of flights plus
reserves, wherein a sensor connected to the fuel tank detects at least abnormal phenomena related to the fuel tank, wherein the
sensor converts the detected at least abnormal phenomena into a
signal that is then transmitted to a computing device; and
removing, using the computing device, the fuel line as function of
the desired level in the aircraft; and
preparing the fuel tank for flight as a function of the desired level;
and
flying, using the aircraft, a plurality of flights using the liquid gas
fuel.
The Office asserts that Epstein teaches "storing, using a fuel tank, liquified gas fuel" in Fig. 3 and P. [0021]-[0022]. However, the above-described language of Epstein does not teach, suggest, or motivate using a fuel tank that provides structural support to an airframe of the aircraft and carries shear loads from the airframe" as recited by amended claim 1. Applicant asserts that Epstein does not teach, suggest, or motivate "using a fuel tank that provides structural support to an airframe of the aircraft and carries shear loads from the airframe." Accordingly, and for at least these reasons, claim 1 is patentably distinguishable over Epstein.
Glaser fails to cure the deficiencies of Epstein. Glaser is not asserted by The Office to teach, suggest, or motivate "using a fuel tank that provides structural support to an airframe of the aircraft and carries shear loads from the airframe" as recited by amended claim 1. Applicant asserts that Glaser does not teach, suggest, or motivate "using a fuel tank that provides structural support to an airframe of the aircraft and carries shear loads from the airframe." Accordingly, and for at least these reasons, Applicant submits that claim 1 is patentably distinguishable over Epstein and Glaser, alone or in combination. Accordingly, and for at least these reasons, claim 1 is patentably distinguishable over Epstein and Glaser, alone or in combination.
James fails to cure the deficiencies of Epstein and Glaser. James is not asserted by The Office to teach, suggest, or motivate "using a fuel tank that provides structural support to an airframe of the aircraft and carries shear loads from the airframe" as recited by amended claim 1. Applicant asserts that James does not teach, suggest, or motivate "using a fuel tank that provides structural support to an airframe of the aircraft and carries shear loads from the airframe."
Further, The Office takes Official Notice that "it is well known to fill tanks to a desired level and that the amount of fuel for more than one flight plus reserves." MPEP 2144.03(A) states "It would
not
be appropriate for the examiner to take official notice of facts without citing a prior art reference where the facts asserted to be well known are not beyond dispute, or are not capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known." [Applicant's emphasis partially added.] Applicant respectfully traverses the Official Notice. The James reference on page 2, paragraph 2 contradicts The Office's assertion, reciting "All planes are fuelled for the next flight only." Accordingly, Applicant submits that the facts asserted by The Office to be well known are not beyond dispute and respectfully requests withdrawal of the Official Notice asserted by The Office.
Further, The Office asserts that the motivation to combine the reference of Epstein with the reference of James for the purposes of teaching "fueling, over a time period of time exceeding 30 minutes" would be to "be efficient including turnaround time to make money." (Office Action, p. 3.) However, Applicant notes that the motivation asserted by The Office would encourage one of ordinary skill in the art to pursue precisely the opposite action than ensuring a fueling time was above a threshold as previously claimed. Moreover, because the relevant limitation has been removed from the claim, Applicant respectfully asserts that the James reference does not teach, suggest, or motivate claim 1 as amended.
Accordingly, and for at least these reasons, Applicant submits that claim 1 is patentably distinguishable over Epstein, Glaser, and James, alone or in combination. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of this rejection.
Claims 6-11, 13-17, and 20
Each of claims 6-11, 13-17, and 20 depends, directly or indirectly, from claim 1. As
noted above, claim 1 is patentably distinguishable over Epstein, Glaser, and James, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 6-11, 13-17, and 20 as amended are patentably distinguishable over Epstein, Glaser, and James, alone or in combination, for at least their dependency on patentably distinguishable claim 1. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests the withdrawal of these rejections.
Epstein/Glaser/James/D'Auvergne
Claim 2
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly unpatentable over Epstein, Glaser, and James as applied to claim 1 above, respectively, and in further view of D'Auvergne (US 7,281,682), hereinafter D'Auvergne. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
Claim 2 depends directly from claim 1. As noted above, claim 1 is patentably
distinguishable over Epstein, Glaser, and James, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 2 is patentably distinguishable over Epstein, Glaser, and James, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above.
