Office Action 8: Notice of Allowance (2025-02-20)

CLAIMS:
17841153 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: conditioning a fuel tank, wherein the fuel tank comprises a chamber between an inner wall and an outer wall of the fuel tank, wherein the chamber includes at least one layer of reflective foil within an insulative material, and clean dry gas is pumped into the chamber to aid in insulating a liquid gas fuel; venting the liquid gas fuel from the chamber, wherein a direction of fuel flow is regulated by a liquid check valve to prevent back flow of the vented liquid gas fuel to the fuel tank; storing, using the fuel tank comprising the chamber between the inner wall and the outer wall of the fuel tank, the liquid gas fuel, wherein the chamber is configured to insulate the liquid gas fuel by prevention of condensation of humidity within the fuel tank of the aircraft; fueling, using a fuel line, the aircraft, wherein fueling further comprises: filling the fuel tank with the 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 the fuel tank, wherein the sensor is configured to: detect humidity within the fuel tank; and convert 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\. (Original) 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\. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 7, wherein the vent line is insulated to prevent \[\[the\]\]an 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\. (Canceled)
20\. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the liquified gas fuel is comprised of liquid hydrogen.

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 2 bottom 2 paragraphs., filed 11/13/2024, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive.  The rejection of 06/14/2024 has been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 and 20 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: US 20090090724 A1Childress; James J. et al. teaches a method for fueling an aircraft  comprising conditioning a fuel tank using dry gas insulator, US 20130197791 A1 Struzik; Anthony teaches the fuel tank containing liquid fuel. They or any combination of prior art fail to teach a method of fueling containing the above and “venting the liquid gas fuel from the chamber, wherein a direction of fuel flow is regulated by a liquid check valve to prevent back flow of the vented liquid gas fuel to the fuel tank”. It would have not been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the above without the benefit of the present disclosure.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee.  Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion

APPLICANT REBUTTAL: REMARKS
Claims 1–17 and 20 are pending, with claim 1 being independent. Claims 1 and 11 are amended. Claims 18–19 were previously canceled. 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 cancelled claims and/or other claims in one or more continuing applications.
Applicant-Initiated Interview Summary
A video conference interview regarding the instant matter was conducted on June 24, 2024, between Examiner Cindi M Curry and Applicant’s Shixiong Wang, 79880. Patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 was discussed. Applicant thanks the Examiner for her time and consideration in conducting the interview. No agreement was reached. However, the Examiner stated specifying a liquid check valve may move prosecution forward.
Rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Childress/Clarke/Struzik/Glaser/Paget
Claims 1, 6, 15, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly unpatentable over US Patent Publ. No. 20090090724 A1 to Childress et al. (hereinafter “Childress”) in view of US Patent Publ. No. 20220136656 A1 to Clarke et al. (hereinafter “Clarke”), in further view of US Patent Publ. No. 20130197791 to Struzik (hereinafter “Struzik”), in further view of US Patent Publ. No. 20110042520 A1 to Glaser et al. (hereinafter “Glaser”), in further view of US Patent Publ. No. 20230294836 A1 to Paget et al. (hereinafter “Paget”). Office Action, p. 2. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
Claim 1 as amended currently recites:
A method for fueling and using an aircraft, wherein the method comprises:
conditioning a fuel tank, wherein the fuel tank comprises a chamber between an inner wall and an outer wall of the fuel tank, wherein the chamber includes at least one layer of reflective foil within an insulative material, and clean dry gas is pumped into the chamber to aid in insulating a liquid gas fuel;
venting the liquid gas fuel from the chamber, wherein a direction of fuel flow is regulated by a liquid check valve to prevent back flow of the vented liquid gas fuel to the fuel tank;
storing, using the fuel tank comprising the chamber between the inner wall and the outer wall of the fuel tank, the liquified gas fuel, wherein the chamber is configured to insulate the liquid gas fuel by prevention of condensation of humidity within the fuel tank of the aircraft;
fueling, using a fuel line, the aircraft, wherein fueling further comprises:
filling the fuel tank with the 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 the fuel tank, wherein the sensor is configured to:
detect humidity within the fuel tank; and
convert 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 Action alleges that Childress teaches “clean dry gas is pumped into the chamber to aid in insulating a liquid gas fuel” at paragraph [0024] of Childress stating in part “A pressurized gas may be introduced via the inlet into the bladder.” However, the above-quoted language does not disclose “venting the liquid gas fuel from the chamber, wherein a direction of fuel flow is regulated by a liquid check valve to prevent back flow of the vented liquid gas fuel to the fuel tank.” The Office has not asserted that Childress teaches, suggests, or motivates “venting the liquid gas fuel from the chamber, wherein a direction of fuel flow is regulated by a liquid check valve to prevent back flow of the vented liquid gas fuel to the fuel tank.” Accordingly, Applicant submits that Claim 1 as amended is patentably distinguishable over Childress.
Clarke does not cure the deficiencies of Childress. The Office has not asserted that Clarke teaches, suggests or motivates “venting the liquid gas fuel from the chamber, wherein a direction of fuel flow is regulated by a liquid check valve to prevent back flow of the vented liquid gas fuel to the fuel tank.” As such, Applicant respectfully submits that Clarke does not teach, suggest or motivate “venting the liquid gas fuel from the chamber, wherein a direction of fuel flow is regulated by a liquid check valve to prevent back flow of the vented liquid gas fuel to the fuel tank.” Accordingly, Applicant submits that Claim 1 as amended is patentably distinguishable over Childress and Clarke, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above.
Struzik does not cure the deficiencies of Childress and Clarke. The Office has not asserted that Struzik teaches, suggests or motivates “venting the liquid gas fuel from the chamber, wherein a direction of fuel flow is regulated by a liquid check valve to prevent back flow of the vented liquid gas fuel to the fuel tank.” As such, Applicant respectfully submits that Struzik does not teach, suggest or motivate “venting the liquid gas fuel from the chamber, wherein a direction of fuel flow is regulated by a liquid check valve to prevent back flow of the vented liquid gas fuel to the fuel tank.” Accordingly, Applicant submits that Claim 1 as amended is patentably distinguishable over Childress, Clarke, and Struzik, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above.
Glaser does not cure the deficiencies of Childress, Clarke, and Struzik. The Office has not asserted that Glaser teaches, suggests or motivates “venting the liquid gas fuel from the chamber, wherein a direction of fuel flow is regulated by a liquid check valve to prevent back flow of the vented liquid gas fuel to the fuel tank.” As such, Applicant respectfully submits that Glaser does not teach, suggest or motivate “venting the liquid gas fuel from the chamber, wherein a direction of fuel flow is regulated by a liquid check valve to prevent back flow of the vented liquid gas fuel to the fuel tank.” Accordingly, Applicant submits that Claim 1 as amended is patentably distinguishable over Childress, Clarke, Struzik, and Glaser, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above.
Paget does not cure the deficiencies of Childress, Clarke, Struzik, and Glaser. The Office has not asserted that Paget teaches, suggests or motivates “venting the liquid gas fuel from the chamber, wherein a direction of fuel flow is regulated by a liquid check valve to prevent back flow of the vented liquid gas fuel to the fuel tank.” As such, Applicant respectfully submits that Paget does not teach, suggest or motivate “venting the liquid gas fuel from the chamber, wherein a direction of fuel flow is regulated by a liquid check valve to prevent back flow of the vented liquid gas fuel to the fuel tank.” Accordingly, Applicant submits that Claim 1 as amended is patentably distinguishable over Childress, Clarke, Struzik, Glaser, and Paget, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above.
Claims 6, 15, and 17 depend, directly or indirectly, on Claim 1. As noted above, Claim 1 as amended is patentably distinguishable over, Childress, Clarke, Struzik, Glaser, and Paget, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, Applicant submits that claims 6, 15, and 17 are patentably distinguishable over Childress, Clarke, Struzik, Glaser, and Paget, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above.
Childress/Struzik/Glaser/Paget/D’Auvergne
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly unpatentable over Childress, in view of Struzik, in further view of Glaser, in further view of Paget, in further view of US Patent No. 7281682 B2 to D’Auvergne (hereinafter “D’Auvergne”). Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
Claim 2 depends, directly or indirectly, from Claim 1. As noted above, Claim 1 is patentably distinguishable over Childress, Struzik, Glaser, and Paget, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Claim 2 is patentably distinguishable over Childress, Struzik, Glaser, and Paget, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above.
D'Auvergne fails to cure the deficiencies of Childress, Struzik, Glaser, and Paget. The Office has not asserted that D’Auvergne teaches, suggests, or motivates “venting the liquid gas fuel from the chamber, wherein a direction of fuel flow is regulated by a liquid check valve to prevent back flow of the vented liquid gas fuel to the fuel tank.” Applicant respectfully submits that D’Auvergne does not teach, suggest, or motivate “venting the liquid gas fuel from the chamber, wherein a direction of fuel flow is regulated by a liquid check valve to prevent back flow of the vented liquid gas fuel to the fuel tank.” As such, Applicant submits that Claim 2 is patentably distinguishable over Childress, Struzik, Glaser, Paget, and D’Auvergne, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above.
Childress/Struzik/Glaser/Paget/Wexler/Epstein/Conner
Claims 3 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly unpatentable over Childress, in view of Struzik, in further view of Glaser, in further view of Paget, in further view of US Patent No. 6123295 A to Wexler et al. (hereinafter “Wexler”), in further view of US Patent Publ. No. 20150344143 to Epstein et al. (hereinafter “Epstein”), in further view of the NPL titled “What is Aerogel” by Nick Conner (hereinafter “Conner”). 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 Childress, Struzik, Glaser, and Paget, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Claims 3 and 5 are patentably distinguishable over Childress, Struzik, Glaser, and Paget, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above.
Wexler fails to cure the deficiencies of Childress, Struzik, Glaser, and Paget. The Office has not asserted that Wexler teaches, suggests, or motivates “venting the liquid gas fuel from the chamber, wherein a direction of fuel flow is regulated by a liquid check valve to prevent back flow of the vented liquid gas fuel to the fuel tank.” Applicant respectfully submits that Wexler does not teach, suggest, or motivate “venting the liquid gas fuel from the chamber, wherein a direction of fuel flow is regulated by a liquid check valve to prevent back flow of the vented liquid gas fuel to the fuel tank.” As such, Applicant submits that Claims 3 and 5 are patentably distinguishable over Childress, Struzik, Glaser, Paget, and Wexler, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above.
Epstein fails to cure the deficiencies of Childress, Struzik, Glaser, Paget, and Wexler. The Office has not asserted that Epstein teaches, suggests, or motivates “venting the liquid gas fuel from the chamber, wherein a direction of fuel flow is regulated by a liquid check valve to prevent back flow of the vented liquid gas fuel to the fuel tank.” Applicant respectfully submits that Epstein does not teach, suggest, or motivate “venting the liquid gas fuel from the chamber, wherein a direction of fuel flow is regulated by a liquid check valve to prevent back flow of the vented liquid gas fuel to the fuel tank.” As such, Applicant submits that Claims 3 and 5 are patentably distinguishable over Childress, Struzik, Glaser, Paget, Wexler, and Epstein, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above.
Conner fails to cure the deficiencies of Childress, Struzik, Glaser, Paget, Wexler, and Epstein. The Office has not asserted that Conner teaches, suggests, or motivates “venting the liquid gas fuel from the chamber, wherein a direction of fuel flow is regulated by a liquid check valve to prevent back flow of the vented liquid gas fuel to the fuel tank.” Applicant respectfully submits that Conner does not teach, suggest, or motivate “venting the liquid gas fuel from the chamber, wherein a direction of fuel flow is regulated by a liquid check valve to prevent back flow of the vented liquid gas fuel to the fuel tank.” As such, Applicant submits that Claims 3 and 5 are patentably distinguishable over Childress, Struzik, Glaser, Paget, Wexler, Epstein, and Conner, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above.
Childress/Struzik/Glaser/Paget/Wexler/Epstein/Conner/Clark
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly unpatentable over Childress, in view of Struzik, in further view of Glaser, in further view of Paget, in further view of Wexler, in further view of Epstein, in further view of Conner, and in further view of US Patent No. 6422514 B1 to Clark et al. (hereinafter “Clark”). Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
Claim 4 depends, directly or indirectly, from Claim 1. As noted above, Claim 1 is patentably distinguishable over Childress, Struzik, Glaser, Paget, Wexler, Epstein, and Conner, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Claim 4 is patentably distinguishable over Childress, Struzik, Glaser, Paget, Wexler, Epstein, and Conner, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above.
Clark fails to cure the deficiencies of Childress, Struzik, Glaser, Paget, Wexler, Epstein, and Conner. The Office has not asserted that Clark teaches, suggests, or motivates “venting the liquid gas fuel from the chamber, wherein a direction of fuel flow is regulated by a liquid check valve to prevent back flow of the vented liquid gas fuel to the fuel tank.” Applicant respectfully submits that Clark does not teach, suggest, or motivate “venting the liquid gas fuel from the chamber, wherein a direction of fuel flow is regulated by a liquid check valve to prevent back flow of the vented liquid gas fuel to the fuel tank.” As such, Applicant submits that Claim 4 is patentably distinguishable over Childress, Struzik, Glaser, Paget, Wexler, Epstein, Conner, and Clark alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above.
Childress/Struzik/Glaser/Paget/Epstein
Claims 7-11, 13, 14, 16, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly unpatentable over Childress, in view of Struzik, in further view of Glaser, in further view of Paget, in further view of Epstein. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
Claims 7-11, 13, 14, 16, and 20 depend, directly or indirectly, from Claim 1. As noted above, Claim 1 is patentably distinguishable over Childress, Struzik, Glaser, Paget, and Epstein, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Claims 7-11, 13, 14, 16, and 20 are patentably distinguishable over Childress, Struzik, Glaser, Paget, and Epstein, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above.
Childress/Struzik/Glaser/Paget/Epstein/Benassi
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly unpatentable over Childress, in view of Struzik, in further view of Glaser, in further view of Paget, in further view of Epstein, and in further view of US Patent Publ. No. 20120119032 A1 to Benassi et al. (hereinafter “Benassi”). Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
Claim 12 depends, directly or indirectly, from Claim 1. As noted above, Claim 1 is patentably distinguishable over Childress, Struzik, Glaser, Paget, and Epstein, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Claim 12 is patentably distinguishable over Childress, Struzik, Glaser, Paget, and Epstein, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above.
Benassi fails to cure the deficiencies of Childress, Struzik, Glaser, Paget, and Epstein. The Office has not asserted that Benassi teaches, suggests, or motivates “venting the liquid gas fuel from the chamber, wherein a direction of fuel flow is regulated by a liquid check valve to prevent back flow of the vented liquid gas fuel to the fuel tank.” Applicant respectfully submits that Benassi does not teach, suggest, or motivate “venting the liquid gas fuel from the chamber, wherein a direction of fuel flow is regulated by a liquid check valve to prevent back flow of the vented liquid gas fuel to the fuel tank.” As such, Applicant submits that Claim 12 is patentably distinguishable over Childress, Struzik, Glaser, Paget, Epstein, and Benassi, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above.
Conclusion


CITED REFERENCE SUMMARIES: Ref US20090090724: Claims:
1. A fuel tank assembly comprising:
a bladder defined between an exterior bladder wall and an interior bladder wall, wherein the interior bladder wall defines a volume for storing fuel, and wherein the exterior bladder wall is at least more rigid than the interior bladder wall; and an inlet opening into the bladder defined between the exterior and interior bladder walls in order to permit a pressurized gas to be introduced within the bladder.
2. A fuel tank assembly according to claim 1 further comprising a plurality of connectors between the exterior and interior bladder walls in order to at least partially limit expansion of the bladder.
3. A fuel tank assembly according to claim 1 wherein the interior bladder wall is comprised of an elastomeric or a composite material.
4. A fuel tank assembly according to claim 1 wherein the exterior bladder wall is comprised of a composite or metallic material.
5. A fuel tank assembly according to claim 1 wherein the interior bladder wall is comprised of rubber and the exterior bladder wall is comprised of a composite material configured to generate fuzz if the exterior bladder wall is punctured.
6. A fuel tank assembly according to claim 1 further comprising a valve through the interior bladder wall into the volume for storing fuel to permit at least some pressurized gas to enter the volume.
7. A fuel tank assembly comprising:
a fuel tank; an expandable bladder wall disposed within and connected to the fuel tank to thereby define a bladder bounded by the fuel tank and the bladder wall, the bladder configured to transition from a deflated configuration in which the bladder wall is proximate the fuel tank to an expanded configuration in which the bladder wall is spaced from the fuel tank; and an inlet opening into the bladder in order to permit a pressurized gas to be introduced within the bladder.
8. A fuel tank assembly according to claim 7 further comprising a plurality of connectors between the fuel tank and the expandable bladder wall in order to at least partially limit expansion of the bladder.
9. A fuel tank assembly according to claim 7 wherein the interior bladder wall is comprised of an elastomeric or a composite material.
10. A fuel tank assembly according to claim 9 wherein the interior bladder wall is comprised of rubber and the fuel tank is comprised of a composite material configured to generate fuzz if the fuel tank is punctured.
11. A fuel tank assembly according to claim 7 wherein the fuel tank comprises a portion of an aircraft fuselage.
12. A fuel tank assembly according to claim 7 wherein the fuel tank comprises an upper portion that is separable from other portions of the fuel tank to permit the expandable bladder wall to be inserted into the fuel tank.
13. A fuel tank assembly according to claim 12 wherein the upper portion is comprised of a different material than the other portions of the fuel tank.
14. A fuel tank assembly according to claim 7 further comprising a valve through the bladder wall to permit at least some pressurized gas to enter the fuel.
15. A method comprising:
providing a fuel tank having an expandable bladder wall disposed within and connected to the fuel tank to thereby define a bladder bounded by the fuel tank and the bladder wall; and introducing a pressurized gas into the bladder to cause the bladder to transition from a deflated configuration in which the bladder wall is proximate the fuel tank to an expanded configuration in which the bladder wall is spaced from the fuel tank.
16. A method according to claim 15 further comprising:
removing an upper portion of the fuel tank in order to dispose the expandable bladder wall therewithin; and replacing the upper portion of the fuel tank after connected the expandable bladder wall to other portions of the fuel tank.
17. A method according to claim 15 further comprising permitting at least some of the pressurized gas to vent through the expandable bladder wall.
18. A method according to claim 15 further comprising providing an expandable bladder wall comprised of an elastomeric or a composite material.
19. A method according to claim 18 wherein providing the expandable bladder wall comprises providing an expandable bladder wall comprised of rubber and wherein providing the fuel tank comprises providing a fuel tank comprised of a composite material configured to generate fuzz if the fuel tank is punctured.
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 o
[Truncated to input limit]