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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “first command” as claimed in claim 17, “a second command” as claimed in claim 18, and “the second command” as claimed in claim 19 as must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2, 10 and 18-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 and claim 10, recites “in order to drive the cargo in the predetermined direction, the controller is configured to send a command to engage the drive roller of at least one of the power drive unit or the at least one other power drive unit”. The phrase “the controller” is indefinite because it is unclear which controller (130 or 240 or 500) is configured to send command. This is confusing as the controller that communicates with the drive unit (claim 1 and 9) is disclosed as being different from the one sending commands to the drive rollers (claims 2 and 10).
Claim 18, recites “in order to drive the cargo in the first direction, the controller is configured to send a second command to engage a drive roller of the first power drive unit”. The phrase “the controller” is indefinite because it is unclear which controller (130 or 240 or 500) is configured to send a second message. This is confusing as the controller that provides communication between the drive units (claim 17) is disclosed as being different from the one sending commands to the drive rollers (claim 18).
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(s) 1-6, 9-14 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 10414498 B2 (Harms et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Harms et al. discloses a cargo handling system (title), comprising:
a plurality of power drive units (Fig. 2, 28, Fig.5, 201 Fig. 9, 812-822), wherein each power drive unit (28, 812-822) in the plurality of power drive (28, 812-822) units comprises:
a drive roller (column 1, lines 13-18);
a motor (column 1, lines 13-18) configured to rotate the drive roller; and
a controller (Fig. 5, 306), the controller is configured to:
directly communicate with at least one other power drive unit of the plurality of power drive units to drive cargo in a predetermined direction (Fig. 5-7, Fig.8, 902-914, and Fig. 9 column 10, lines 49-61).
Regarding claim 2, Harms et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. It also discloses wherein; in order to drive the cargo in the predetermined direction (see Fig. 9), the controller (306) is configured to send a command to engage the drive roller of at least one of the power drive unit or the at least one other power drive unit (column 10, lines 49-61).
Regarding claim 3, Harms et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. It also discloses wherein the at least one other power drive unit (Fig. 9, 812) is a power drive unit adjacent to the power drive unit (Fig.9, 814 and it can be seen in Fig.2 and Fig.9).
Regarding claim 4, Harms et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. It also discloses wherein, by each power drive unit (Fig. 9, 812) of the plurality of power drive units communicating with the at least one other power drive unit (Fig. 9, 814) of the plurality of power drive units (Fig. 9, 812-822), a mesh network of communication is formed by of the plurality of power drive units (It can be seen in Fig.9, 812-822 are creating mesh network).
Regarding claim 5, Harms et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. It also discloses wherein the predetermined direction is provided from an operator via an operator controller (Fig. 4, 112, Column 7, lines 38-47).
Regarding claim 6, Harms et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. It also discloses a presence sensor (Fig.5, 304), wherein the controller is further configured to send a command to engage the drive roller of in response to receiving a signal from the presence sensor indicating a presence of the cargo (Column 7, lines 57-59 and 65-67).
Regarding claim 9, Harms et al. discloses an aircraft (Fig. 1), the aircraft comprising:
cargo handling system (title), the cargo handling system, comprising:
a plurality of power drive units (Fig. 2, 28, Fig.5, 201 Fig. 9, 812-822), wherein each power drive unit (28, 812-822) in the plurality of power drive (28, 812-822) units comprises:
a drive roller (column 1, lines 13-18);
a motor (column 1, lines 13-18) configured to rotate the drive roller; and
a controller (Fig. 5, 306), the controller is configured to:
directly communicate with at least one other power drive unit of the plurality of power drive units to drive cargo in a predetermined direction (Fig. 5-7, Fig.8, 902-914, and Fig. 9 column 10, lines 49-61).
Regarding claim 10, Harms et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 9. It also discloses wherein; in order to drive the cargo in the predetermined direction (see Fig. 9), the controller (306) is configured to send a command to engage the drive roller of at least one of the power drive unit or the at least one other power drive unit (column 10, lines 49-61).
Regarding claim 11, Harms et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 9. It also discloses wherein the at least one other power drive unit (Fig. 9, 812) is a power drive unit adjacent to the power drive unit (Fig.9, 814, It can be seen in Fig.2 and Fig.9).
Regarding claim 12, Harms et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 9. It also discloses wherein, by each power drive unit (Fig. 9, 812) of the plurality of power drive units communicating with the at least one other power drive unit (Fig. 9, 814) of the plurality of power drive units (Fig. 9, 812-822), a mesh network of communication is formed by of the plurality of power drive units (It can be seen in Fig.9, 812-822 are creating mesh network).
Regarding claim 13, Harms et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 9. It also discloses wherein the predetermined direction is provided from an operator via an operator controller (Fig. 4, 112, Column 7, lines 38-47).
Regarding claim 14, Harms et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 9. It also discloses a presence sensor (Fig.5, 304), wherein the controller is further configured to send a command to engage the drive roller of in response to receiving a signal from the presence sensor indicating a presence of the cargo (Column 7, lines 57-59 and 65-67).
Regarding claim 17, Harms et al. discloses a method for a plurality of power drive units (Fig. 9, 812-822) to drive cargo (Fig. 9, 801), the method (Fig. 8) comprising: establishing, by a controller (Fig. 5, 306) in a first power drive unit (812) of the plurality of power drive units (812-822), communications with at least one other controller (as per Fig. 5, each has controller 306) in at least one other power drive unit (814) in the plurality of power drive units (812-822); and responsive to receiving a first command (First command will be receive from 112) to drive the cargo in a first direction (Column 11, Lines 17-25, initial state of Fig. 9), communicating, by the controller (306 will detect the presence of UDL) in the first power drive unit (812), with the at least one other controller (814) in the at least one other power drive unit (816) in order that both the first power drive unit and the at least one other power drive unit drive the cargo in the first direction (PDU 812-822 are performing this steps it can be seen in Fig. 9, see column 11 lines, 14-45).
Regarding claim 18, Harms et al. discloses wherein; in order to drive the cargo (801) in the first direction, the controller (306) is configured to send a second command (in response to the request from 112) to engage a drive roller of the first power drive unit (306 will activate the roller of 812).
Regarding claim 19, Harms et al. discloses wherein the controller (306) is configured to send the second command to engage the drive roller of the first power drive unit in response to receiving a signal from a presence sensor indicating a presence of the cargo (See Fig. 5, 304 will detect the presence of UDL 801, controller will drive the roller of PDU 812, it can be seen in FIG. 9).
Regarding claim 20, Harms et al. discloses wherein the at least one other power drive unit (Fig. 9, 812) is a power drive unit adjacent to the power drive unit (Fig.9, 814 and it can be seen in Fig.2 and Fig.9).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10414498 B2 (Harms et al.) in view of US 20240002161 A1 (Bretz et al.).
Regarding claim 7, Harms et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. It explicitly fails to teach wherein a size of the cargo may be determined by the plurality of power drive units based on at least two power drive units of the plurality of power drive units providing signals from respective presence sensors indicating a presence of the cargo.
Bretz et al. teaches a size of the cargo may be determined by the plurality of power drive units based on at least two power drive units of the plurality of power drive units providing signals from respective presence sensors indicating a presence of the cargo (¶0073).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified Harms et al. by incorporating a size of the cargo may be determined by the plurality of power drive units based on at least two power drive units of the plurality of power drive units providing signals from respective presence sensors indicating a presence of the cargo in view of Bretz et al. in order to control the movement accurately and to improve the cargo handling system by avoiding unnecessary operation of PDU.
Regarding claim 15, Harms et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. It explicitly fails to teach wherein a size of the cargo may be determined by the plurality of power drive units based on at least two power drive units of the plurality of power drive units providing signals from respective presence sensors indicating a presence of the cargo.
Bretz et al. teaches a size of the cargo may be determined by the plurality of power drive units based on at least two power drive units of the plurality of power drive units providing signals from respective presence sensors indicating a presence of the cargo (¶0073).
For the purpose of motivation statement see rejection of claim 7.
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10414498 B2 (Harms et al.) in view of US 7522540 B1 (Maufer).
Regarding claim 8 and 16, Harms et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and claim 9. It explicitly fails to teach wherein, responsive to at least one power drive unit of the plurality of power drive units experiencing an event such that the at least one power drive unit becomes non-operational and responsive to the at least one power drive unit recovering from the event, the controller is configured to: establish communication with at the least one other power drive unit of the plurality of power drive units; request configuration information from the at least one other power drive unit; and responsive to receiving the configuration information, rejoin the plurality of power drive units as part of a mesh network.
Mafuer teaches wherein, responsive to at least one power drive unit of the plurality of power drive units experiencing an event such that the at least one power drive unit becomes non-operational (Fig. 4B, Column 11, lines 58-60, node, PDU 133 fails which fails Node, PDU 132 as well, means 132 becomes non-operational) and responsive to the at least one power drive unit recovering from the event (column 11, lines 60-66, in this situation), the controller is configured to: establish communication with at the least one other power drive unit of the plurality of power drive units (column 11-12, lines 66-34, 132 tries to reestablish the network with 131); request configuration information from the at least one other power drive unit; and responsive to receiving the configuration information, rejoin the plurality of power drive units as part of a mesh network (Column 12, lines 35-344,node, PDU 132 rejoins to node, PDU 131). (Note: Mafuer teaches that mesh networks are well known in the art and node or PDU becomes non operative in the mesh connection, Node or PDU and tries to establish communication to gain configuration and rejoin the network without interference of master controller is well known method. One of the known advantages of having mesh network, which is not an innovative concept).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified Harms et al. by incorporating where in responsive to at least one power drive unit of the plurality of power drive units experiencing an event such that the at least one power drive unit becomes non-operational and responsive to the at least one power drive unit recovering from the event, the controller is configured to: establish communication with at the least one other power drive unit of the plurality of power drive units; request configuration information from the at least one other power drive unit; and responsive to receiving the configuration information, rejoin the plurality of power drive units as part of a mesh network in view of Maufer in order to maintain the uninterrupted cargo handling.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other cited prior art listed on PTO-892 forms shows other cargo handling system. Specially, US 20200156791 A1 (Robert et. al.) teaches claimed subject matter of claim 1-6, 9-14 and 17-20. See Fig. 1-5. It is mainly about a PDU and controller connected to mesh network. See method steps in Fig. 5. US 10583988 B1 (Zeidner et al.) also teaches claimed invention of claim 1 (see fig. 1 and 2), Claim 2 (column 5, lines 24-49), claims 3, 4, 5 11, 12 and 13 and (see Fig. 2 and column 5, lines 43-46 can be read as a mesh network). US 20240002161 A1 (Bretz et al.) also teaches the claimed invention of claim 4 and 12. (see ¶0110, ¶0203-¶0205 and claim 26, teaches swarm network between PDU). US 10841744 B2 (Patil et. al.) teaches claimed invention of claim 8 and 16 (see fig. 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAIMIN G PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 517-272-7097. 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.
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/JAIMIN G PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights