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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1-4, 10 and 15 were amended.
Claim Interpretation
In the first action, certain terms were interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). As applicant has amended their usage of the terms in the claims of the instant application to clarify the meaning of the terms within the claims, we no longer apply a specification-based interpretation but rather an interpretation based on the explicit language of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see arguments/remarks, filed January 6, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 2-3 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 2-3 and 16 have been withdrawn. Because of changes in rejection rationale for the independent claims pursuant to applicant’s amendments, the reference combinations and rationales cited in rejection of claims 2-3 and 16 in the first action are no longer valid, nor could further references be found to demonstrate these claims as obvious. These claims are now considered allowable subject matter except for their dependency on rejected claims.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3 and 5-15 and 17-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant has amended their independent claims to specify an aircraft as the context of their cargo loading system (among other amendments). Previously cited references did not teach the aircraft. New primary reference Wehner teaches an aircraft cargo loading system as does new secondary reference Nordstroem. As these rejections were triggered by amendment, this action is a final action in consequence.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner would welcome an interview to clarify any of the various rejections seen below in order to expedite prosecution of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wehner, et al., US 2022/0379792 (hereinafter Wehner).
Wehner discloses:
An aircraft (Wehner fig, 16b) comprising: a cargo deck with a cargo handling system,Wehner discloses the aircraft with a cargo deck in fig. 16B. Their invention generally concerns a cargo handling system, see abstract.
the cargo handling system comprising: a wireless cargo emergency stop system;Wehner discloses the wireless emergency stop system in [0030].
and a wireless cargo control system integrated with the wireless cargo emergency stop system.Wehner discloses an autonomous cargo control system (“A-Kit”) in [0030] as well as integration with the emergency stop system. As seen in fig. 8, the A-Kit system has a wireless connection to its control interfaces. Moreover, Wehner’s non-autonomous system (“B-Kit”) is explicitly disclosed in fig. 8 to comprise a wireless e-stop feature.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wehner in view of Nordstroem, Claes, US 5,046,690 (hereinafter Nordstroem), and Shields, et al., US 2020/0002091 (hereinafter Shields.
Wehner discloses:
A cargo handling system for an aircraft (fig. 16b),This is the subject of Wehner’s invention, see abstract.
comprising: a wireless emergency module (WEM) (wireless e-stop: fig. 8), wherein the WEM is a portable device configured to wirelessly send an emergency stop signal:Wehner discloses a wireless emergency stop control in [0030]. As seen in fig. 8 this is a portable device.
However, Wehner does not disclose all aspects of:
a wireless cargo emergency stop system electro-mechanically coupled to the aircraft and configured to wirelessly receive the emergency stop signal;While Wehner’s emergency stop system is wireless, its purpose is to stop a cargo-loading vehicle and so it is not coupled to the aircraft itself.
a power relay communicatively coupled to the wireless cargo emergency stop system;
and a power drive unit communicatively coupled to the power relay and the wireless cargo emergency stop system such that power to the power drive unit is removed in response to an emergency stop activated via the wireless cargo emergency stop system.Regarding the above two limitations, Wehner does not disclose a power relay.
Nordstroem, an invention in the field of aircraft cargo loading, teaches the missing aspect of:
a wireless cargo emergency stop system electro-mechanically coupled to the aircraft and configured to wirelessly receive the emergency stop signal;Nordstroem’s aircraft cargo loading system is an integral part of its aircraft, and so its emergency stop system is necessarily coupled to the aircraft as disclosed in its C4/L36-40. In combination with Wehner, we make use of Wehner’s wireless system and Nordstroem’s coupling.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Wehner with a wireless cargo emergency stop system electro-mechanically coupled to the aircraft and configured to wirelessly receive the emergency stop signal, as taught by Nordstroem, because where a cargo-loading system is physically part of an aircraft, the emergency stop system capable of stopping the operation of the cargo-loading system must likewise be coupled to the aircraft.
Shields, an invention in the field of automated storage safety systems, teaches:
a power relay (Shields, [0051]-[0052]) communicatively coupled to the wireless cargo emergency stop system;Shields discloses a power relay in [0051]-[0052] communicatively coupled to its safety system (emergency stop system). In combination with Wehner and Nordstroem, we make use of Wehner’s wireless signaling for an aircraft emergency stop system and Nordstrom’s integrated aircraft cargo-loading system along with Shields’ power relay.
and a power drive unit (Nordstroem, drive assembly, fig. 4) communicatively coupled to the power relay (Shields, [0051]-[0052]) and the wireless cargo emergency stop system (Wehner, [0030]), such that power to the power drive unit is removed in response to an emergency stop activated via the wireless cargo emergency stop system.Shields discloses in [0052] and [0060] that when its relay opens, triggered by its safety system, power is cut to the drives of its load-handling devices. In combination with Wehner and Nordstroem, Nordstroem’s cargo-loading drive units would have their power interrupted by Shields’ relay when Wehner’s wireless emergency stop system is activated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Wehner and Nordstroem, with (i) a power relay communicatively coupled to the wireless cargo emergency stop system; and (ii) and a power drive unit communicatively coupled to the power relay and the wireless cargo emergency stop system, such that power to the power drive unit is removed in response to an emergency stop activated via the wireless cargo emergency stop system, as taught by Shields, because the use of power relays to activate or deactivate machinery is of long standing and widespread practice in the electromechanical arts and because cutting power to a machine is one of the surest means of halting its operation quickly as might be required in an emergency.
Claims 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wehner in view of Nordstroem and Shields and further in view of Ikeno Naoaki, US 2007/0288674 (hereinafter Ikeno).
Regarding claim 4,
Wehner in view of Nordstroem and Shields teaches the limitations of claim 1 but not all aspects of:
wherein the wireless cargo emergency stop system comprises a cargo emergency station.While it could be argued that Nordstroem’s control panel with its emergency stop button is a cargo emergency station, Nordstroem does not make this explicit.
Ikeno, an invention in the field of remote control, teaches:
wherein the wireless cargo emergency stop system comprises a cargo emergency station.Ikeno teaches a “safety master station” in [0032]. In [0036] this master station turns off a relay as a result of an emergency stop switch being pressed in order to prevent a control device from acting dangerously. Like Shields, Ikeno makes use of wireless communications between stations ([0003]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Wehner, Nordstroem, and Shields, wherein the wireless cargo emergency stop system comprises a cargo emergency station, as taught by Ikeno, because configuring a fixed emergency station in addition to a portable wireless emergency module provides a backup means of stopping the system in an emergency, when, for example, the operator is not currently in possession of a WEM.
Regarding claim 5,
Wehner in view of Nordstroem, Shields, and Ikeno teaches the limitations of claim 4 and also:
wherein the cargo emergency station comprises at least one electrical relay configured to remove power from the power drive unit.Shields teaches the relay in [0051]-[0052].
Regarding claim 6,
Wehner in view of Nordstroem, Shields, and Ikeno teaches the limitations of claim 4 and also:
wherein the cargo emergency station comprises at least one processor, interface for wireless communication, serial interface, indicators configured to display system statuses, or controls configured for interfacing between an operator and emergency functions.Ikeno teaches in [0027] that its master station uses a PLC that may be a general purpose computer known in the art to comprise the claimed control, display, and interface features.
Regarding claim 7,
Wehner in view of Nordstroem, Shields, and Ikeno teaches the limitations of claim 4 and also:
wherein the cargo emergency station and the wireless emergency module are configured to communicate wirelessly.A wireless emergency module can be assumed by its name to communicate wirelessly. Ikeno teaches wireless communications between stations that are part of its emergency stop system in [0003].
Regarding claim 8,
Wehner in view of Nordstroem, Shields, and Ikeno teaches the limitations of claim 4 and also:
wherein the wireless emergency module is a remote control comprising an E-stop button configured to receive a force from an operator to activate the emergency stop.Wehner discloses a portable wireless emergency stop button as a WEM in its fig. 8.
Regarding claim 9,
Wehner in view of Nordstroem, Shields, and Ikeno teaches the limitations of claim 4 and also:
wherein the wireless emergency module comprises at least one processor, interface for wireless communication, serial interface, or indicators configured to display system statuses.All modern wireless devices including those of Wehner, Shields, and Ikeno, necessarily incorporate interfaces for wireless communication or they would be unable to function.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wehner in view of Ikeno.
Regarding claim 10,
Wehner discloses:
A method of operating a wireless emergency stop system (Wehner, [0030]) of an aircraft (Wehner fig, 16b),
the method comprising: associating a wireless emergency module (Wehner e-stop button, fig. 8) with a wireless access point of a network of an aircraft cargo handling system;The association of a device comprising wireless communications features (such as Wi-Fi or Bluetooth, for example) with a wireless access point is a routine and universal feature of such devices and access points. All modern wireless devices and all modern wireless access points can perform this association.
However, Wehner does not disclose all aspects of:
identifying cargo emergency station identification information broadcasted over the network;
transmitting a request message to a cargo emergency station associated with the cargo emergency station identification information;
transmitting a unique identifier, via the cargo emergency station, for the wireless emergency module;
and pairing the wireless emergency module with an associated cargo emergency station.Regarding the above limitations, Wehner does not disclose a cargo emergency station.
Ikeno, an invention in the field of remote control, teaches the missing aspects of:
identifying cargo emergency station identification information broadcasted over the network;Ikeno teaches a “safety master station” in [0032] which is wireless per [0003]. All networked wireless data communication devices communicate (for example using Internet Protocol or cellular protocols) using unique identification numbers. The identification of these numbers is an automatic feature of network hardware and associated firmware in all modern wireless devices.
transmitting a request message to a cargo emergency station associated with the cargo emergency station identification information;Ikeno teaches communication between slave and master safety stations in [0027]. We note that this claim does not disclose a purpose or function of the request message and so we consider any wireless communication to constitute the claimed request, including, for example, a request to force an emergency stop of an operating device as taught in [0036].
transmitting a unique identifier, via the cargo emergency station, for the wireless emergency module;The unique identifier of a wireless device is automatically communicated in all wireless data network messages as part of modern wireless protocols.
and pairing the wireless emergency module with an associated cargo emergency station.The process of pairing a wireless emergency module with an emergency stop station is implied by Ikeno’s system structure as its master and slave stations comprise wireless emergency module and cargo emergency station functionality as disclosed in [0027] and [0036]. In combination with Wehner’s WEM, Ikeno’s cargo emergency station would necessarily be paired in order to communicate the emergency stop instruction from Wehner’s WEM e-stop button to the cargo loading system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the method of Wehner, identifying cargo emergency station identification information broadcasted over the network; transmitting a request message to a cargo emergency station associated with the cargo emergency station identification information; transmitting a unique identifier, via the cargo emergency station, for the wireless emergency module; and pairing the wireless emergency module with an associated cargo emergency station, as taught by Ikeno, because given Ikeno’s master safety station (cargo emergency station), it is plainly necessary for a portable wireless emergency module such as Wehner’s to communication with the cargo emergency station in order to initiate an emergency stop. The other limitations of this claim follow in consequence of using wireless communications in modern networked devices.
Regarding claim 11,
Shields in view of Ikeno teaches the limitations of claim 10 and also:
further comprising detecting an emergency stop function administered by an operator.Wehner’s e-stop button (fig. 8) is activated by an operator.
Regarding claim 12,
Wehner in view of Ikeno teaches the limitations of claim 11 and also:
further comprising removing power to a power drive unit in response to the emergency stop function detected.Ikeno teaches the use of a contact or power relay to cut off power in response to an emergency stop in [0036].
Regarding claim 13,
Wehner in view of Ikeno teaches the limitations of claim 11 and also:
wherein the emergency stop function is administered by engaging an e-stop button on a wireless controller.Wehner teaches a wireless e-stop button in fig. 8.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wehner in view of Ikeno and further in view of Shields.
Wehner in view of Ikeno teaches the limitations of claim 10 but not:
further comprising issuing an emergency fault if the paired wireless emergency module is no longer communicating with the cargo emergency station.The references do not teach issuing this fault.
Shields an invention in the field of automated storage safety systems, teaches:
further comprising issuing an emergency fault if the paired wireless emergency module is no longer communicating with the cargo emergency station.Shields teaches the communication of a continual stream of signals in [0051] which if interrupted causes an emergency condition to be interpreted by its load-handling device. Thus the load-handling device’s wireless emergency module no longer communicates with the station when an emergency fault is issued.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the method of Wehner and Ikeno, further comprising issuing an emergency fault if the paired wireless emergency module is no longer communicating with the cargo emergency station, because it is plainly a matter of concern when a device intended to respond in case of emergency is found no longer to be in communication; in such a case it may be impossible for an operator to activate the emergency stop system.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wehner in view of Calvas, et al., US 4,935,863 (hereinafter Calvas).
Wehner discloses the limitations of claim 15 but not all aspects of:
wherein the wireless cargo control system comprises a cargo control station configured to translate information from a paired wireless control module to an internal serial network of the cargo handling system.Wehner discloses a central computer and autonomy system in fig. 8. This is the claimed “cargo control station”. To communicate wirelessly with its untethered autonomous load-handling devices, the cargo control station must necessarily have a paired wireless control module. However, Wehner does not explicitly disclose an internal serial network for its wired components, though one could suppose such a network likely exists.
Calvas, an invention in the field of industrial networks, teaches the missing aspect of the limitation:
wherein the wireless cargo control system comprises a cargo control station configured to translate information from a paired wireless control module to an internal serial network (36: fig. 2) of the cargo handling system.Calvas teaches the use of an internal serial network 36 in a complex industrial system in fig. 2 and C1/L43-64. The “translation” step of the claim is simply a process of changing external wireless network protocol communication into internal serial protocol, e.g. translating from a Wi-Fi or cellular protocol to USB signaling. This is a widespread and commonplace process that all general purpose computers that combine wired serial and wireless networks (which is to say virtually all modern computers) routinely perform.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Wehner, wherein the wireless cargo control system comprises a cargo control station configured to translate information from a paired wireless control module to an internal serial network of the cargo handling system, as taught by Calvas, because given a cargo control system that communicates wirelessly with operational devices, as does Wehner, when passing such wireless information from one locally networked or “hard-wired” component to another of a system, it is first necessary to “translate” the information from a wireless protocol to the internal protocol, and using a serial network or bus for the purpose is virtually universal in the art.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wehner in view of Calvas, and further in view of Ikeno.
Regarding claim 18,
Wehner in view of Calvas teaches the limitations of claim 17 but not:
wherein the wireless cargo emergency stop system comprises a cargo emergency station and a wireless emergency module.Wehner does not teach the cargo emergency station.
Ikeno, an invention in the field of remote control, teaches:
wherein the wireless cargo emergency stop system comprises a cargo emergency stationIkeno teaches a “safety master station” in [0032]. In [0036] this master station turns off a relay as a result of an emergency stop switch being pressed in order to prevent a control device from acting dangerously. Ikeno makes use of wireless communications between stations ([0003]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Wehner and Calvas, wherein the wireless cargo emergency stop system comprises a cargo emergency station, as taught by Ikeno, because configuring a fixed emergency station in addition to a portable wireless emergency module provides a backup means of stopping the system in an emergency, when, for example, the operator is not currently in possession of a WEM.
Regarding claim 19,
Wehner in view of Calvas and Ikeno teaches the limitations of claim 18 and also:
wherein the wireless emergency module is authenticated with the emergency stop communication via a unique identification number thereby forming a communication path between a wireless control module of the wireless cargo control system and the wireless emergency module.The process of identification and authentication of wireless devices using a unique identifier is well-known and universal in the art, where such identifiers may be, for example, IP addresses or cellular phone numbers. Wireless networked data communication is generally impossible without identification and authentication. Wehner discloses such wireless communication in [0030] and fig. 8.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wehner in view of Calvas and Ikeno, and further in view of Shields.
Regarding claim 20,
Wehner in view of Calvas and Ikeno teaches the limitations of claim 18 but not:
wherein the wireless control module is configured to lose power to its circuit and thus lose communication with the wireless cargo control system in response to the emergency stop communication, thus terminating power to the cargo power drive system.The references do not teach the loss of power to a wireless control module.
Shields, an invention in the field of automated storage safety systems, teaches:
wherein the wireless control module is configured to lose power to its circuit and thus lose communication with the wireless cargo control system in response to the emergency stop communication, thus terminating power to the cargo power drive system.Shields discloses in [0051]-[0052] that its wireless control module normally sends a continual stream of signals to its load-handling devices, and when this stream is interrupted, the devices are configured to shut down. Thus, when an operator or some autonomous system triggers an emergency stop, power is cut to the wireless control module as claimed in order to interrupt the stream of signals.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Wehner, Calvas, and Ikeno, wherein the wireless control module is configured to lose power to its circuit and thus lose communication with the wireless cargo control system in response to the emergency stop communication, thus terminating power to the cargo power drive system, as taught by Shields, because cutting power to a system is a sure and rapid means of terminating its operation, and because given the monitoring function taught by Shields, terminating the stream of wireless communication signals will result in a sure and rapid shutdown of the wireless cargo system, thus reducing possible damage or injury that might be incurred.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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: regarding claims 2-3 and 16, our current references individually teach either a wireless emergency stop system or a hard-wired emergency stop system, but not both types of system. In modifying one reference with another in combination, either type of system could be employed by means of replacement, but employing both together would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because the means of combining the two systems would not be obvious in itself. Thus, the matter of claims 2-3 and 16 was neither found, nor taught, nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS whose telephone number is (703)756-1828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0830-1700.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. 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.
/ERNESTO A SUAREZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3655A
/L.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3655