DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communication filed on 07 August 2025. Claims 1, 4, 6, 8-11 and 14-20 are amended. Claims 3 and 13 are canceled. No claim has been added. Claims 1-2, 4-12 and 14-20 are pending in the application and have been considered below.
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 argues that ["Nayak merely recognizes touches to a touch screen and Perez merely provides for adjusting the system autonomy level from a higher level of autonomous control to a lower level of autonomous control performed by a processor. (See Perez, paragraph [0008]). Nowhere in Nayak or Perez, are multiple cargo operating modes including an autonomous mode, a semi-autonomous mode, a manual mode, and a discrete mode presented to an operator via the touch screen display" (Page 9)]. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
PEREZ expressly teaches multiple cargo operating modes: “a flowchart 440 is provided that describes various steps in adjusting a level of autonomous control or a system autonomy level based on the confidence assessment step 418. As indicated with reference to FIG. 4B, the system autonomy level may comprise one of: (i) a discrete mode of operation 442 …; (ii) a manual mode of operation 444 …; (iii) an operator-assisted mode of operation 446 … ; (iv) a semi-autonomous mode of operation 448 …; and (v) a full-autonomous mode of operation 450 ... while the system autonomy level is determined by the processor at an autonomy level control step 428, a human operator may override the determination via entry of operator commands at an operator command step 452” (par. 0048, emphasis added; see also Fig. 4, items 442-450, and claim 1 rejection below).
Thus, the combination of NAYAK and PEREZ adequately discloses applicant's claimed limitation. Examiner respectfully reminds Applicants that during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 U.S.P.Q.2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
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.
Claims 1, 4-8, 11-12, 14-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAYAK et al. (US20200361607A1) in view of DAW PEREZ et al. (US20210318668A1) [hereinafter PEREZ].
As to claim 1, NAYAK teaches a controller for a cargo handling system, comprising: a touch screen display; a processor; and a memory operatively coupled to the processor (Fig. 3, par. 0051, wherein FIG. 3 illustrates a Portable Cargo Panel (PCP) 200, which is a portable electronic device having a touch screen (display) 202, a processor 204 and a wireless transceiver 206. The PCP 200 remotely controls the CHUs 120 to allow for loading and unloading ULDs 100 from the cargo compartments 110 and to manipulate ULDs 100 within the cargo compartments 110. The disclosed PCP 200 includes but is not limited to tablet computing devices, mobile phones, etc.; as taught by NAYAK),
the memory comprising instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: present to an operator via the touch screen display (Fig. 2, par. 0052, wherein the PCP 200 may support recognition of a plurality of gestures including single-touch gestures and multi-touch gestures as further disclosed below. The PCP 200 may recognize gestures as commands to execute cargo handling operations and the PCP 200 may forward the commands to the control panels 160 for execution in the compartments 110 by the CHUs 120. In one embodiment, the PCP 200 communicates with the second control panel 160 b via the first control panel 160 a. In additional or alternatively, the PCP 200 directly communicates with each of the control panels 160; as taught by NAYAK);
responsive to receiving a selection of a cargo operating mode from the multiple cargo operating modes, present a set of operations associated with the cargo operating mode to the operator (see Figs.4-5B, par. 0054, wherein FIG. 5a shows the display of the PCP 200 after connecting to the first control panel 160 a. Such connection is obtained following an operator has engaged the PCP 200 and provided an input command, via an input gesture, to connect to the first control panel 160 a. Similarly, FIG. 5b shows the display on the PCP 200 after connecting to the second control panel 160 b; as taught by NAYAK);
and responsive to receiving a selection of at least one operation from the set of operations associated with the cargo operating mode, sending at least one command to the cargo handling system (see par. 0058, wherein the PCP 200 transmits a command to the first control panel 160 a to control the CHUs 120 to move the first ULD 100 a along the first transport path 210 a. The first control panel 160 a in turn controls the CHUs 120 in the first compartment 110 a to move the first ULD 100 a along the first transport path 210 a; as taught by NAYAK).
NAYAK does not teach multiple cargo operating modes including an autonomous mode, a semi- autonomous mode, a manual mode, and a discrete mode.
In similar field of endeavor, PEREZ teaches multiple cargo operating modes including an autonomous mode, a semi- autonomous mode, a manual mode, and a discrete mode (see Fig. 4, par. 0048, wherein a flowchart 440 is provided that describes various steps in adjusting a level of autonomous control or a system autonomy level based on the confidence assessment step 418. As indicated with reference to FIG. 4B, the system autonomy level may comprise one of: (i) a discrete mode of operation 442 …; (ii) a manual mode of operation 444 …; (iii) an operator-assisted mode of operation 446 … ; (iv) a semi-autonomous mode of operation 448 …; and (v) a full-autonomous mode of operation 450 ... while the system autonomy level is determined by the processor at an autonomy level control step 428, a human operator may override the determination via entry of operator commands at an operator command step 452; see also pars. 0005 and 0010; as taught by PEREZ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the NAYAK apparatus to include the teachings of PEREZ for multiple cargo operating modes including an autonomous mode, a semi- autonomous mode, a manual mode, and a discrete mode. Such a person would have been motivated to make this combination as Systems and methods configured to detect and report on the real-time operational status of cargo handling systems configured for autonomous operation and the real-time conditions of the cargo being transported over such systems are advantageous both to owners and operators of the cargo handling systems and to the owners of the cargo being transported (see also PEREZ, par. 0003).
As to claim 4, NAYAK and PEREZ teach the limitations of claim 1. PEREZ further teaches wherein in the autonomous mode, the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to: load a loading plan for loading a unit load device (ULD) into a cargo compartment (see Figs. 1A-4B, par. 0040, wherein with continued reference to FIGS. 3A and 3B, the plurality of sensing agents 360 may be configured to perform one or more tasks during the cargo loading or unloading process. For example, the plurality of sensing agents 360 may be configured to perform a ULD localization task, a non-ULD detection task or a ULD modeling task; as taught by PEREZ). NAYAK further teaches and responsive to receiving an initiate command from the operator, automatically load the ULD into the cargo compartment according to the loading plan (see par. 0007, wherein the method includes detecting a second gesture on the display; determining that the second gesture is a command for moving a first ULD along a first transport path that is a linear path into, within, or out of the first cargo compartment; determining whether the first transport path is valid; when the first transport path is valid, forwarding a command to move the first ULD along the first transport path to the first control panel, whereby the first control panel commands the plurality of CHUs to move the ULD along the first transport path; as taught by NAYAK) [see also PEREZ , par. Fig. 4B, par. 0048].
As to claim 5, NAYAK and PEREZ teach the limitations of claim 4. NAYAK further teaches wherein in loading the ULD into the cargo compartment, the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to: display, via the touch screen display, the ULD to be loaded; display, via the touch screen display, an end location in the cargo compartment for the ULD; and display, via the touch screen display, a path the ULD will move within the cargo compartment (see par. 0008, wherein the method includes obtaining operational state updates for the plurality of CHUs from first control panel while the CHUs are moving the first ULD along the first transport path; displaying the operational states for the plurality of CHUs while the CHUs are moving the first ULD along the first transport path; wherein the operational states include: running; and standby; as taught by NAYAK).
As to claim 6, NAYAK and PEREZ teach the limitations of claim 1. NAYAK further teaches wherein in the autonomous mode, the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to: load an unloading plan for unloading unit load device (ULD) into a cargo compartment; and responsive to receiving an initiate command from the operator, automatically unload the ULD from the cargo compartment according to the unloading plan (see Figs. 1A-4B, par. 0023, wherein after the aircraft 10 has reached its destination, each ULD 20 is unloaded from the aircraft 10 in similar fashion, but in reverse sequence to the loading procedure. To facilitate movement of the ULD 20 along the cargo deck 12, the aircraft 10 may include a cargo handling system as described herein; see also claim 4 rejection above; as taught by PEREZ).
As to claim 7, NAYAK and PEREZ teach the limitations of claim 6. NAYAK further teaches wherein in unloading the ULD from the cargo compartment, the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to: display, via the touch screen display, the ULD to be unloaded; display, via the touch screen display, an end location on an unloader for the ULD; and display, via the touch screen display, a path the ULD will move within the cargo compartment (see Figs. 1A-4B, par. 0023, wherein after the aircraft 10 has reached its destination, each ULD 20 is unloaded from the aircraft 10 in similar fashion, but in reverse sequence to the loading procedure. To facilitate movement of the ULD 20 along the cargo deck 12, the aircraft 10 may include a cargo handling system as described herein; see also claim 5 rejection above; as taught by PEREZ).
As to claim 8, NAYAK and PEREZ teach the limitations of claim 1. NAYAK further teaches wherein in the semi-autonomous mode, the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to: receive a selection of a unit load device (ULD) to move within a cargo compartment; receive a selection of a destination location for the ULD; and responsive to receiving an initiate command from the operator, automatically move the ULD to the destination location (see Figs. 1A-4B, par. 0048, wherein as indicated with reference to FIG. 4B, the system autonomy level may comprise one of: … (iv) a semi-autonomous mode of operation 448, in which operation of the cargo handling system is controlled autonomously, but a human operator is responsible for performing safety critical operations, such as, for example, restraining loads after being moved into position …; as taught by PEREZ).
Claim 11 amounts to the cargo handling system incorporating the controller of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 1 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.
Claim 12 amounts to the cargo handling system incorporating the controller of claim 2. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 2 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.
Claim 14 amounts to the cargo handling system incorporating the controller of claims 4 and 5 collectively. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claims 4 and 5 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.
Claim 15 amounts to the cargo handling system incorporating the controller of claims 6 and 7 collectively. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claims 6 and 7 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.
Claim 16 amounts to the cargo handling system incorporating the controller of claim 8. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 8 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.
Claim 19 amounts to an aircraft comprising the cargo handling system incorporating the controller of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 1 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.
Claim 20 amounts to an aircraft comprising the cargo handling system incorporating the controller of claims 2 and 3 collectively. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claims 2 and 3 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.
Claims 2, 9-10 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAYAK et al. (US20200361607A1) in view of DAW PEREZ et al. (US20210318668A1) [hereinafter PEREZ] and further view of BALASUBRAMANIAN et al. (US20200102076A1).
As to claim 2, NAYAK and PEREZ teach the limitations of claim 1. NAYAK and PEREZ do not expressly teach wherein the controller further comprises: a set of physical buttons, wherein the selection of the cargo operating mode from the multiple cargo operating modes is received either via the touch screen display or via at least one physical button of the set of physical buttons.
In similar field of endeavor, BALASUBRAMANIAN teaches wherein the controller further comprises: a set of physical buttons, wherein the selection of the cargo operating mode from the multiple cargo operating modes is received either via the touch screen display or via at least one physical button of the set of physical buttons (See Figs. 1-15, pa. 0014, wherein embodiments also include a method of operating a wireless portable cargo control panel with physical controls. The method includes detecting a docking status of a portable electronic device (PED), modifying soft controls of a display of the PED, controlling cargo operations of a cargo compartment using inputs from at least one of the soft controls of the PED or physical controls of the PCP based on the docking status, and displaying a status of the cargo operation and a status of the control components on the display of the PED; as taught by BALASUBRAMANIAN).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the NAYAK and PEREZ apparatus to include the teachings of BALASUBRAMANIAN wherein the controller further comprises: a set of physical buttons, wherein the selection of the cargo operating mode from the multiple cargo operating modes is received either via the touch screen display or via at least one physical button of the set of physical buttons. Such a person would have been motivated to make this combination as it proliferation of portable electronic devices (PEDs), such as tablet computing devices, mobile phones, etc., which are being integrated into a cockpits/cabins of aircrafts have revolutionized the aviation industry particularly in the area of cargo handling, crew interface, etc. The flexibility of PEDs enable implementation of control panel functionalities along with the displays in the PEDs as it makes the control functions much easier and more convenient when there are soft keys and physical buttons to execute functions where for example one cannot use the soft keys due to wearing gloves. The portability of the PEDs enables the operator to freely carry the integrated control panel and display in the cargo compartment (BALASUBRAMANIAN, par. 0003).
As to claim 9, NAYAK and PEREZ teach the limitations of claim 1. PEREZ further teaches wherein in the manual mode, the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to: receive a selection of a unit load device (ULD) to move within a cargo compartment; receive a selection of at least one operation to be performed in moving the ULD within the cargo compartment (see Figs. 1A-4B, par. 0048, wherein as indicated with reference to FIG. 4B, the system autonomy level may comprise one of: … (ii) a manual mode of operation 444, in which both situational assessment (e.g., monitoring the trajectory of a ULD, the operation of a restraint device or an actuator, or the presence of a human within the aircraft envelope) is performed and operation of the cargo handling system is controlled by a human operator (in this mode, an operator has control of multiple actuators under a load, such that all actuators will operate at the same velocity and direction to move the load as a whole) …; as taught by PEREZ).
NAYAK and PEREZ do not expressly teach and responsive to receiving a command from the operator via a joystick, move the ULD according to the command received via the joystick.
In similar field of endeavor, BALASUBRAMANIAN teaches responsive to receiving a command from the operator via a joystick, move the ULD according to the command received via the joystick (See Figs. 1-15, par. 0045, wherein the techniques also provide to dock/undock PED on the portable control panel, wherein the PCP includes physical control components like selection switches, control joystick and orientation indicator displays to perform the cargo operations in the aircraft; see also par. 0054, wherein In zone 3, the physical control joystick 108 provides the ability to move the cargo ULD in all four directions, (i.e. FORWARD, AFT, LEFT, and RIGHT). The physical selection switches 106 provide the ability to rotate and drive the cargo ULD in zone 3; as taught by BALASUBRAMANIAN).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the NAYAK and PEREZ apparatus to include the teachings of BALASUBRAMANIAN wherein responsive to receiving a command from the operator via a joystick, move the ULD according to the command received via the joystick. Such a person would have been motivated to make this combination as it proliferation of portable electronic devices (PEDs), such as tablet computing devices, mobile phones, etc., which are being integrated into a cockpits/cabins of aircrafts have revolutionized the aviation industry particularly in the area of cargo handling, crew interface, etc. The flexibility of PEDs enable implementation of control panel functionalities along with the displays in the PEDs as it makes the control functions much easier and more convenient when there are soft keys and physical buttons/joysticks to execute functions where for example one cannot use the soft keys due to wearing gloves. The portability of the PEDs enables the operator to freely carry the integrated control panel and display in the cargo compartment (BALASUBRAMANIAN, par. 0003).
As to claim 10, NAYAK and PEREZ teach the limitations of claim 1. NAYAK further teaches wherein in the discrete mode, the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to: display, via the touch screen display, one or more power drive units (PDUs) associated with a unit load device (ULD) to move within a cargo compartment; receive a selection of at least one PDU from the one or more PDUs (see Figs. 1A-4B, par. 0048, wherein as indicated with reference to FIG. 4B, the system autonomy level may comprise one of: … (i) a discrete mode of operation 442, in which one or more specific actuators of the cargo handling system are controlled by a human operator (this mode is useful for irregular shaped or non-common loads or when a load becomes stuck or off-trajectory, where velocity and direction of an actuator may be controlled to resolve the situation) …; as taught by PEREZ).
NAYAK and PEREZ do not expressly teach and responsive to receiving a command from the operator via a joystick, operate the at least one PDU according to the command received via the joystick.
In similar field of endeavor, BALASUBRAMANIAN teaches responsive to receiving a command from the operator via a joystick, operate the at least one PDU according to the command received via the joystick (See Figs. 1-15, par. 0045, wherein the techniques also provide to dock/undock PED on the portable control panel, wherein the PCP includes physical control components like selection switches, control joystick and orientation indicator displays to perform the cargo operations in the aircraft; see also par. 0054, wherein In zone 3, the physical control joystick 108 provides the ability to move the cargo ULD in all four directions, (i.e. FORWARD, AFT, LEFT, and RIGHT). The physical selection switches 106 provide the ability to rotate and drive the cargo ULD in zone 3; as taught by BALASUBRAMANIAN).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the NAYAK and PEREZ apparatus to include the teachings of BALASUBRAMANIAN wherein responsive to receiving a command from the operator via a joystick, operate the at least one PDU according to the command received via the joystick. Such a person would have been motivated to make this combination as it proliferation of portable electronic devices (PEDs), such as tablet computing devices, mobile phones, etc., which are being integrated into a cockpits/cabins of aircrafts have revolutionized the aviation industry particularly in the area of cargo handling, crew interface, etc. The flexibility of PEDs enable implementation of control panel functionalities along with the displays in the PEDs as it makes the control functions much easier and more convenient when there are soft keys and physical buttons/joysticks to execute functions where for example one cannot use the soft keys due to wearing gloves. The portability of the PEDs enables the operator to freely carry the integrated control panel and display in the cargo compartment (BALASUBRAMANIAN, par. 0003).
Claim 17 amounts to the cargo handling system incorporating the controller of claim 9. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 9 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.
Claim 18 amounts to the cargo handling system incorporating the controller of claim 10. Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 10 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Publication Number
Filing Date
Title
US11447248B2
2018-12-20
Unmanned vehicle cargo handling and carrying system
US20210309354A1
2021-03-30
System and method for package transportation
US9366128B2
2013-05-22
Automated wellbore equipment feeding system
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 KOOROSH NEHCHIRI whose telephone number is (408)918-7643. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 11-7 PST.
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, William L. Bashore can be reached at 571-272-4088. 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.
/KOOROSH NEHCHIRI/Examiner, Art Unit 2174
/WILLIAM L BASHORE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights