DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Claims 1-4, 8-12, 16-18, and 20 are pending in this application. Claim 20 was amended. Claims 5-7, 13-15, and 19 were withdrawn consequent to species election under 35 U.S.C. 121.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5-7, 13-15 and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/14/2025.
Specification
3. The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01.
Claim Interpretation
4. We understand the “tire” of claims 8 and 16-17 (per applicant’s paragraph [0026] of the instant specification) to be an external layer or sheath of the drive roller, typically a rubberized layer, deployed to facilitate roller braking or to increase friction.
Examiner’s Note
5. 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 Objections
6. Claims 8 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 8 recites, “wherein the electric alert signal provides an indication [sic] a damaged tire on the drive roller.” It appears a simple typo is present at location “[sic]”, most likely the omitted word “of”. Claim 17 recites, “an electric alert signal indicating damaged [sic] to a tire”. This appears to be another typo, as most likely “damage” is intended instead of “damaged”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
7. Claims 1-3, 9-11, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Daw Perez, et al., US 2021/0316862 (hereinafter Daw Perez)
8. Regarding claim 1,
Daw Perez discloses:
A power drive unit (110: fig. 1B, [0022]) for a cargo handling system (100: fig. 1B), comprising: a drive roller (108: fig. 1B, [0022]);
a motor configured to rotate the drive roller (unnumbered, [0022]);
a housing (structure of 110: fig. 1B) configured to house the motor;We consider the hull of the PDU 110 to be a housing. As the PDU comprises a motorized roller, it houses the motor.
a sensor (360: fig. 3A, [0030],[0040]) configured to monitor a characteristic associated with at least one of the housing or the motor; The actuator data of [0040] includes electrical characteristics associated with the PDU motor, and is disclosed to be gathered by a sensor.
and a controller (330: fig. 3A, [0035]) configured to receive an output from the sensor and output an electric alert signal in response to the characteristic.Daw Perez discloses outputting an alert signal in [0044]-[0046] and in flowchart fig. 4.
9. Regarding claims 2, and 10,
Daw Perez discloses the limitations of claim 1 (parent of 2) and claim 9 (parent of 10) and also:
wherein the sensor is an electrical current sensor and wherein the electrical current sensor monitors electric current utilized by the motor while driving cargo via the drive roller.Daw Perez discloses electrical current sensing via actuators during cargo handling operation in [0040]. In this paragraph Daw Perez explains that the actuator data is sensor data.
10. Regarding claims 3 and 11,
Daw Perez discloses the limitations of claim 1 (parent of 3) and claim 9 (parent of 11) and also:
wherein the characteristic is electrical current utilized by the motor when driving cargo via the drive roller.Daw Perez discloses electrical current sensing via actuators during cargo handling operation in [0040]. In this paragraph Daw Perez explains that the actuator data is sensor data. As this data may trigger an alert per [0041]-[0044] and flowchart fig. 4, the data constitutes the claimed characteristic.
11. Regarding claim 9,
Daw Perez discloses:
A cargo handling system (100: fig. 1B), comprising: a roller tray (104: fig. 1B, [0022]);
And a power drive unit (110: fig. 1B, [0022]) located in the roller tray, the power drive unit comprising: a drive roller (108: fig. 1B, [0022]);
a motor configured to rotate the drive roller (unnumbered, [0022]);
a housing (structure of 110: fig. 1B) configured to house the motor;We consider the hull of the PDU 110 to be a housing. As the PDU comprises a motorized roller, it houses the motor.
a sensor (360: fig. 3A, [0030],[0040]) configured to monitor a characteristic associated with at least one of the housing or the motor;The actuator data of [0040] includes electrical characteristics associated with the PDU motor, and is disclosed to be gathered by a sensor.
and a controller (330: fig. 3A, [0035]) configured to receive an output from the sensor and output an electric alert signal in response to the characteristic.Daw Perez discloses outputting an alert signal in [0044]-[0046] and in flowchart fig. 4.
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.
12. Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daw Perez in view of McConnell; Matthew S., US 2007/0057120 (hereinafter McConnell)
13. Regarding claims 4 and 13,
Daw Perez discloses the limitations of claims 3 (parent of 4) and 12 (parent of 13) but not all aspects of:
wherein the electric alert signal is issued in response to the electrical current exceeding a predetermined threshold.While Daw Perez may issue an alert consequent to receiving electrical current data, it does not disclose the predetermined threshold.
McConnell, an invention in the field of cargo power drive units, teaches:
wherein the electric alert signal is issued in response to the electrical current exceeding a predetermined threshold.McConnell teaches a predetermined current threshold in claim 36.
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 Daw Perez, wherein the electric alert signal is issued in response to the electrical current exceeding a predetermined threshold, as taught by McConnell, because most electrical devices are designed to operate within a particular range of current levels, and exceeding the upper limit of the range is a widely understood indicator of a fault in the device.
14. Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daw Perez in view of Milender, et al., US 2008/0078867 (hereinafter Milender)
15. Regarding claims 8 and 16,
Daw Perez discloses the limitations of claim 1 (parent of 8) and 9 (parent of 16) but not all aspects of:
wherein the electric alert signal provides an indication a damaged tire on the drive roller.While Daw Perez issues electric alert signals in response to various detected problems with its PDU, it does not disclose a damaged tire as one of the reasons for issuing such a signal.
Milender, an invention in the field of cargo handling systems, teaches:
wherein the electric alert signal provides an indication a damaged tire on the drive roller.One of the modes in which a drive roller tire is damaged is called “scrubbing” in the art as Milender explains in [0005]. Milender teaches the detection of scrubbing in [0028]. In combination, Daw Perez would use Milender’s detection of scrubbing to trigger one of its alerts.
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 Daw Perez, wherein the electric alert signal provides an indication a damaged tire on the drive roller, because as Milender explains in [0006], scrubbing can cause damage to a PDU and so there is a clear benefit in detecting worn or damaged roller tires.
16. Claims 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daw Perez in view of McConnell, and further in view of Milender.
17. Regarding claim 17,
Daw Perez discloses:
the method comprising: receiving, by a controller (330: fig. 3A, [0035]), a characteristic sensed by a sensor, wherein the characteristic is associated with at least one of a housing of the power drive unit (110: fig. 1B, [0022]) or a motor (unnumbered, [0022]) housed within the power drive unit;Daw Perez discloses in [0040] collection of actuator data including electrical properties from its PDUs. The PDU comprises an actuator in the form of its motorized roller, and so the actuator data is a characteristic associated with the motor of the PDU.
However, Daw Perez does not disclose all aspects of:
A method for monitoring tire degradation of a power drive unitWhile Daw Perez monitors a power drive unit, it does not disclose monitoring it for tire degradation.
analyzing, by the controller, the characteristic to determine whether the characteristic exceeds a predetermined threshold;
and responsive to the characteristic exceeding the predetermined threshold,
issuing, by the controller, an electric alert signal indicating damaged to a tire on a drive roller of the power drive unit.With respect to the above three limitations, while Daw Perez discloses issuing an electric alert signal, it does not disclose doing so in response to exceeding a threshold or that the alert is due to a damaged roller tire.
McConnell, an invention in the field of cargo power drive units, teaches the limitations:
analyzing, by the controller, the characteristic to determine whether the characteristic exceeds a predetermined threshold;
and responsive to the characteristic exceeding the predetermined thresholdMcConnell teaches the determination of current exceeding a predetermined threshold in a PDU motor in claim 36.
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 Daw Perez, analyzing, by the controller, the characteristic to determine whether the characteristic exceeds a predetermined threshold; and responsive to the characteristic exceeding the predetermined threshold, as taught by McConnell, because most electrical devices are designed to operate within a particular range of current levels, and exceeding the upper limit of the range is a widely understood indicator of a fault in the device.
Milender, an invention in the field of cargo handling systems, teaches:
issuing, by the controller, an electric alert signal indicating damaged to a tire on a drive roller of the power drive unit.One of the modes in which a drive roller tire is damaged is called “scrubbing” in the art as Milender explains in [0005]. Milender teaches the detection of scrubbing in [0028]. In combination, Daw Perez would use Milender’s detection of scrubbing to trigger one of its alerts.
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 Daw Perez, issuing, by the controller, an electric alert signal indicating damaged to a tire on a drive roller of the power drive unit, because as Milender explains in [0006], scrubbing can cause damage to a PDU and so there is a clear benefit in detecting worn or damaged roller tires.
18. Regarding claim 18,
Daw Perez in view of McConnell and Milender teaches the limitations of claim 17 and also:
wherein the sensor is an electrical current sensor and wherein the electrical current sensor monitors electric current utilized by the motor while driving cargo via the drive roller.Daw Perez discloses electrical current sensing via actuators during cargo handling operation in [0040]. In this paragraph Daw Perez explains that the actuator data is sensor data.
19. Regarding claim 20,
Daw Perez in view of McConnell and Milender teaches the limitations of claim 17 and also:
wherein the characteristic is electrical current utilized by the motor when driving cargo via the drive roller and wherein the electric alert signal is issued in response to the electrical current exceeding the predetermined threshold.Daw Perez discloses electrical current sensing via actuators during cargo handling operation in [0040]. In this paragraph Daw Perez explains that the actuator data is sensor data. As this data may trigger an alert per [0041]-[0044] and flowchart fig. 4, the data constitutes the claimed characteristic.
Conclusion
20. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 6,420,846 cited in applicant’s IDS, teaches roller tire degradation in the form of “scrubbing”. US 7,032,740, also cited in applicant’s IDS, also teaches the detection of wear in rollers.
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