D'Auvergne fails to cure the deficiencies of Epstein, Glaser, and James. D'Auvergne is not asserted by The Office to teach, suggest, or motivate "using a fuel tank that provides structural support to an airframe of the aircraft and carries shear loads from the airframe" as recited by amended claim 1. Applicant asserts that D'Auvergne does not teach, suggest, or motivate "using a fuel tank that provides structural support to an airframe of the aircraft and carries shear loads from the airframe." Accordingly, and for at least these reasons, claim 1 is patentably distinguishable over Epstein, Glaser, James, and D'Auvergne, alone or in combination. Accordingly, claim 2 is patentably distinguishable over Epstein, Glaser, James, and D'Auvergne, alone or in combination, for at least its dependence on patentably distinguishable claim 1. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of this rejection.
Epstein/Glaser/James/Wexler
Claims 3 and 5
Claims 3 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly unpatentable over Epstein, Glaser, and James as applied to claim 1 above, respectively, and in further view of Wexler et al. (US 6,123,295), hereinafter Wexler. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
Claims 3 and 5 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. As noted above, claim 1 is
patentably distinguishable over Epstein, Glaser, and James, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 3 and 5 are
patentably distinguishable over Epstein, Glaser, and James, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above.
Wexler fails to cure the deficiencies of Epstein, Glaser, and James. Wexler is not asserted by The Office to teach, suggest, or motivate "using a fuel tank that provides structural support to an airframe of the aircraft and carries shear loads from the airframe" as recited by amended claim
1. Applicant asserts that Wexler does not teach, suggest, or motivate "using a fuel tank that provides structural support to an airframe of the aircraft and carries shear loads from the airframe." Accordingly, and for at least these reasons, claim 1 is patentably distinguishable over Epstein, Glaser, James, and Wexler, alone or in combination. Accordingly, claims 3 and 5 are patentably distinguishable over Epstein, Glaser, James, and Wexler, alone or in combination, for at least their dependence on patentably distinguishable claim 1.
Further, claim 3 has been amended to recite "wherein the fuel tank is configured to have a multi-lobe geometry and comprises an insulation material with a thermal conductivity less than
W/m-K." The Office has not asserted that Epstein, Glaser, James, and Wexler, alone or in combination, teach, suggest, or motivate "wherein the fuel tank is configured to have a multi- lobe geometry and comprises an insulation material with a thermal conductivity less than 0.10 W/m-K" as recited by amended claim 3. Applicant asserts that Epstein, Glaser, James, and Wexler, alone or in combination, do not teach, suggest, or motivate "wherein the fuel tank is configured to have a multi-lobe geometry and comprises an insulation material with a thermal conductivity less than 0.10 W/m-K." Accordingly, claims 3 and 5 are patentably distinguishable over Epstein, Glaser, James, and Wexler, alone or in combination, for at least this reason. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of these rejections.
Epstein/Glaser/James/Wexler/Clark
Claim 4
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly unpatentable over Epstein, Glaser, James, and Wexler as applied to claim 3 above, and in further view of Clark et al. (US 6,123,295), hereinafter Clark. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
Claim 4 depends indirectly from claim 1 and directly from claim 3. As noted above,
claims 1 and 3 are patentably distinguishable over Epstein, Glaser, James, and Wexler, alone or
in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 4 is patentably distinguishable over Epstein, Glaser, James, and Wexler, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above.
Clark fails to cure the deficiencies of Epstein, Glaser, James, and Wexler. Clark is not asserted by The Office to teach, suggest, or motivate "using a fuel tank that provides structural support to an airframe of the aircraft and carries shear loads from the airframe" as recited by amended claim 1 or "wherein the fuel tank is configured to have a multi-lobe geometry and comprises an insulation material with a thermal conductivity less than 0.10 W/m-K" as recited by amended claim 3. Applicant asserts that Clark does not teach, suggest, or motivate "using a fuel tank that provides structural support to an airframe of the aircraft and carries shear loads from the airframe" or "wherein the fuel tank is configured to have a multi-lobe geometry and comprises an insulation material with a thermal conductivity less than 0.10 W/m-K." Accordingly, and for at least these reasons, claims 1 and 3 are patentably distinguishable over Epstein, Glaser, James, Wexler, and Clark, alone or in combination. Accordingly, claim 4 is patentably distinguishable over Epstein, Glaser, James, Wexler, and Clark, alone or in combination, for at least its dependence on patentably distinguishable claim 1 and claim 3. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of this rejection.
Epstein/Glaser/James/Clark
Claim 19
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly unpatentable over Epstein, Glaser, and James as applied to claim 1 above, respectively, and in further view of Clark et al. (US 6,123,295), hereinafter Clark. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
Claim 19 depends directly from claim 1. As noted above, claim 1 is patentably
distinguishable over Epstein, Glaser, and James, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 19 is patentably distinguishable over Epstein, Glaser, and James, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above.
Clark fails to cure the deficiencies of Epstein, Glaser, and James. Clark is not asserted by The Office to teach, suggest, or motivate "using a fuel tank that provides structural support to an
airframe of the aircraft and carries shear loads from the airframe" as recited by amended claim 1. Applicant asserts that Clark does not teach, suggest, or motivate "using a fuel tank that provides structural support to an airframe of the aircraft and carries shear loads from the airframe." Accordingly, and for at least these reasons, claim 1 is patentably distinguishable over Epstein, Glaser, James, and Clark, alone or in combination. Accordingly, claim 19 is patentably distinguishable over Epstein, Glaser, James, and Clark, alone or in combination, for at least its dependence on patentably distinguishable claim 1. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of this rejection.
Epstein/Glaser/James/Benassi
Claim 12
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly unpatentable over Epstein, Glaser, and James as applied to claim 1 above, respectively, and in further view of Benassi et al. (US 2012/0119032), hereinafter Benassi. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
Claim 12 depends indirectly from claim 1. As noted above, claim 1 is patentably
distinguishable over Epstein, Glaser, and James, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 12 is patentably distinguishable over Epstein, Glaser, and James, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above and its dependence on patentably distinguishable claim 1.
Benassi fails to cure the deficiencies of Epstein, Glaser, and James. Benassi is not
asserted by The Office to teach, suggest, or motivate "using a fuel tank that provides structural support to an airframe of the aircraft and carries shear loads from the airframe" as recited by amended claim 1. Applicant asserts that Benassi does not teach, suggest, or motivate "using a fuel tank that provides structural support to an airframe of the aircraft and carries shear loads from the airframe." Accordingly, and for at least these reasons, claim 1 is patentably distinguishable over Epstein, Glaser, James, and Benassi, alone or in combination. Claim 12 is patentably distinguishable over Epstein, Glaser, James, and Benassi, alone or in combination, for at least its dependence on patentably distinguishable claim 1. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of this rejection.
Conclusion

NEXT OFFICE ACTION: 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, lines 13-15, filed 09/07/2023, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive.  Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.  However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 20230294836 A1 Paget; Darren et al.
Drawings
1.	The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a).  The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.  Therefore, the chamber must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).  No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b)  CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Dependent claims not addressed below are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
2.	Claim 1, lines 3 and 4, recite limitation “chamber”. It is unclear what element this is referring to. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA  35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA  to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 6-11, 13-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150344143 A1 Epstein; Michael Jay et al., in view of US 6422514 B1 Clark; William James et al. in view of US 20130197791 A1 Struzik; Anthony, in view of US 20110042520 A1 Glaser; Daniel et al. and further in view of US 20230294836 A1 Paget; Darren et al.
3.	Regarding claim 1 Epstein teaches, a method for fueling and using an aircraft, wherein the method comprises: storing (para 0021 storing), using a fuel tank (fig. 3, element 22)
Epstien fails to teach, comprising a chamber between an inner wall and an outer wall of the fuel tank, wherein the chamber is configured to insulate a liquid gas fuel by prevention of condensation of humidity within the fuel tank
However, Clark teaches, comprising a chamber  between an inner wall (fig. 8, element 156) and an outer wall of the fuel tank (fig. 8, element 152), wherein the chamber is configured to insulate a liquid gas fuel by prevention of condensation of humidity within the fuel tank of the aircraft (fig. 8, element 154 insulation);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for fueling an aircraft taught by Epstein with the inner and outer walls taught by Clark in order to provide a space to house insulation
Epstein further teaches, fueling, using a fuel line (fig. 3, element 32 is equal to fuel line), the aircraft (fig. 1, element 5),
Epstein fails to teach, wherein fueling further comprises:
filling the fuel tank with liquified gas fuel to a desired level, wherein the desired level comprises fuel for a plurality of flights plus reserves, wherein a sensor connected to the fuel tank detects at least abnormal phenomena related insulation of [[to]] the fuel tank, wherein the sensor is configured to:detect humidity within the fuel tank; and
convert[[s]] the detected at least abnormal phenomena into a signal that is then transmitted to a computing device; and removing, using the computing device, the fuel line as function of the desired level in the aircraft; and
preparing the fuel tank for flight as a function of the desired level; and flying, using the aircraft, a plurality of flights using the liquid gas fuel.
However, Struzik teaches, wherein fueling further comprises: filling the fuel tank with liquified gas fuel to a desired level, wherein the desired level comprises fuel for a plurality of flights plus reserves (Struzik, fig. 5c tankering, para 0022 including reserve fuel).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for fueling an aircraft taught by Epstein with the fueling optimization taught by in order to reduce “fuel cost across a multi-stop route.” (Struzik, para 0015).
Paget teaches, wherein a sensor connected to the fuel tank detects at least abnormal phenomena related to the fuel tank (para 0026-0027 sensor, wherein leak is equal to abnormal phenomena), wherein the sensor is configured to: detect humidity within the fuel tank (para 0026); and convert the detected at least abnormal phenomena into a signal that is then transmitted to a computing device (para 0027 and para 0039 control unit);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for fueling an aircraft taught by Epstein with the sensor taught by Paget, In order to prevent the negative effects of leaks (para 0005).
Glaser teaches, and removing, using the computing device (para 0030 control device is used at end of refueling operation and line detached), the fuel line as function of the desired level in the aircraft (claim 17, disconnecting in response to predetermined parameter); and preparing the fuel tank for flight as a function of the desired level fill datum; and flying , using the aircraft, a plurality of flights using the liquid gas fuel (it is well know that aircraft fly, and have a plurality of flights).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for fueling an aircraft taught by Epstein with the removing the fuel line as a function of fuel level taught by Glaser in order to optimize fueling times (Para 0011).
4.	Regarding claim 6, Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 1, Glasser teaches, wherein the fuel tank is prepared as a function of a fill datum (claim 17, disconnecting in response to predetermined parameter).
5.	Regarding claim 7 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 1, further comprising venting, using a vent line (fig. 3, element 41), the fuel tank (fig. 3, element 22), wherein the vent line is in fluid connection to the fuel tank (fig. 3).
6.	Regarding claim 8 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 7, wherein the vent line is configured to capture gaseous hydrogen from the fuel tank (para 0068 capture gases).
7.	Regarding claim 9 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 7, wherein the vent line is configured to release pressure from the fuel tank (para 0058 “maintains the tank at a desired pressure”).
8.	Regarding claim 10 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 7, wherein the vent line includes a pressure regulator (fig. 3, element 39 valve equal to regulator).
9.	Regarding claim 11 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 7, wherein the vent line is insulated to prevent the accumulation of frozen gases (para 0062 wing LNG, tank, and structural elements insulated).
10.	Regarding claim 13 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 7, wherein the vent line further comprises a heat exchanger (para 0005, 0084 catalytic converter equal to heat exchanger).
11.	Regarding claim 14 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 7, Glaser teaches wherein the preparing the fuel tank for flight further includes detaching the vent line from the fuel tank as a function of the desired level (claim 17, disconnecting in response to predetermined parameter).
12.	Regarding claim 15 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 1, Glaser teaches, wherein the preparing of the fuel tank for flight further includes detaching the fuel line from the fuel tank as a function of the desired level (claim 17, disconnecting in response to predetermined parameter).
13.	Regarding claim 16 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 1, Glaser teaches, wherein the plurality of flights is further configured to: commence at a first refueling station; and terminate at a second refueling station (Examiner takes official notice it is well known an aircraft to takeoff and land at a fueling station).
14.	Regarding claim 17 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 1, but does not teach, wherein no fueling occurs between the flights of the plurality of flights.
Examiner takes official notice it is well known to fill tanks to desired level and that the amount of fuel for more than one flight plus reserves.
15.	Regarding claim 20 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 1, wherein the liquified gas fuel is comprised of liquid hydrogen (abstract).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Epstein, Clark, Struzik and Glaser as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 7281682 B2 D'Auvergne; Hector A.
16.	Regarding claim 2 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the aircraft comprises a blended wing body aircraft.
However, D’Auvergne teaches, wherein the aircraft comprises a blended wing body aircraft (fig. 1, element 28).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for fueling an aircraft taught by Epstein with the blended wing body taught by D'Auvergne in order to form a large surface area (col. 2, limes 25-27).
Claim(s) 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Epstein and Glaser as applied to claims above, in view of US 6123295 A Wexler; Mark Harry et al and further in view of NPL “What is Aerogel-” by Nick Connor (hereinafter known as Conner).
17.	Regarding claim 3 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 1, but fails to teach, wherein the fuel tank is configured to have a multi-lobe geometry,
However, Wexler teaches, wherein the fuel tank is configured to have a multi-lobe geometry (fig. 4). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for fueling an aircraft taught by Epstein with the multi-lobe fuel tank taught by Wexler in order to “optimize the amount of fuel” (col. 1, lines 18-19).
Epsiten further teaches, and comprises an insulation material (para 0043 “Vacuum insulation or optionally low thermal conductivity insulation material such as aerogels.”) but does not teach the value of thermal conductivity,
However, Connor teaches, with a thermal conductivity less than 0.10 W/m-K  (first paragraph, aerogel thermal conductivity of  0.013 W/m∙K). The motivation would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for fueling an aircraft taught by Epstein with the low thermal conductivity because it reduces thermal conductivity.
18.	Regarding claim 4 Epstein teaches, the method of claim 3, Clark teaches, wherein the fuel tank comprises a septum (fig4, element 202, 204, 206).
19.	Regarding claim 5, Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 3, Wexler teaches, wherein the multi-lobe geometry provides tension for each fuel tank of the multi-lobe geometry (Cols. 2-3 lines 60-6 where hoop tension is provided).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Epstein, Clark, Struzik and Glaser as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 20120119032 A1 Benassi; Eric et al.
20.	Regarding claim 12 Epstein as modified, the method of claim 7, but fails to teach, wherein the vent line includes an inner wall and an outer wall wherein a void resides in between.
However, Benassi teaches, wherein the vent line includes an inner wall (fig. 1, element 16) and an outer wall (see annotated fig. 1 outer wall) wherein a void (see annotated fig. 1 void) resides in between.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for fueling an aircraft taught by Epstein with the hose walls taught by Benassi, “in order to ensure that, in the event of failure of the first hose, the second wall hose contains any leakage.” (para 0002).
Conclusion

CITED REFERENCE SUMMARIES: Ref US20130197791A1: Claims:
A method, executed by one or more computing devices, for reducing operational costs relating to fuel burn of aircraft, the method comprising: receiving, by at least one of the one or more computing devices, trip data including an origin, an intermediate destination, a final destination, an aircraft, a payload, and a preexisting fuel amount from a client device; receiving, by at least one of the one or more computing devices, operational data including a set of airports including an origin airport corresponding to the origin, an intermediate destination airport corresponding to the intermediate destination, and a final destination airport corresponding to the final destination, a fuel price for each airport in the set of airports, and runway specifications for each airport in the set of airports; performing, by at least one of the one or more computing devices, optimization logic to determine an optimized route having a minimum fuel cost, wherein the optimized route indicates the amount of fuel to upload at each of the origin airport, the intermediate destination airport, and the final destination airport, wherein the optimization logic considers each of the preexisting fuel amount, a maximum takeoff fuel amount for the aircraft, a minimum reserve fuel amount for the aircraft, the payload, a fuel burn for the aircraft to travel from the origin airport to the intermediate destination airport, a fuel burn for the aircraft to travel from the intermediate destination airport to the final destination airport, and the price of fuel at each of the origin airport, the intermediate destination airport, and the final destination airport; and transmitting, by at least one of the one or more computing devices, the optimized route to the client device.
receiving, by at least one of the one or more computing devices, trip data including an origin, an intermediate destination, a final destination, an aircraft, a payload, and a preexisting fuel amount from a client device;
receiving, by at least one of the one or more computing devices, operational data including a set of airports including an origin airport corresponding to the origin, an intermediate destination airport corresponding to the intermediate destination, and a final destination airport corresponding to the final destination, a fuel price for each airport in the set of airports, and runway specifications for each airport in the set of airports;
performing, by at least one of the one or more computing devices, optimization logic to determine an optimized route having a minimum fuel cost,
wherein the optimized route indicates the amount of fuel to upload at each of the origin airport, the intermediate destination airport, and the final destination airport,
wherein the optimization logic considers each of the preexisting fuel amount, a maximum takeoff fuel amount for the aircraft, a minimum reserve fuel amount for the aircraft, the payload, a fuel burn for the aircraft to travel from the origin airport to the intermediate destination airport, a fuel burn for the aircraft to travel from the intermediate destination airport to the final destination airport, and the price of fuel at each of the origin airport, the intermediate destination airport, and the final destination airport; and
transmitting, by at least one of the one or more computing devices, the optimized route to the client device.
The method of claim 1 , further comprising: identifying an additional airport in the set of airports determined to be within a fuel search corridor; determining whether the additional airport has a runway compatible with the aircraft; determining whether adding a detour to the additional airport to upload fuel would reduce a total fuel cost based on an additional fuel burn required to detour to the additional airport and the price of fuel at the additional airport, and adding the additional airport and an amount of fuel to be purchased at the additional airport to the optimized route if it is determined that the runway is compatible with the aircraft and that the detour would reduce the total fuel cost.
identifying an additional airport in the set of airports determined to be within a fuel search corridor;
determining whether the additional airport has a runway compatible with the aircraft;
determining whether adding a detour to the additional airport to upload fuel would reduce a total fuel cost based on an additional fuel burn required to detour to the additional airport and the price of fuel at the additional airport, and
adding the additional airport and an amount of fuel to be purchased at the additional airport to the optimized route if it is determined that the runway is compatible with the aircraft and that the detour would reduce the total fuel cost.
The method of claim 2 , wherein the fuel search corridor is one of a time variance and a distance variance from a flight path from the origin airport to the intermediate destination airport to the final destination airport.
The method of claim 3 , further comprising receiving one of the fuel search corridor time variance and the fuel search corridor distance variance from the client device.
The method of claim 2 , further comprising receiving a time-based operating cost, wherein the step of determining whether adding the additional airport to the optimized route to purchase fuel would reduce the total fuel cost is also based on the operating cost of the detour to the additional airport.
The method of claim 1 , wherein the step of receiving operational data includes receiving a fuel price for a plurality of fixed base operators at one or more airports in the set of airports having more than one fixed base operator; the method further comprising determining a cheapest fixed base operator for each airport in the set of airports, wherein the optimization logic considers the cheapest fixed base operator for each airport, and wherein the optimized route indicates the cheapest fixed base operator at each airport having a plurality of fixed base operators.
the method further comprising determining a cheapest fixed base operator for each airport in the set of airports,
wherein the optimization logic considers the cheapest fixed base operator for each airport, and
wherein the optimized route indicates the cheapest fixed base operator at each airport having a plurality of fixed base operators.
The method of claim 1 , wherein the origin received from the client device is the origin airport.
A system for reducing operational costs relating to fuel burn of aircraft comprising: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured for: receiving trip data including an origin, an intermediate destination, a final destination, an aircraft, a payload, and a preexisting fuel amount from a client device; receiving operational data including a set of airports including an origin airport corresponding to the origin, an intermediate destination airport corresponding to the intermediate destination, and a final destination airport corresponding to the final destination, a fuel price for each airport in the set of airports, and runway specifications for each airport in the set of airports; performing optimization logic to determine an optimized route having a minimum fuel cost, wherein the optimized route indicates the amount of fuel to upload at each of the origin airport, the intermediate destination airport, and the final destination airport, wherein the optimization logic considers each of the preexisting fuel amount, a maximum takeoff fuel amount for the aircraft, a minimum reserve fuel amount for the aircraft, the payload, a fuel burn for the aircraft to travel from the origin airport to the intermediate destination airport, a fuel burn for the aircraft to travel from the intermediate destination airport to the final destination airport, and the price of fuel at each of the origin airport, the intermediate destination airport, and the final destination airport; and transmitting the optimized route to the client device.
a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured for: receiving trip data including an origin, an intermediate destination, a final destination, an aircraft, a payload, and a preexisting fuel amount from a client device; receiving operational data including a set of airports including an origin airport corresponding to the origin, an intermediate destination airport corresponding to the intermediate destination, and a final destination airport corresponding to the final destination, a fuel price for each airport in the set of airports, and runway specifications for each airport in the set of airports; performing optimization logic to determine an optimized route having a minimum fuel cost, wherein the optimized route indicates the amount of fuel to upload at each of the origin airport, the intermediate destination airport, and the final destination airport, wherein the optimization logic considers each of the preexisting fuel amount, a maximum takeoff fuel amount for the aircraft, a minimum reserve fuel amount for the aircraft, the payload, a fuel burn for the aircraft to travel from the origin airport to the intermediate destination airport, a fuel burn for the aircraft to travel from the intermediate destination airport to the final destination airport, and the price of fuel at each of the origin airport, the intermediate destination airport, and the final destination airport; and transmitting the optimized route to the client device.
receiving trip data including an origin, an intermediate destination, a final destination, an aircraft, a payload, and a preexisting fuel amount from a client device;
receiving operational data including a set of airports including an origin airport corresponding to the origin, an intermediate destination airport corresponding to the intermediate destination, and a final destination airport corresponding to the final destination, a fuel price for each airport in the set of airports, and runway specifications for each airport in the set of airports;
performing optimization logic to determine an optimized route having a minimum fuel cost,
transmitting the optimized route to the client device.
The system of claim 8 , the processor further configured for: identifying an additional airport in the set of airports determined to be within a fuel search corridor; determining whether the additional airport has a runway compatible with the aircraft; determining whether adding a detour to the additional airport to upload fuel would reduce a total fuel cost based on an additional fuel burn required to detour to the additional airport and the price of fuel at the additional airport, and adding the additional airport and an amount of fuel to be purchased at the additional airport to the optimized route if it is determined that the runway is compatible with the aircraft and that the detour would reduce the total fuel cost.
The system of claim 9 , wherein the fuel search corridor is one of a time variance and a distance variance from a flight path from the origin airport to the intermediate destination airport to the final destination airport.
The system of claim 10 , the processor further configured for receiving one of the fuel search corridor time variance and the fuel search corridor distance variance from the client device.
The system of claim 9 , the processor further configured for receiving a time-based operating cost, wherein the step of determining whether adding the additional airport to the optimized route to purchase fuel would reduce the total fuel cost is also based on the operating cost of the detour to the additional airport.
The system of claim 8 , wherein the step of receiving operational data includes receiving a fuel price for a plurality of fixed base operators at one or more airports in the set of airports having more than one fixed base operator; the processor further configured for determining a cheapest fixed base operator for each airport in the set of airports, wherein the optimization logic considers the cheapest fixed base operator for each airport, and wherein the optimized route indicates the cheapest fixed base operator at each airport having a plurality of fixed base operators.
the processor further configured for determining a cheapest fixed base operator for each airport in the set of airports,
A non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer-readable code stored thereon that, when executed by a computing device, performs a method for reducing operational costs relating to fuel burn of aircraft, the method comprising: receiving trip data including an origin, an intermediate destination, a final destination, an aircraft, a payload, and a preexisting fuel amount from a client device; receiving operational data including a set of airports including an origin airport corresponding to the origin, an intermediate destination airport corresponding to the intermediate destination, and a final destination airport corresponding to the final destination, a fuel price for each airport in the set of airports, and runway specifications for each airport in the set of airports; performing optimization logic to determine an optimized route having a minimum fuel cost, wherein the optimized route indicates the amount of fuel to upload at each of the origin airport, the intermediate destination airport, and the final destination airport, wherein the optimization logic considers each of the preexisting fuel amount, a maximum takeoff fuel amount for the aircraft, a minimum reserve fuel amount for the aircraft, the payload, a fuel burn for the aircraft to travel from the origin airport to the intermediate destination airport, a fuel burn for the aircraft to travel from the intermediate destination airport to the final destination airport, and the price of fuel at each of the origin airport, the intermediate destination airport, and the final destination airport; and transmitting the optimized route to the client device.
The medium of claim 14 , the method further comprising: identifying an additional airport in the set of airports determined to be within a fuel search corridor; determining whether the additional airport has a runway compatible with the aircraft; determining whether adding a detour to the additional airport to upload fuel would reduce a total fuel cost based on an additional fuel burn required to detour to the additional airport and the price of fuel at the additional airport, and adding the additional airport and an amount of fuel to be purchased at the additional airport to the optimized route if it is determined that the runway is compatible with the aircraft and that the detour would reduce the total fuel cost.
The medium of claim 15 , wherein the fuel search corridor is one of a time variance and a distance variance from a flight path from the origin airport to the intermediate destination airport to the final destination airport.
The medium of claim 16 , the method further comprising receiving one of the fuel search corridor time variance and the fuel search corridor distance variance from the client device.
The medium of claim 15 , the method further comprising receiving a time-based operating cost, wherein the step of determining whether adding the additional airport to the optimized route to purchase fuel would reduce the total fuel cost is also based on the operating cost of the detour to the additional airport.
The medium of claim 14 , wherein the step of receiving operational data includes receiving a fuel price for a plurality of fixed base operators at one or more airports in the set of airports having more than one fixed base operator; the method further comprising determining a cheapest fixed base operator for each airport in the set of airports, wherein the optimization logic considers the cheapest fixed base operator for each airport, and wherein the optimized route indicates the cheapest fixed base operator at each airport having a plurality of fixed base operators.
The medium of claim 14 , the method further comprising receiving a time-based operating cost, wherein the step of performing optimization logic is also based on the operating cost of the time required to upload fuel at more than one airport.
Ref US20200116542A1: Claims:
A method for dynamically calculating a total fuel uplift quantity for an aircraft to account for changing factors as the aircraft flies along a flight route that comprises a plurality of flight sectors, wherein a flight sector comprises a respective flight between a respective departure station and a respective arrival station, the method comprising: (a) polling in real-time a plurality of sources to receive data indicative of: (i) real-time respective weather conditions in each of one or more remaining flight sectors in the flight route, and (ii) respective delay information for the respective flights in the remaining flight sectors; (b) calculating for the remaining flight sectors a respective fuel consumption factor, wherein the respective fuel consumption factor is a function of altitude and travel distance that accounts for variations in fuel consumption due to variations in altitude and travel distance of the aircraft; (c) based on (i) respective fuel quotations at the remaining arrival stations, (ii) the real-time weather conditions, and (iii) the respective delay information for the respective flights in the remaining flight sectors, generating a linear model for calculating a respective fuel uplift quantity at each remaining arrival station, wherein the respective fuel uplift quantity includes a respective quantity of fuel with which the aircraft is refueled at each remaining arrival station; (d) calculating using the linear model the respective fuel uplift quantity at each remaining arrival station, wherein the total fuel uplift quantity is a sum of the respective fuel uplift quantities at the arrival stations in the flight route; and (e) periodically performing operations (a)-(d) to update a calculation of the respective fuel uplift quantities.
(a) polling in real-time a plurality of sources to receive data indicative of: (i) real-time respective weather conditions in each of one or more remaining flight sectors in the flight route, and (ii) respective delay information for the respective flights in the remaining flight sectors;
(b) calculating for the remaining flight sectors a respective fuel consumption factor, wherein the respective fuel consumption factor is a function of altitude and travel distance that accounts for variations in fuel consumption due to variations in altitude and travel distance of the aircraft;
(c) based on (i) respective fuel quotations at the remaining arrival stations, (ii) the real-time weather conditions, and (iii) the respective delay information for the respective flights in the remaining flight sectors, generating a linear model for calculating a respective fuel uplift quantity at each remaining arrival station, wherein the respective fuel uplift quantity includes a respective quantity of fuel with which the aircraft is refueled at each remaining arrival station;
(d) calculating using the linear model the respective fuel uplift quantity at each remaining arrival station, wherein the total fuel uplift quantity is a sum of the respective fuel uplift quantities at the arrival stations in the flight route; and
(e) periodically performing operations (a)-(d) to update a calculation of the respective fuel uplift quantities.
The method of claim 1 , wherein a first instance of performing operations (a)-(d) occurs prior to the aircraft departing the respective departure station of a first flight sector.
The method of claim 1 , wherein polling in real-time the plurality of sources further comprises: polling in real-time the plurality of sources to receive data indicative of: real-time payload information for the respective flights in the rema
[Truncated to input limit]