DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 were pending and were rejected in the previous office action.
Claims 1, 6, 16, 17, and 20 were amended, and new claim 21 was added.
Claims 1-21 remain pending and are examined in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections:
Claim 6 was previously objected to for informalities. The claim has been amended to recite “a second total weight of a second subset of the plurality of shipments in the plurality of unit load devices” and overcome the objection as suggested in the previous office action. Therefore, the objection is withdrawn.
However, see the new objections to claims 1 and 20 in response to the current amendments.
35 USC § 101 Rejection:
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous § 101 rejection of claims 1-20 (pgs. 11-12, remarks filed 5/20/2026) have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Note that while the remarks do not appear to include page numbers, the 5/20/2026 response indicates that the remarks begin at page 11.
Applicant argues (pg. 11-12, remarks) that the amended claims (claims 1, 16 and 20) recite “causing the loading of the cargo into the compartment of the cargo hold of the aircraft according to the determined one of the plurality of possible shipping configurations that satisfies the at least one rule” and thus integrate the abstract idea into a practical application to cause the loading of cargo, which “advantageously determine the optimal loading of cargo into particular ULDs before cargo is actually placed into any ULDs, which is advantageous over packing cargo into ULDs and then determining weight balance calculations” (citing specification at [0030]).
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Causing the loading of cargo, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, does not require controlling or operating some type of cargo loading machinery, but instead could simply include outputting a loading instruction for loading the cargo, and thus merely further describes the abstract idea itself. Furthermore, cited paragraph [0030] of the specification at most indicates an improvement to the underlying abstract idea by determining the optimal loading configuration prior to loading. While this may potentially improve the cargo load planning process (the abstract idea or underlying business process), it does not provide an improvement to computer functionality or provide an improvement to any specific technology or technical field.
Therefore, the previous § 101 rejection is maintained and is updated in response to applicant’s amendments and new claim 21. Please see the current § 101 rejection of claims 1-21 below.
35 USC § 103 Rejections:
Applicant’s arguments specific to the § 103 rejections of claims 16-19 (pgs. 12-16, remarks filed 5/20/2026) have been considered but are moot, as they do not apply to the current § 103 rejections of claims 16-19 below in response to applicant’s amendments. Please see the updated § 103 rejections of claims 16-19 below.
Applicant’s arguments specific to the § 103 rejections of claims 1-15 and 20 (pgs. 12-16, remarks filed 5/20/2026) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claims 1 and 20 are amended to overcome the previously cited and any newly identified prior art, as discussed in the reasons for novelty/non-obviousness below. The § 103 rejections of claims 1-15 and 20 are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 20 each recite two instances of “each of the plurality of possible shipping configuration” which appear they should recite “each of the plurality of possible shipping configurations” (plural).
Claims 1 and 20 also recite “evaluating each of the plurality of possible shipping configuration by the optimization model without one or more constraints associated with the at least one rule for whether one of the plurality of possible shipping configurations that satisfies the at least one rule” – which appears to be a grammatical error/typo that is intended to read along the lines of “evaluating each of the plurality of possible shipping configuration by the optimization model without one or more constraints associated with the at least one rule for whether one of the plurality of possible shipping configurations
Claims 1 and 20 also recite “evaluating each of the plurality of possible shipping configuration by the updated optimization model to determine whether one of the plurality of possible shipping configurations that satisfies the at least one rule” which appears to be a grammatical error/typo that is intended to read along the lines of “evaluating each of the plurality of possible shipping configuration by the updated optimization model to determine whether one of the plurality of possible shipping configurations
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-15 and 21 recite “A method…” (i.e. a process); claims 16-19 recite “A non-transitory computer readable medium…” (i.e. an article of manufacture); and claim 20 recites “A system comprising: a memory; and at least one processor…” (i.e. a machine). These claims fall under one of the four categories of statutory subject matter and as a result, pass Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test. However, “Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) in Step 1 does not end the eligibility analysis, because claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (such as a mathematical formula or equation), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection.” See MPEP 2106.04. Accordingly, the examiner continues the subject matter eligibility analysis below.
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claims 1 and 20 (using claim 1 as representative) recite limitations for:
receiving…first data indicative of a plurality of predetermined configurations for loading cargo into a compartment of a cargo hold of an aircraft, wherein each of the plurality of predetermined configurations comprises a possible layout of a plurality of unit load devices, wherein the plurality of unit load devices comprises at least two different types of unit load devices;
receiving…second data indicative of a plurality of shipments available for transportation in the aircraft, wherein each one of the plurality of shipments is:
pre-packaged into a first unit load device type of the at least two different types of unit load devices, or
configured for placement into a second unit load device type of the at least two different types of unit load devices;
determining…a plurality of possible shipping configurations from the plurality of predetermined configurations, each one of the plurality of possible shipping configurations comprising:
a recommended assignment of each of the plurality of shipments into or as one of the plurality of unit load devices, and
a recommended location of each of the plurality of unit load devices within the cargo hold of the aircraft according to the possible layout of each of the plurality of possible shipping configurations;
determining…based on an optimization model corresponding to at least one rule related to weight balancing of the aircraft, one of the plurality of possible shipping configurations that satisfies the at least one rule by:
evaluating each of the plurality of possible shipping configuration by the optimization model without one or more constraints associated with the at least one rule for whether one of the plurality of possible shipping configurations that satisfies the at least one rule,
at a first time, in response to any of the plurality of possible shipping configuration not satisfying the at least one rule:
updating the optimization model to add at least one of the one or more constraints, and
evaluating each of the plurality of possible shipping configuration by the updated optimization model to determine whether one of the plurality of possible shipping configurations that satisfies the at least one rule,
at a second time, in response to at least one of the plurality of possible shipping configuration satisfying the at least one rule, determining the one of the plurality of possible shipping configurations that satisfies the at least one rule; and
causing the loading of the cargo into the compartment of the cargo hold of the aircraft according to the determined one of the plurality of possible shipping configurations that satisfies the at least one rule
Independent claim 16 recites similar limitations for:
receiving first data indicative of a plurality of predetermined configurations for loading cargo into a compartment of a cargo hold of an aircraft, wherein each of the plurality of predetermined configurations comprises a possible layout of a plurality of unit load devices, wherein the plurality of unit load devices comprises at least two different types of unit load devices;
receiving second data indicative of a plurality of shipments available for transportation in the aircraft, wherein each one of the plurality of shipments is:
pre-packaged into a first unit load device type of the at least two different types of unit load devices, or
configured for placement into a second unit load device type of the at least two different types of unit load devices;
determining a plurality of possible shipping configurations from the plurality of predetermined configurations, each one of the plurality of possible shipping configurations comprising:
a recommended assignment of each of the plurality of shipments into or as one of the plurality of unit load devices, and
a recommended location of each of the plurality of unit load devices within the cargo hold of the aircraft according to the possible layout of each of the plurality of possible shipping configurations;
determining a subset of the plurality of possible shipping configurations based on three dimensional volumes of the plurality of shipments from the second data;
determining, based on at least one rule related to weight balancing of the aircraft, one of the plurality of possible shipping configurations that satisfies the at least one rule; and
causing the loading of the cargo into the compartment of the cargo hold of the aircraft according to the determined one of the subset of the plurality of possible shipping configurations that satisfies the at least one rule
The limitations of independent claims 1, 16, and 20 above are determined to recite an abstract idea (i.e. determining a shipping configuration from a plurality of possible shipping configurations for transporting cargo in an aircraft, based a weight balancing rule and/or other constraints, and causing loading of the cargo into the cargo hold of the aircraft according to the determined shipping configuration) for the reasons discussed in the following continued Step 2A Prong One analysis. Note that “An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction.” Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
As per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), claim limitations which recite commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations) or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) fall into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” category of judicial exceptions. Therefore, since the processes described by the limitations above amount to a commercial interaction (i.e. determining a shipping configuration from a plurality of possible shipping configurations for transporting cargo in an aircraft, based a weight balancing rule and/or other constraints, and causing loading of the cargo into the cargo hold of the aircraft according to the determined shipping configuration), the claims fall into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, causing the loading of cargo does not require controlling or operating some type of cargo loading machinery, but instead could simply include generating/outputting a loading instruction for loading the cargo, and thus merely further describes the abstract idea itself.
As described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), “[T]he "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” and “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.” The limitations recited by the representative independent claims 1, 16 and 20 above, under the broadest reasonable interpretation and but for the use of generic computer components, cover concepts (e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) that can reasonably be performed in the human mind or by the human mind with the aid of simple tools such as pen and paper. For example, the “receiving…first data,” and “receiving…second data” of claims 1/16/20 steps are observations, while the “determining…a plurality of possible shipping configurations,” (claims 1/16/20), “evaluating…updating…evaluating…determining the one of the plurality of possible shipping configurations” (claims 1/20), “determining a subset…” and “determining…one of the subset…” (claim 16), and “causing the loading of the cargo…” (claims 1/16/20) steps are evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. Further, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the step for causing the loading of cargo does not require controlling or operating some type of cargo loading machinery, but instead could simply include generating/outputting a loading instruction for loading the cargo, and thus covers the performance of an evaluation, judgement or opinion (with or without the aid of simple tools such as pen/paper). Therefore, as the processes above described by the representative independent claims 1, 16 and 20 can be characterized as mental processes (i.e. observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion), but for the recitation of generic computer components in the claims, the claims fall under the “mental processes” category of judicial exceptions (i.e. abstract ideas).
As claims 1, 16 and 20 are identified by the examiner as reciting concepts that fall under more than one abstract idea grouping (i.e. “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes”), the examiner considers the limitations together as a single abstract idea for the purposes of the Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B analysis, in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(II)(B).
Step 2A Prong Two:
The judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) recited in claims 1, 16 and 20 is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. determining a shipping configuration from a plurality of possible shipping configurations for transporting cargo in an aircraft, based a weight balancing rule and/or other constraints, and causing loading of the cargo into the cargo hold of the aircraft according to the determined shipping configuration) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. “by a processor of a computing device” of claim 1, “A non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by a computing device, cause the computing device to perform operations” of claim 16, and “A system comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory, the at least one processor configured to…” of claim 20). The use of these additional elements to receive data amounts to the use of computers in their ordinary capacity (i.e. receiving/transmitting data) and amounts to nothing more than generic computer implementation to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f), showing “[C]laims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp.” Therefore, because the claims, considered as a whole, do not recite anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Furthermore, even if the step for causing loading of the cargo, as performed by the generic computer components, is narrowly interpreted to cover sending a loading instruction, this would at most amount to the use of generic computer components in their ordinary capacity to receive or transmit data.
Therefore, as the claims as a whole do not recite anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, claims 1, 16, and 20 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 16 and 20 do not include additional elements, whether considered alone or in an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) because as mentioned above, the claims recite mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. determining a shipping configuration from a plurality of possible shipping configurations for transporting cargo in an aircraft, based a weight balancing rule and/or other constraints, and causing loading of the cargo into the cargo hold of the aircraft according to the determined shipping configuration) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. “by a processor of a computing device” of claim 1, “A non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by a computing device, cause the computing device to perform operations” of claim 16, and “A system comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory, the at least one processor configured to…” of claim 20). Furthermore, even if the step for causing loading of the cargo, as performed by the generic computer components, is narrowly interpreted to cover sending a loading instruction, this would at most amount to the use of generic computer components in their ordinary capacity to receive or transmit data. Considering the additional elements as an ordered combination does not alter the analysis above, and does not indicate anything more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea via generic computer implementation. Therefore, claims 1, 16 and 20 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent Claims 2-15, 17-19, and 21:
Dependent claims 2-15, 17-19, and 21 are directed to the same abstract idea as independent claims 1 and 16 above as they do not recite anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 2-15, 18-19, and 21 recite the following limitations, which further describe the abstract idea(s) for: “sending…the one of the plurality of possible shipping configurations…” (claim 2); further describing requirements of the at least one rule related to weight balancing (claims 3-5, 7-9); further describing the compartment, a second compartment in the aircraft, and the rule related to weight balancing of the aircraft (claim 6); “wherein the receiving of the second data…occurs at least a predetermined amount of time before a scheduled flight” (claim 10); further describing the predetermined amount of time (claim 11); determining that at least one of the plurality of shipments will not be loaded onto a given scheduled flight… (claim 12); “sending…the one of the plurality of possible shipping configurations…before any of the plurality of shipments are loaded onto the aircraft in advance of the given scheduled flight” (claim 13); “receiving…an input from a user…wherein the input indicates whether one of the plurality of shipments is stackable” (claim 14); “receiving…an input from a user…wherein the input indicates whether one of the plurality of shipments is a priority shipment” (claim 15); “wherein the instructions for loading the plurality of shipments into the cargo hold of the aircraft comprises a position indicator for a position in the cargo hold where each of the unit load devices that will be loaded into the cargo hold will be placed” (claim 18); “wherein the instructions for loading the plurality of shipments into the cargo hold of the aircraft comprises an instruction to load particular shipments of the plurality of shipments into a particular unit load device that will be loaded into the cargo hold” (claim 19); and “wherein the predetermined amount of time is less than an hour before the scheduled flight” (claim 21).
Claims 2, 13-15 recite mere instructions to apply these abstract limitations above using generic computer implementation (“by the processor to a computing device associated with an aircraft load worker” of claims 2 and 13; “receiving, by the processor, an input from a user via a user interface” of claims 14-15). Note that transmitting (i.e. sending) data as per claims 2 and 13 also describes the use of computers in their ordinary capacity, and merely applies the abstract idea on generic computers.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the instructions further cause the computing device to perform operations comprising sending, to a display of a user computing device, the one of the subset of the plurality of possible shipping configurations that satisfies the at least one rule, wherein the display is configured to display instructions for loading the plurality of shipments into the cargo hold of the aircraft” – these limitations describe the computing device transmitting data and using the user computing device to display, i.e. output data – and similar to above, add limitations describing generic computers and display devices being used in their ordinary capacity, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1-21 are ineligible under § 101.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20050246132 A1 to Olin et al. (Olin) in view of US 20220414594 A1 to Wintz et al. (Wintz), and further in view of US 7979359 B1 to Young et al. (Young).
Claim 16: Olin teaches:
A non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by a computing device, cause the computing device to perform operations (Olin: ¶ 0055-0056 showing load master computer, but also showing in ¶ 0064-0065 that the portable device 615 may instead perform the functions of the load master computer; wherein as per ¶ 0057 “the portable device 615 includes a processor and one or more memories for storing executable software instructions”) comprising:
receiving first data indicative of a plurality of predetermined configurations for loading cargo into a compartment of a cargo hold of an aircraft (Olin: ¶ 0044 showing “In step 504, information about the possible load configurations aboard the aircraft is obtained. This information provides a plurality of options for arranging ULDs in the one or more cargo compartments of the aircraft”),
wherein each of the plurality of predetermined configurations comprises a possible layout of a plurality of unit load devices (Olin: ¶ 0044 “This information provides a plurality of options for arranging ULDs in the one or more cargo compartments of the aircraft”),
wherein the plurality of unit load devices comprises at least two different types of unit load devices (Olin: ¶ 0044, ¶ 0055, ¶ 0060 showing plurality of types of ULDs; also see ¶ 0003, ¶ 0008, ¶ 0011-0012, ¶ 0014);
receiving second data indicative of a plurality of shipments available for transportation in the aircraft, wherein each one of the plurality of shipments is: pre-packaged into a first unit load device type of the at least two different types of unit load devices (Olin: ¶ 0044 “information about the ULDs to be loaded onto the aircraft, is obtained. This information includes at least the number and types of ULDs to be shipped, along with the gross weight of each,” and also see ¶ 0003-0004 showing items to be shipped are loaded into the ULDs, e.g. pallets or containers and ¶ 0044, ¶ 0055, ¶ 0060, ¶ 0003, ¶ 0008, ¶ 0011-0012, ¶ 0014 specifying there are multiple types of ULDs),
or configured for placement into a second unit load device type of the at least two different types of unit load devices (Olin: ¶ 0044 “information about the ULDs to be loaded onto the aircraft, is obtained. This information includes at least the number and types of ULDs to be shipped, along with the gross weight of each,” and also see ¶ 0003-0004 showing items to be shipped are loaded into the ULDs, e.g. pallets or containers and ¶ 0044, ¶ 0055, ¶ 0060, ¶ 0003, ¶ 0008, ¶ 0011-0012, ¶ 0014 specifying there are multiple types of ULDs – at least a second type);
With respect to the limitation:
determining a plurality of possible shipping configurations from the plurality of predetermined configurations,
Olin teaches obtaining a plurality of possible predetermined load configurations for loading and shipping cargo on an aircraft, and then determining a desired load configuration, i.e. a shipping configuration, from these predetermined load configurations (Olin: ¶ 0044-0045), but Olin only determines a single desired load configuration, i.e. shipping configuration, from the obtained predetermined configuration, and thus does not explicitly teach determining a plurality of possible shipping configurations.
However, Wintz teaches determining a plurality of candidate loading solutions, i.e. a plurality of possible shipping configuration, for loading a plurality of pallets on a vehicle, based on information and rules pertaining to the vehicle and the size/weight of pallets/shipments to be loaded on the vehicle (Wintz: ¶ 0041-0045, and Fig. 5A steps 502-514; also ¶ 0007 “determining candidate solutions for loading the pallets on the vehicle, each candidate solution (i) satisfying the rules for loading pallets on the vehicle, and (ii) defining, for each pallet to be included in the shipment, a respective position and orientation of the pallet on the vehicle”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the determination of a plurality of candidate loading solutions of Wintz in the loading configuration system of Olin with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation for “optimizing the loading of pallets on trucks and other sorts of vehicles” (Wintz: ¶ 0004). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to do so, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
With respect to the limitation:
each one of the plurality of possible shipping configurations comprising: a recommended assignment of each of the plurality of shipments into or as one of the plurality of unit load devices,
Olin teaches obtaining possible load configurations including locations of a plurality of ULDs (unit load devices, such as pallets, containers, or the like) within the cargo hold of the aircraft according to the possible layout of each of the plurality of possible shipping configurations, which are then used to determine a desired load configuration (Olin: ¶ 0003-0004, ¶ 0044, ¶ 0067-0069), but does not explicitly teach that determining the desired load configuration includes first determining of a plurality of possible shipping configurations including information for a recommended assignment of each of the plurality of shipments into or as one of the plurality of unit load devices.
However, Young teaches, in an analogous system for determining recommended loading/shipping configurations of shipments into containers, a plurality of shipping configurations including recommended assignments/configurations of each of a plurality of shipments into one or a plurality of loading devices (Young: Col 8: 66 – Col. 9: 3 showing “the method may include receiving an indication of such possible shipping configurations from a container recommender” and Col. 12: 66 – Col. 13: 11 showing container recommender invoked to determine recommended shipping configurations, which as per Col. 9: 4-37 and Figs. 4A-4C includes different recommended layouts/assignments of the individual shipments to different containers) (which as per Young at Col. 5: 60-63 are containers or pallets - i.e. analogous to ULDs which are pallets or containers as described by Olin at ¶ 0003-0004).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the recommended of shipping configurations each including recommended assignments/configurations of shipments to containers of Young in the plurality of possible shipping configurations of the loading configuration system of Olin/Wintz with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to “provide more efficient volumetric utilization of shipping containers” (Young: Col. 4: 40-42), “allow more efficient coordination of packing and shipping (i.e., transportation) operations” (Young: Col. 6: 46-49), and “facilitate efficient and/or cost-effective operations in a mate rials handling facility” (Young: Col. 2: 38-40).
With respect to the limitation:
and a recommended location of each of the plurality of unit load devices within the cargo hold of the aircraft according to the possible layout of each of the plurality of possible shipping configurations
Olin teaches obtaining possible load configurations identifying locations where a plurality of ULDs should be placed within a cargo hold of an aircraft according to the possible layout of each of the plurality of possible shipping configurations, which are then used to determine a desired load configuration for a location of each of the plurality of unit load devices within the cargo loading area of the aircraft according to the possible layout of each of the plurality of possible shipping configurations (Olin: ¶ 0004, ¶ 0044, ¶ 0067-0069) – but Olin does not explicitly teach that determining the desired load configuration includes first determining a plurality of possible shipping configurations including information for a recommended location where each of the plurality of unit load devices should be loaded in the aircraft.
However, Wintz teaches (in an analogous system for planning loading of cargo on a shipping vehicle) generating a plurality of candidate loading solutions each describing a loading configuration for where pallets should be loaded and arranged into a shipping vehicle, i.e. each including recommended locations where the pallets are to be loaded (Wintz: ¶ 0041-0045, with ¶ 0045 specifying “Each of the candidate loading solutions can satisfy the rules for loading the pallets on the vehicle, and can define, for each pallet to be included in the shipment, a respective position and orientation of the pallet on the vehicle”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the plurality of candidate loading solutions including information recommending a loading location of each of a plurality of pallets (analogous to unit load devices) on a vehicle of Wintz in the loading configuration system of Olin/Wintz/Young with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the preceding limitations above.
With respect to the limitation:
determining a subset of the plurality of possible shipping configurations based on three dimensional volumes of the plurality of shipments from the second data;
Wintz teaches determining the plurality of loading solutions according to the size characteristics of the ULDs to be loaded on the vehicle and determining a subset of possible solutions (Wintz: ¶ 0044-0045, with ¶ 0044 showing “determine the possible loading solutions 570 according to the size characteristics of the pallets to be included in the shipment and the dimensions of the cargo transportation area of the vehicle 120, such that the pallets may fit on the vehicle” and ¶ 0045 showing “the process 500 can iterate until all possible loading solutions are generated and evaluated, or can iterate until a subset (e.g., a fixed number or portion) of all possible solutions are generated and evaluated”) which is based on three dimensional size characteristics of the pallets/ULDs to be loaded (Wintz: ¶ 0044 showing determining the subset of solutions is based on the size characteristics of the pallets included in the shipments to be loaded; which as per ¶ 0042 includes a pallet size which is the length, width, and height of each of the pallets and as per ¶ 0037 the combined height, width, and length of the pallets must satisfy the vehicle loading area constraints), wherein a plurality of items are loaded within each of the ULDs (Wintz: ¶ 0003-0004 showing items to be shipped are loaded into the ULDs, e.g. pallets or containers) – but Wintz does not explicitly teach determining the loading solutions/shipping configuration based on three dimensional volumes of the plurality of shipments to be loaded into the containers.
However, Young teaches determining a subset of a plurality of shipping configurations based on volumes of a plurality of shipments (Young: Col. 6: 3-43 showing using information about the shipments including dimensions information and at least in part based on the volume of the shipments; and Col. 9: 9-53 showing analyzing the shipping configurations according to volumes of the shipments in comparison to the volume of the container to determine the subset of shipping configurations which meets the requisite measure of shipping container utilization/volumetric utilization), which are determined from information about each of the shipments to be shipped including volume and length/height/width (Young: Col. 6: 3-7 showing system uses information about the items including item dimension information; Col. 18: 31-43 showing “data storage 735 may include one or more tables, databases, or other data structures used for storing and retrieving various parameter values used in conjunction with the system and methods described herein” including volume, length, height, width – note that one or ordinary skill in the art would know volume in this context to be the product of length, width, and height).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the determining shipping configurations according to the three dimensional volumes of shipments (dimensions of the packages being described as length, height, width) of Young in the loading configuration system of Olin/Wintz/Young with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described with respect to Young in the preceding limitations above.
With respect to the limitation:
determining, based on at least one rule related to weight balancing of the aircraft, one of the subset of the plurality of possible shipping configurations that satisfies the at least one rule; and
causing the loading of the cargo into the compartment of the cargo hold of the aircraft according to the determined one of the subset of the plurality of possible shipping configurations that satisfies the at least one rule
Olin teaches determining a desired load configuration from obtained predetermined load configurations (Olin: ¶ 0045 “a desired load configuration is determined, based on at least the ULD information and perhaps also the information about the possible load configurations”), and teaches developing the desired load configuration complies with weight and balancing criteria, i.e. at least one rule related to weight balancing of the aircraft (Olin: ¶ 0012 showing weight and balancing criteria, i.e. rules, used to develop a desired load configuration), but merely lacks an explicit teaching that this desired load configuration was selected/determined from a plurality of determined possible load configurations and used to cause loading.
However, Wintz teaches determining an optimal loading solution from a plurality of determined candidate loading solutions that each satisfy a vehicle loading constraint (Wintz: ¶ 0060 “a loading solution among the candidate loading solutions, which corresponds with the identified minimum, is determined as an optimal loading solution”; and ¶ 0045 showing each of the candidate loading solutions can satisfy the rules for loading the pallets on the vehicle); and then causing the loading of the cargo into the compartment of the cargo hold of the aircraft according to the determined one of the subset of the plurality of possible shipping configurations that satisfies the at least one rule (Wintz: ¶ 0007 “loading the vehicle according to the selected candidate solution”; ¶ 0032-0036 showing outputting loading instructions according to the determined loading configuration and causing loading to be performed according to the loading instructions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the determination of, and loading according to, an optimal loading solution from a plurality of candidate loading solutions meeting vehicle constraints of Wintz in the loading configuration system of Olin/Wintz/Young with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the preceding limitations above.
Note: While Olin is cited as teaching the “non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by a computing device, cause the computing device to perform operations” - to any extent it is believed that Olin does not sufficiently teach the limitation above, the examiner additionally notes that Wintz also teaches “computer device 900 that may be used to implement the systems and methods described…” (Wintz: ¶ 0064), where the device includes a processor and memory/computer-readable medium storing instructions that are executed by the processor (Wintz: ¶ 0065-0066). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the computer readable medium storing instructions executed by a processor of a computing device as taught by Wintz in the load configuration system of Olin/Wintz/Young, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20050246132 A1 to Olin et al. (Olin) in view of US 20220414594 A1 to Wintz et al. (Wintz), further in view of US 7979359 B1 to Young et al. (Young), and further in view of US 20210395026 A1 to Gualtieri et al. (Gualtieri).
Claim 17: Olin/Wintz/Young teach claim 16. With respect to the limitation:
wherein the instructions further cause the computing device to perform operations comprising sending, to a display of a user computing device, the one of the subset of the plurality of possible shipping configurations that satisfies the at least one rule, wherein the display is configured to display instructions for loading the plurality of shipments into the cargo hold of the aircraft
Olin/Wintz/Young teach determining the selected shipping configuration that satisfies the at least one rule as per claim 16 above (see rejection of claim 16), and Olin further discusses load crew members, i.e. aircraft load workers, using a portable device to view the load configuration for loading the plurality of shipments into the cargo area of the aircraft (Olin: ¶ 0058-0059; also see ¶ 0044-0045, ¶ 0012 showing desired load configuration for wherein each of the ULDs is to be loaded onto the aircraft), but Olin/Wintz/Young do not explicitly teach the processor/server sending a load configuration to the portable computing device associated with a worker and displaying instructions for loading the plurality of shipments.
However, Gualtieri teaches a load planning platform embodied as a computing device (Gualtieri: ¶ 0050-0051, Fig. 3 device 300 with processor 320) and configured to transmit loading instructions to an external computing device used by personnel to display and carry out the loading instructions (Gualtieri: ¶ 0039 showing “load planning platform 230 can select a final packing solution from the set of packing solutions based on one or more optimization criteria and provide client device 210, vehicle device 220, and/or another suitable device with access to a three-dimensional rendering of the final packing solution and instructions for implementing the final packing solution”; also see ¶ 0031-0034, ¶ 0038 showing the instructions are transmitted to personnel for implementing the loading instructions according to the optimal loading solution, and the instructions may provide visual loading instructions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included transmitting the instructions for implementing the optimal loading configuration solution to a client/personnel device of Gualtieri in the loading configuration system of Olin/Wintz/Young with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation “to automate decisions on…how to load the items in a way that can minimize a risk of the items shifting or falling over during transport, and/or the like). Furthermore, the load planning platform can provide access to a three-dimensional rendering of a final packing solution together with a plan or instructions for guiding a user through loading the items into the three-dimensional container(s)” (Gualtieri: ¶ 0011) and that it “makes efficient use of available space in the three-dimensional container(s), which can save space within the container(s) and thereby conserve various resources. For example, this can conserve vehicle resources by using less fuel, reducing a need to repair and/or replace worn out components, and/or the like because more items can be loaded into a given container and thus fewer vehicle trips can be needed to deliver a given set of items” (Gualtieri: ¶ 0012). Furthermore, it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to do so, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 18: Olin/Wintz/Young/Gualtieri teach claim 17. With respect to the limitation:
wherein the instructions for loading the plurality of shipments into the cargo hold of the aircraft comprises a position indicator for a position in the cargo hold where each of the unit load devices that will be loaded into the cargo hold will be placed.
Olin teaches a desired loading configuration selected from a plurality of possible load configurations, which includes positions for arranging the ULDs in the one or more cargo compartments of the aircraft (Olin: ¶ 0044-0045, ¶ 0012), and further discusses load crew members, i.e. aircraft load workers, using a portable device to view the load configuration for loading the plurality of shipments into the cargo area of the aircraft (Olin: ¶ 0058-0059; also see ¶ 0044-0045, ¶ 0012 showing desired load configuration for wherein each of the ULDs is to be loaded onto the aircraft) – but Olin/Wintz/Young do not explicitly teach loading instructions for loading a plurality of shipments that displays a position indicator for a position where items to be loaded should be placed. ‘
However, Gualtieri teaches providing loading instructions in a three-dimensional rendering with instructions showing where to place a first set of items, and then showing where to place a second set of items, i.e. a position indicator where each of the items should be loaded (Gualtieri: ¶ 0033 “the instructions can start by showing an empty truck and by showing where to place a first set of items, and then showing where to place a second set of items after confirming that the first set of items has been correctly placed”; generally also see ¶ 0031-0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a rendering of where to place the items in the loading instructions as taught by Gualtieri in the loading configuration system of Olin/Wintz/Young/Gualtieri with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 17 above.
Claim 19: Olin/Wintz/Young/Gualtieri teach claim 17 as seen above. With respect to the limitation:
wherein the instructions for loading the plurality of shipments into the cargo hold of the aircraft comprises an instruction to load particular shipments of the plurality of shipments into a particular unit load device that will be loaded into the cargo hold
Olin teaches a desired loading configuration selected from a plurality of possible load configurations, which includes positions for arranging the ULDs in the one or more cargo compartments of the aircraft (Olin: ¶ 0044-0045, ¶ 0012), but Olin/Wintz do not describe an instruction to load particular shipments of the plurality of shipments into a particular unit load device, i.e. particular container or pallet.
However, Young teaches a shipping instruction including an instruction to a plurality of shipments into a plurality of containers/pallets, i.e. unit load devices according to a determined shipping configuration (Young: Col. 13: 12-27 showing instructions are output to the shipping agent according to the recommended shipping configuration, instructions which shipments and/or how each shipment should be positioned in the container; also see Col. 8: 66 – Col. 9: 37 as previously cited).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the instructions including an instruction to pack particular shipments into containers according to the determined shipping configuration of Young in the load configuration system of Olin/Wintz/Young/Gualtieri with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 16 above.
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
Claims 1-15 and 20-21 are novel and nonobvious over the prior art for the following reasons:
With respect to claim 1 (and similar claim 20), the combination of US 20050246132 A1 to Olin et al. (Olin) in view of US 20220414594 A1 to Wintz et al. (Wintz), and further in view of US 20250124363 A1 to Honnalli et al. (Honnalli) was cited in the previous office action (see non-final rejection mailed 2/20/2026). However, the previously cited combination does not all of teach the amended features of claim 1 (and similar claim 20) considered in the context of the claims as a whole, for:
determining, by the processor based on an optimization model corresponding to at least one rule related to weight balancing of the aircraft, one of the plurality of possible shipping configurations that satisfies the at least one rule by:
evaluating each of the plurality of possible shipping configuration by the optimization model without one or more constraints associated with the at least one rule for whether one of the plurality of possible shipping configurations that satisfies the at least one rule,
at a first time, in response to any of the plurality of possible shipping configuration not satisfying the at least one rule:
updating the optimization model to add at least one of the one or more constraints, and
evaluating each of the plurality of possible shipping configuration by the updated optimization model to determine whether one of the plurality of possible shipping configurations that satisfies the at least one rule,
at a second time, in response to at least one of the plurality of possible shipping configuration satisfying the at least one rule, determining the one of the plurality of possible shipping configurations that satisfies the at least one rule
Discussion of the closest prior art to independent claims 1 and 20:
US 20050246132 A1 to Olin et al. (previously cited) teaches A method (Olin: ¶ 0043-0045, Fig. 5 method) comprising: receiving, by a processor of a computing device (Olin: ¶ 0054-0056 showing load master computer, i.e. a processor, or alternatively, ¶ 0064-0066 portable device 615, which in ¶ 0057 includes processor), first data indicative of a plurality of predetermined configurations for loading cargo into a compartment of a cargo hold of an aircraft (Olin: ¶ 0044 showing “In step 504, information about the possible load configurations aboard the aircraft is obtained. This information provides a plurality of options for arranging ULDs in the one or more cargo compartments of the aircraft”), wherein each of the plurality of predetermined configurations comprises a possible layout of a plurality of unit load devices (Olin: ¶ 0044 “This information provides a plurality of options for arranging ULDs in the one or more cargo compartments of the aircraft”), wherein the plurality of unit load devices comprises at least two different types of unit load devices (Olin: ¶ 0044, ¶ 0055, ¶ 0060 showing plurality of types of ULDs; also see ¶ 0003, ¶ 0008, ¶ 0011-0012, ¶ 0014); receiving, by the processor, second data indicative of a plurality of shipments available for transportation in the aircraft, wherein each one of the plurality of shipments is: pre-packaged into a first unit load device type of the at least two different types of unit load devices (Olin: ¶ 0044 “information about the ULDs to be loaded onto the aircraft, is obtained. This information includes at least the number and types of ULDs to be shipped, along with the gross weight of each,” and also see ¶ 0003-0004 showing items to be shipped are loaded into the ULDs, e.g. pallets or containers and ¶ 0044, ¶ 0055, ¶ 0060, ¶ 0003, ¶ 0008, ¶ 0011-0012, ¶ 0014 specifying there are multiple types of ULDs, or configured for placement into a second unit load device type of the at least two different types of unit load devices (Olin: ¶ 0044 “information about the ULDs to be loaded onto the aircraft, is obtained. This information includes at least the number and types of ULDs to be shipped, along with the gross weight of each,” and also see ¶ 0003-0004 showing items to be shipped are loaded into the ULDs, e.g. pallets or containers and ¶ 0044, ¶ 0055, ¶ 0060, ¶ 0003, ¶ 0008, ¶ 0011-0012, ¶ 0014 specifying there are multiple types of ULDs – at least a second type); obtaining a plurality of possible predetermined load configurations for loading and shipping cargo on an aircraft according to the possible layout of each of the plurality of possible shipping configurations, and then determining a desired load configuration, i.e. a shipping configuration, from these predetermined load configurations (Olin: ¶ 0044-0045).
US 20220414594 A1 to Wintz et al. (previously cited) teaches determining a plurality of candidate loading solutions, i.e. a plurality of possible shipping configuration, for loading a plurality of pallets on a vehicle, based on information and rules pertaining to the vehicle (Wintz: ¶ 0041-0045, and Fig. 5A steps 502-514; also ¶ 0007 “determining candidate solutions for loading the pallets on the vehicle, each candidate solution (i) satisfying the rules for loading pallets on the vehicle, and (ii) defining, for each pallet to be included in the shipment, a respective position and orientation of the pallet on the vehicle”); and generating a plurality of candidate loading solutions each describing a loading configuration for where pallets should be loaded and arranged into a shipping vehicle, i.e. each including recommended locations where the pallets are to be loaded (Wintz: ¶ 0041-0045, with ¶ 0045 specifying “Each of the candidate loading solutions can satisfy the rules for loading the pallets on the vehicle, and can define, for each pallet to be included in the shipment, a respective position and orientation of the pallet on the vehicle”); and determining an optimal loading solution from a plurality of determined candidate loading solutions that each satisfy a vehicle loading constraint (Wintz: ¶ 0060 “a loading solution among the candidate loading solutions, which corresponds with the identified minimum, is determined as an optimal loading solution”; and ¶ 0045 showing each of the candidate loading solutions can satisfy the rules for loading the pallets on the vehicle).
US 20250124363 A1 to Honnalli et al. (previously cited) teaches a computer/processor (Honnalli: ¶ 0097, ¶ 0127) determining optimal shipping configurations (optimal packing arrangements) for arranging a plurality of shipments into a plurality of containers, i.e. a recommended assignment of each of the plurality of shipments into or as one of the plurality of unit load devices (Honnalli: ¶ 0061-0089, ¶ 0097-0102, ¶ 0141, and Fig. 2 showing determining solutions optimizing arrangement of packages within containers, which as per ¶ 0052 the containers can be unit load devices for an aircraft; also note that as per ¶ 0124, ¶ 0141 determining the optimal solution includes determining a set of determined potential/candidate solutions).
US 20210395026 A1 to Gualtieri et al. (previously cited) also further teaches a load planning platform to help satisfy constraints (Gualtieri: ¶ 0025-0029), and provide instructions to an operator device used to view and carry out loading instructions (Gualtieri: ¶ 0039 showing “load planning platform 230 can select a final packing solution from the set of packing solutions based on one or more optimization criteria and provide client device 210, vehicle device 220, and/or another suitable device with access to a three-dimensional rendering of the final packing solution and instructions for implementing the final packing solution”; also see ¶ 0031-0034, ¶ 0038 showing the instructions are transmitted to personnel for implementing the loading instructions according to the optimal loading solution).
US 20100145501 A1 to Guilbert et al. (Guilbert) is the closest newly identified prior art, and at best teaches computing an initial stowage allocation plan for a plurality of containers on a vessel (Guilbert: Fig. 3, step 103 and ¶ 0088-0094), and computing a refined allocation plan by iteratively swapping the allocated positions of respective pairs of cargo items in said data structure to produce respective alternative allocation plans (Guilbert: Fig. 3, step 104-105 and ¶ 0095), wherein generating the refined allocation plan may involve decreasing said cost function under said one or more constraints (Guilbert: ¶ 0018-0021).
US 7979359 B1 to Young et al. (newly cited) teaches plurality of shipping configurations including recommended assignments/configurations of each of a plurality of shipments into one or a plurality of loading devices (Young: Col 8: 66 – Col. 9: 3 showing “the method may include receiving an indication of such possible shipping configurations from a container recommender” and Col. 12: 66 – Col. 13: 11 showing container recommender invoked to determine recommended shipping configurations, which as per Col. 9: 4-37 and Figs. 4A-4C includes different recommended layouts/assignments of the individual shipments to different containers) and determining a subset of a plurality of shipping configurations based on volumes of a plurality of shipments (Young: Col. 6: 3-43 showing using information about the shipments including dimensions information and at least in part based on the volume of the shipments; and Col. 9: 9-53 showing analyzing the shipping configurations according to volumes of the shipments in comparison to the volume of the container to determine the subset of shipping configurations which meets the requisite measure of shipping container utilization/volumetric utilization), which are determined from information about each of the shipments to be shipped including volume and length/height/width (Young: Col. 6: 3-7 showing system uses information about the items including item dimension information; Col. 18: 31-43 showing “data storage 735 may include one or more tables, databases, or other data structures used for storing and retrieving various parameter values used in conjunction with the system and methods described herein” including volume, length, height, width – note that one or ordinary skill in the art would know volume in this context to be the product of length, width, and height).
However, the previously cited art in combination with the closest newly cited prior art still does not cure the deficiencies discussed above, as it does not teach using an optimization model to evaluate a plurality of possible previously determined shipping configurations without one or more constraints to identify whether one of the possible shipping configurations satisfies a weight balancing rule, and then adding one or more constraints to the optimization model and determining whether each of the possible shipping configurations satisfies the weight balancing rule under the updated optimization model to determine the one of the plurality of possible shipping configurations that satisfies the at least one rule. While Guilbert teaches identifying an initial allocation meeting one or more rules/constraints, and then mentions that additional constraints can be added, it does not teach “evaluating each of the plurality of possible shipping configuration by the optimization model without one or more constraints associated with the at least one rule for whether one of the plurality of possible shipping configurations that satisfies the at least one rule, at a first time, in response to any of the plurality of possible shipping configuration not satisfying the at least one rule: updating the optimization model to add at least one of the one or more constraints, and evaluating each of the plurality of possible shipping configuration by the updated optimization model to determine whether one of the plurality of possible shipping configurations that satisfies the at least one rule” as claimed.
Therefore, no reasonable combination of the prior art teaches all of the limitations of claims 1/20. Claims 2-15 and 21 depend from claim 1 and are also novel/nonobvious for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
Conclusion
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 Hunter Molnar whose telephone number is (571)272-8271. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 - 4:00 EST.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/HUNTER MOLNAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights