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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 8a (as mentioned on pg. 14, line 6, pg. 15, lines 23 and 25, and pg. 25, line 15.
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. 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 Objections
Claim 12-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 12, 14, 15 and 16, “the center guide latch elements has no proper antecedent basis in the claims. Previously, in claim 8, Applicant refers to --central guide latch elements.--
Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 12, “the center guide latch elements” has no proper antecedent basis in the claims. In claim 8, Applicant recited that the functional devices is at least one of (i) a plurality of roller drive units,(ii) a plurality of longitudinal guide latch elements, and (iii) a plurality of central guide latch elements. Applicant has never specified that the functional elements are specifically the “central guide latch elements.”
In claim 14, “the center guide latch elements” has no proper antecedent basis in the claims. In claim 8, Applicant recited that the functional devices is at least one of (i) a plurality of roller drive units,(ii) a plurality of longitudinal guide latch elements, and (iii) a plurality of central guide latch elements. Applicant has never specified that the functional elements are specifically the “central guide latch elements.”
In claim 15, “the roller drive units” and “the center guide latch elements” have no proper antecedent basis in the claims. In claim 8, Applicant recited that the functional devices is at least one of (i) a plurality of roller drive units,(ii) a plurality of longitudinal guide latch elements, and (iii) a plurality of central guide latch elements. Applicant has never specified that the functional elements are specifically the “roller guide units” and “center guide latch elements.”
In claim 16, “the center guide latch elements” has no proper antecedent basis in the claims. In claim 8, Applicant recited that the functional devices is at least one of (i) a plurality of roller drive units,(ii) a plurality of longitudinal guide latch elements, and (iii) a plurality of central guide latch elements. Applicant has never specified that the functional elements are specifically the “central guide latch elements.”
In claim 20, lines 14-15 each occurrence of “the center guide latch elements” have no antecedent basis in the claims. Previously, in lines 12-13, Applicant has recited “a plurality of central guide latch elements.”
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.
Claims 8 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oetken et al. (US 2007/0095978).
With respect to claim 8, Oetken et al. disclose the claimed cargo loading system except for the plurality of central guide latch elements. Oetken et al. disclose a cargo loading system for an aircraft, comprising:
a plurality of perforated rail devices 82/82 extending in a longitudinal direction (devices 82 that are parallel to longitudinal members 2) of the aircraft; and at least one floor module arranged on at least one pair of perforated rail devices 82/82 of the plurality of perforated rail devices, the at least one floor module 88/90/90/92/92/96 comprising:
first and second support sections 90/90 configured to support the at least one floor module on the at least one pair of perforated rail devices 82/82, wherein the first and second support sections extend in a longitudinal direction and define a support plane (as shown in Fig. 4.1 of Oetken et al.); and
a flat functional device receiving section (formed above floor 96) formed between the first and second support sections 90/90 (as shown in Fig. 4.1 of Oetken et al.),
wherein the functional device receiving section 96 extends in the longitudinal direction and defines a receiving plane as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 4.1 of Oetken et al.:
[AltContent: textbox (support plane)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (receiving plane)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
343
394
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the receiving plane is spaced apart from the support plane (as indicated above),
wherein the cargo loading system further comprises a plurality of functional devices, the functional devices comprising central guide latch elements 100 wherein a the functional device 100 are fixed to the perforated rail devices 82/82 (as shown in Figs. 4.1 and 6.3 of Oetken et al.–since Applicant’s disclosure does not depict the functional devices directly fixed to the perforated rail devices, this claim is broadly interpreted as the functional devices being fixed to the perforated rail devices via additional structure/structures, for example, additional structures 88 and 92).
While Oetken et al. only discloses a single central guide latch element, it has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP§ 2144.04, part VI, B). In this instance, there has been no unexpected result disclosed. The provisional of an additional central guide latch simply provides the expected, additional function of latching another location of a pallet or container to the floor or latching an additional pallet or container to the floor.
With respect to claim 7, Oetken et al. disclose that at least one reinforcement area (floor of pit 96 as shown in Fig. 4.1 of Oetken et al.) for reinforcing or stiffening the at least one floor modules is arranged along the functional device receiving section.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oetken et al. (US 2007/0095978), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Huber et al. (US 2019/0276134).
With respect to claim 2, Oetken et al. disclose the claimed integral floor module except for the first end having a raised connection area or a second end having a downwardly lowered connection area. However, Huber et al. teach a similar floor module 20 including a second end having a downwardly lowered connection area 22a (as shown in Fig. 1 of Huber et al.).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Huber et al. with the integral floor module disclosed by Oetken et al. for the advantage of the sealing strip 30 between the first end 22a of one module and a second end 22b of the module thereby creating a watertight and if necessary, gas-tight seal between floor modules (Huber et al., paragraph [0106]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oetken et al. (US 2007/0095978), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Yokoi (US 2016/0207636).
With respect to claim 4, Oetken et al. disclose the claimed integral floor module except for the plurality of cable fastening devices.
However, Yokoi taches a similar floor module including the floor module has on an underside a plurality of cable fastening devices 31 for guiding at least one cable 27 (Yokoi, paragraph [0151]; Fig. 5A).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Yokoi with the floor module disclosed by Oetken et al. for the advantage of maintaining the cables in a fixed orientation so that they do not interfere with other structures in the floor module.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oetken et al. (US 2007/0095978), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Clos (US 9,403,595).
With respect to claim 5, Oetken et al. disclose the claimed floor module except for the at least one drainage device. However, Clos teaches a similar floor module including a functional receiving device section 114 configured for drainage of a liquid (via pump 124 and conduit 126 as shown in Fig. 3 of Clos).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Clos with the floor module disclosed by Oetken et al. for the advantage of removing any leaking or spilled liquids from the floor module.
With respect to claim 6, Clos teaches that the functional device receiving section 114 includes at least one drainage device 124 (Clos, col. 5, lines 57-col. 6, lines 1-7; Fig. 3).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oetken et al. (US 2007/0095978), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Huber et al. (US 2019/0276134) and Bruns (US2004/0258498).
With respect to claim 10, Oetken et al. disclose the claimed cargo loading system except for the at least two floor modules being connected to one another in the longitudinal direction in a partially overlapping manner and except for the respective functional device receiving sections or partial areas thereof forming a draining channel for draining off liquid.
However, Huber et al. teach a similar cargo loading system including at least two floor modules 20,20’ connected to one another in the longitudinal direction in a partially overlapping manner (as shown in Fig. 1 of Huber et al.).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Huber et al. with the cargo loading system disclosed by Oetken et al. for the advantage of the sealing strip 30 between the floor modules thereby creating a watertight and if necessary, gas-tight seal between floor modules (Huber et al., paragraph [0106]).
Bruns teaches a similar cargo loading system including a functional receiving device section 180A,180B such that the respective functional device receiving sections thereof form a drainage channel for draining off liquid (Bruns, paragraph [0054]; Fig. 6).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Bruns with the cargo loading system disclosed by Oetken et al. for the advantage of removing any leaking or spilled liquids from the floor module.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oetken et al. (US 2007/0095978), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Huber et al. (US 2002/0050782).
With respect to claim 12, Oetken et el. disclose the claimed cargo handling system except for the plurality of side guide latch elements being arranged and formed for setting first and second loading configurations, wherein tin the first loading configuration containers and/or pallets are centered and in the second loading configuration containers are held and guided in pairs side by side on the cargo loading system.
However, Huber et al. teach that center guide latch elements 25 and side guide latch elements 25 are arranged and formed for setting first and second loading configurations as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 3 of Huber et al.:
[AltContent: textbox (side guide latch elements)][AltContent: textbox (center guide latch elements)][AltContent: textbox (side guide latch elements)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image2.png
321
610
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein in the first loading configuration containers and/or pallets are centered (as shown in Fig. 3 of Huber et al.) and in the second loading configuration containers are held and guided in pairs side by side on the cargo loading system (as shown in Fig. 2 of Huber et al.).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Huber et al. with the cargo loading system disclosed by Oetken et al. for the advantage of providing several locations along the aircraft in which cargo can be locked down.
With respect to claim 13, line 2, the use of the phrase “can be” only recites a future possibility and does not positively recite any further structure. Thus claim 13 is rejected along with parent claim 12.
With respect to claim 14, Huber et al. teach that the center guide latch elements each comprise at least one latch, wherein abutment surface of the at least one latch are spaced apart from one another as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 11 of Huber et al.:
[AltContent: textbox (abutment surfaces)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image3.png
260
323
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 15, Oetken et al. disclose the claimed cargo loading system except for the roller drive units being arranged between successive center guide latch elements.
However, Huber et al. teach a similar cargo loading system including roller drive units 20 (located on track 31) that are arranged between successive center guide latch elements 25 (on track 40–Huber et al. [0047]; Fig. 1).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Huber et al. with the cargo loading system disclosed by Oetken et al. for the advantage of providing drivable rollers that facilitate movement of the cargo through the aircraft.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 21 are allowed.
Claims 3, 9, 16-17, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the above mentioned informalities, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 20 has been indicated as containing allowable subject matter primarily for the at least one latch of the center guide latch element being pivotable from a rest position to a raised position to delimit a left cargo lane and a right cargo lane for aside-by-side loading configuration.
Claim 21 has been indicated as containing allowable subject matter primarily for the roller drive units each comprising an optical sensor for detecting a ULD.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see first paragraph of pg. 11 of the arguments, filed 9/11/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 7-8 under Haselmeier 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 Oetken et al.
Additionally, it is noted that, in the response of 9/11/2025, that a replacement drawing had been submitted. However, no replacement drawing could be found in the response. Thus, the drawing objection has been maintained.
Since the amendment did not require the new grounds of rejection, this action is being made nonfinal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J COLILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-2157. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 4:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Daniel J Colilla/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612