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 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of the date of this communication, no Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) has been filed on behalf of this case.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 reads “a second total weight of a second subset of the plurality of shipments of the plurality of unit load devices” but appears it should recite “a second total weight of a second subset of the plurality of shipments in the plurality of unit load devices” similar to the preceding limitation in claim 6.
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 1-20 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 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 claim 1 (and similar claims 16/20, 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; and
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
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 determined shipping configurations for transporting cargo in an aircraft, based on a weight balancing rule) 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 determined shipping configurations for transporting cargo in an aircraft, based on a weight balancing rule), the claims fall into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
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” steps are observations, while the “determining…a plurality of possible shipping configurations” and “determining…one of the plurality of possible shipping configurations…” steps are evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. 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 determined shipping configurations for transporting cargo in an aircraft, based on a weight balancing rule) 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.
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 determined shipping configurations for transporting cargo in an aircraft, based on a weight balancing rule) 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). Considering the additional elements as an ordered combination does not alter the analysis above.
Dependent Claims 2-15 and 17-19:
Dependent claims 2-15, and 17-19 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 and 18-19 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).
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 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 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 16 and 20 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), and further in view of US 20250124363 A1 to Honnalli et al. (Honnalli).
Claim 1: Olin 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);
With respect to the limitation:
determining, by the processor, 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 (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, and
Olin teaches obtaining possible load configurations including locations of a plurality of ULDs 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: ¶ 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, Honnalli 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).
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 optimization of shipping configurations including recommended assignment of shipments to containers/ULDs of Honnalli in the 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 that “When determining how to arrange packages within a container, one must identify the optimal balance between optimizing space utilization, ensuring balanced weight distribution, facilitating ease of loading and unloading, ensuring inter-package compatibility, and more” (Honnalli: ¶ 0002).
With respect to the limitation:
each one of the plurality of possible shipping configurations comprising…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/Honnalli 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:
and determining, by the processor 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
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.
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).
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 an optimal loading solution from a plurality of candidate loading solutions meeting vehicle constraints of Wintz in the loading configuration system of Olin/Wintz/Honnalli with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the preceding limitations above.
Claim 16: See the rejection of claim 1 teaching analogous limitations to instant claim 16.
Olin further 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”).
However, to any extent it is believed that Olin does not sufficiently teach the limitation above, the examiner additionally notes that Wintz 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/Honnalli, 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 20: See the rejection of claim 1 teaching analogous limitations to instant claim 20.
Olin further teaches A system comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory, the at least one processor configured to… (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”).
However, to any extent it is believed that Olin does not sufficiently teach the limitation above, the examiner additionally notes that Wintz 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 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 computing device comprising a processor and memory storing instructions executed by the processor of the computing device as taught by Wintz in the load configuration system of Olin/Wintz/Honnalli, 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 2, 12-13 and 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 20250124363 A1 to Honnalli et al. (Honnalli), and further in view of US 20210395026 A1 to Gualtieri et al. (Gualtieri).
Claim 2: Olin/Wintz/Honnalli teach claim 1. With respect to the limitation:
further comprising sending, by the processor to a computing device associated with an aircraft load worker, the one of the plurality of possible shipping configurations that satisfies the at least one rule
Olin/Wintz/Honnalli teach determining the selected shipping configuration that satisfies the at least one rule as per claim 1 above, and Olin further discusses load crew members, i.e. aircraft load workers, using a portable device to view the load configuration (Olin: ¶ 0058-0059) but Olin/Wintz/Honnalli do not explicitly teach the processor/server sending the selected load configuration to the portable computing device associated with a worker.
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 view 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).
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/Honnalli 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 12: Olin/Wintz/Honnalli teach claim 1. With respect to the limitations:
wherein the determining that the one of the plurality of possible shipping configurations satisfies the at least one rule (Zieger: ¶ 0030-0035 determining loading solution which satisfies requirements/constraints) comprises determining that at least one of the plurality of shipments will not be loaded onto a given scheduled flight of the aircraft
Olin teaches determining a desired loading configuration for transport on an aircraft considering weight and balance criteria (Olin: ¶ 0012, ¶ 0044-0045), and Honnalli teaches a priority of a package/shipment that determines a likelihood of a package being shipped (Honnalli: ¶ 0027), wherein “priority” packages should generally be shipped before non-priority packages” (Honnalli: ¶ 0020), but Olin/Wintz/Honnalli do not explicitly teach the determining that a shipping configuration includes at least one of the plurality of shipments that will not be loaded.
However, Gualtieri teaches determining a loading plan for loading items onto a transport container that satisfies conditions/constraints, and in which one or more items are determined not to be loaded and are left outside the three-dimensional container when the load planning platform has finished (Gualtieri: ¶ 0024, Fig. 1B step 130).
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 determining a loading plan that meets all conditions/constraints but leaves one or more items outside of the container when the load planning platform has finished planning of Gualtieri in the loading configuration system of Olin/Wintz/Honnalli 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 13: Olin/Wintz/Honnalli teach claim 12. With respect to the limitations:
further comprising sending, by the processor to a computing device associated with an aircraft load worker, the one of the plurality of possible shipping configurations that satisfies the at least one rule,
wherein the one of the plurality of possible shipping configurations is sent to the computing device before any of the plurality of shipments are loaded onto the aircraft in advance of the given scheduled flight
Olin teaches determining a desired loading configuration for transport on an aircraft that complies with weight and balance criteria, i.e. satisfying at least one rule, before loading is started (Olin: ¶ 0012, ¶ 0044-0045), and Olin further discusses load crew members, i.e. aircraft load workers, using a portable device to view the load configuration (Olin: ¶ 0058-0059) but Olin/Wintz/Honnalli do not explicitly teach a computer or processor sending the desired loading configuration to a computing device associated with a loading worker prior.
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 view 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).
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/Honnalli/Gualtieri with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 12 above.
Claim 17: Olin/Wintz/Honnalli 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 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/Honnalli teach determining the selected shipping configuration that satisfies the at least one rule as per claim 16 above (see rejection of claim 1), 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/Honnalli 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/Honnalli 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/Honnalli/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 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/Honnalli 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/Honnalli/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/Honnalli/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 that will be loaded into the cargo hold.
However, Honnalli teaches the generation of an optimal solution for loading a plurality of packages into a plurality of unit load devices or containers (Honnalli: Fig. 2 and ¶ 0092-0096), and further teaches that “method 300 generates a combined solution (such as by solution combiner 120 of FIG. 1 ) identifying arrangements of the packages within the containers….In some cases, a three-dimensional model is rendered illustrating the arrangement of the packages within the container. In some cases, the data output is provided to an augmented or virtual reality display device (Honnalli: ¶ 0102), and “step-by-step output provides a clear and visual representation of the solution. The output typically includes an image and details about each package and where it is loaded inside the container relative to other packages previously loaded. For instance, the output may be used to render a three-dimensional display to show the location of a package within the container, which may be done in augmented or virtual reality,” i.e. instructions to load particular shipments into a particular location in the containers (Honnalli: ¶ 0090).
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 to load particular shipments into a particular location in particular containers of Honnalli in the load configuration system of Olin/Wintz/Honnalli/Gualtieri with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “When determining how to arrange packages within a container, one must identify the optimal balance between optimizing space utilization, ensuring balanced weight distribution, facilitating ease of loading and unloading, ensuring inter-package compatibility, and more” (Honnalli: ¶ 0002).
Claims 3 and 5 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 20250124363 A1 to Honnalli et al. (Honnalli), and even further in view of US 20150148992 A1 to McDonough et al. (McDonough).
Claim 3: Olin/Wintz/Honnalli teach claim 1. With respect to the limitations:
wherein the at least one rule related to weight balancing of the aircraft comprises a first requirement that a first center of gravity for a takeoff weight of the aircraft is within a first predetermined range and a second requirement that a second center of gravity for a zero fuel weight of the aircraft is within a second predetermined range
Olin teaches criteria related to weight balancing of the aircraft (Olin: ¶ 0011-0012), and but Olin/Wintz/Honnalli do not explicitly teach that a first center of gravity for a takeoff weight of the aircraft must be within a first predetermined range and a second center of gravity for a zero fuel weight of the aircraft must be within a second predetermined range.
However, McDonough teaches requirements pertaining to loading an aircraft wherein the aircraft’s weight and center-of-gravity profile must meet FAA/regulatory certification limits at both a takeoff weight (TOW) and a zero fuel weight (ZFW) (McDonough: ¶ 0039-0043, ¶ 0050-0051, ¶ 0064, ¶ 0095). 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 weight and center of gravity limitations at both a takeoff weight and zero fuel weight during loading of an aircraft of McDonough in the loading configuration system of Olin/Wintz/Honnalli with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation “to ensure that the aircraft is always operated within appropriate weight and balance limitations” (McDonough: ¶ 0003).
Claim 5: Olin/Wintz/Honnalli teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitations, Olin “develops a desired load configuration that takes into account the weight and balance criteria, and the number, types and weights of the ULDs” (Olin: ¶ 0012) but Olin/Wintz/Honnalli do not explicitly teach the following. However, McDonough teaches:
wherein the at least one rule related to weight balancing of the aircraft comprises a requirement that a total weight of the plurality of shipments in the plurality of unit load devices of the one of the plurality of possible shipping configurations is at or less than a total permitted weight of the compartment (McDonough: ¶ 0060 showing a cargo allowance, i.e. a rule including a requirement that the amount of cargo is “limited by either the maximum weight capacity or the maximum volume capacity of that compartment”)
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 weight limitations for loading of an aircraft of McDonough in the loading configuration system of Olin/Wintz/Honnalli with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation “to ensure that the aircraft is always operated within appropriate weight and balance limitations” (McDonough: ¶ 0003).
Claim 4 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), further in view of US 20250124363 A1 to Honnalli et al. (Honnalli), and further in view of US 20170140327 A1 to Lindbo.
Claim 4: Olin/Wintz/Honnalli teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitations,
wherein the at least one rule related to weight balancing of the aircraft comprises a requirement that a first unit load device of the plurality of unit load devices having a high priority level is included in the one of the plurality of possible shipping configurations,
wherein a second unit load device of the plurality of unit load devices having a low priority is optionally included in the one of the plurality of possible shipping configurations
Olin teaches determining optimal loading configurations for ULDs according to criteria (rules) that take into consideration weight balancing of the aircraft (Olin: ¶ 0011-0012), and Honnalli teaches using a priority level as an indicator of the likelihood that a shipment will be shipped (Honnalli: ¶ 0027), but Olin/Wintz/Honnalli do not explicitly teach rules for a priority level that determines whether a first container/ULD will be shipped in whether shipping a second container/ULD is optional.
However, Lindbo teaches rules for prioritizing a container be loaded on an available vehicle (Lindbo: ¶ 0067 “When a vehicle is available, in some examples, one or more priority shipment containers can be selected for grouping, sequencing and/or loading into the vehicle before lower priority containers”), i.e. a container having a high priority level is included in the one of the plurality of possible shipping configurations, and optionally rescheduling lower priority shipments or opportunistically filling a vehicle with the lower priority containers after higher priority containers, i.e. a second unit load device of the plurality of unit load devices having a low priority is optionally included in the one of the plurality of possible shipping configurations (Lindbo: ¶ 0067 “to hold back or reschedule lower priority parcels may reduce vehicle movement and/or may reduce delivery times for priority containers. In some examples, lower priority shipment containers maybe moved opportunistically, for example to fill a vehicle partially-filled with higher priority containers”).
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 rules for prioritization of first containers over other containers of Lindbo as rules considered in the loading configuration system of Olin/Wintz/Honnalli with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “This can, in some instances, be particularly beneficial for long hauls or via expensive transport” (Lindbo: ¶ 0067).
Claims 6-7 and 9 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 20250124363 A1 to Honnalli et al. (Honnalli), and further in view of CN115660215A to Lin et al. (Lin).
Note: Please see the attached English translation of CN115660215A from Google Patents for the citation provided herein.
Claim 6: Olin/Wintz/Honnalli teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitations, Olin teaches determining a desired load configuration considering weight and balancing criteria of a cargo floor of an aircraft (Olin: ¶ 0012, ¶ 0044-0045), but Olin/Wintz/Honnalli do not explicitly teach the following. However, Lin teaches:
wherein the compartment is a first compartment, wherein the aircraft further comprises a second compartment of the cargo hold (Lin: Pg. 8, showing Ncomp is the total number of cargo compartments, Wi is the weight of cargo i, xijk means that the i-th cargo is loaded into the j-th ULD and loaded into the position of the k-th cargo compartment – which indicates a plurality of k cargo compartments; wherein Pgs. 13-14 refer to weights of a Kth cargo compartment on a left side and on a right side, so there are explicitly compartments on both the left and the right side of the cargo hold),
and wherein the at least one rule related to weight balancing of the aircraft comprises a requirement that: a first total weight of a first subset of the plurality of shipments in the plurality of unit load devices of the one of the plurality of possible shipping configurations for the first compartment is at or less than a first total permitted weight of the first compartment (Lin: Pgs. 13-14 showing weight constraints associated with a weight of a first cargo compartment, e.g. WKL which requires that the weight of cargo in the compartment must be equal to or less than a particular amount, i.e. a maximum; and also see Pgs. 24 showing constraints requiring that the weight of the loaded cargo cannot exceed the weight limitation of the space (Max WK), i.e. a maximum weight for a k-th compartment; note that as per Pg. 6, the disclosure is directed to cargo packing and stowage that meets load balancing/center of gravity requirements while optimizing loading of the transported goods); and
a second total weight of a second subset of the plurality of shipments of the plurality of unit load devices of the one of the plurality of possible shipping configurations for the second compartment is at or less than a second total permitted weight of the second compartment (Lin: Pgs. 13-14 showing weight constraints associated with a weight of a second cargo compartment, e.g. WKR, which requires that the weight of cargo in the compartment must be equal to or less than a particular amount, i.e. a maximum; and also see Pgs. 24 showing constraints requiring that the weight of the loaded cargo cannot exceed the weight limitation of the space (Max WK), i.e. a maximum weight for a k-th compartment; note that as per Pg. 6, the disclosure is directed to cargo packing and stowage that meets load balancing/center of gravity requirements while optimizing loading of the transported goods)
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 constraint for weight of each of a plurality of cargo compartment in load planning for an aircraft of Lin in the loading configuration system of Olin/Wintz/Honnalli with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation of “aiming at the deficiencies in the prior art, the air cargo packing and stowage combination optimization method, system and equipment provided by the present invention consider stowage from the packing level, and guide cargo packing through stowage. It can fully tap the flight capacity and realize the optimization of the center of gravity of the aircraft, thereby achieving the effect of saving fuel and making the loading of transported goods more reasonable” (Lin: Pg. 6).
Claim 7: Olin/Wintz/Honnalli teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitations, Olin teaches determining a desired load configuration considering weight and balancing criteria of a cargo floor of an aircraft (Olin: ¶ 0012, ¶ 0044-0045), but Olin/Wintz/Honnalli do not explicitly teach the following. However, Lin teaches:
wherein the at least one rule related to weight balancing of the aircraft comprises a requirement that the plurality of unit load devices fit in the compartment of the cargo hold (Lin: Pgs. 23-24 showing 1) a constraint requirement that the weight of the loaded goods does not exceed the maximum weight limit of each ULD for the position where the goods are located, 2) a constraint requiring that the volume of the loaded cargo does not exceed the maximum volume limit of each ULD for the position where the cargo is located, and 3) a positional weight requirement such that the loaded cargo (which is loaded in the ULDs) does not exceed a maximum weight limit “Max WK” corresponding to each k-th compartment; note that as per Pg. 6, the disclosure is directed to cargo packing and stowage that meets load balancing/center of gravity requirements while optimizing loading of the transported goods)
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 constraints for weight and volume of the cargo and ULDs in load planning for an aircraft of Lin in the loading configuration system of Olin/Wintz/Honnalli with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation of “aiming at the deficiencies in the prior art, the air cargo packing and stowage combination optimization method, system and equipment provided by the present invention consider stowage from the packing level, and guide cargo packing through stowage. It can fully tap the flight capacity and realize the optimization of the center of gravity of the aircraft, thereby achieving the effect of saving fuel and making the loading of transported goods more reasonable” (Lin: Pg. 6).
Claim 9: Olin/Wintz/Honnalli teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitations, Olin teaches determining a desired load configuration considering weight and balancing criteria of a cargo floor of an aircraft (Olin: ¶ 0012, ¶ 0044-0045), and including a plurality of types of ULDs (Olin: ¶ 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 first and second types) but Olin/Wintz/Honnalli do not explicitly teach the following. However, Lin teaches:
wherein the at least one rule related to weight balancing of the aircraft comprises a requirement, for the recommended assignment of each of the plurality of shipments into one of the plurality of unit load devices (Lin: Pg. 18 showing space in the aircraft is allocated according to types of ULDs, i.e. at least first and second ULD types), that each of the plurality of shipments that are configured for placement into the second load device type fit into a respective unit load device of the plurality of unit load devices that are of the second load device type (Lin: Pgs. 23-24 showing weight and volume constraints where the weight and volume of the loaded cargo must not exceed the maximum volume or weight limit of each ULD, which would include each ULD type; note that as per Pg. 6, the disclosure is directed to cargo packing and stowage that meets load balancing/center of gravity requirements while optimizing loading of the transported goods)
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 volume and weight constraints for cargo in each ULD for load planning for an aircraft of Lin in the loading configuration system of Olin/Wintz/Honnalli with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation of “aiming at the deficiencies in the prior art, the air cargo packing and stowage combination optimization method, system and equipment provided by the present invention consider stowage from the packing level, and guide cargo packing through stowage. It can fully tap the flight capacity and realize the optimization of the center of gravity of the aircraft, thereby achieving the effect of saving fuel and making the loading of transported goods more reasonable” (Lin: Pg. 6).
Claim 8 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), further in view of US 20250124363 A1 to Honnalli et al. (Honnalli), and further in view of US 20150241295 A1 to Fuscone et al. (Fuscone).
Claim 8: Olin/Wintz/Honnalli teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitations, Olin “develops a desired load configuration that takes into account the weight and balance criteria, and the number, types and weights of the ULDs” (Olin: ¶ 0012) but Olin/Wintz/Honnalli do not explicitly teach the following. However, Fuscone teaches:
wherein the at least one rule related to weight balancing of the aircraft comprises a requirement that a weight balance of the aircraft is within a predetermined range (Fuscone: ¶ 0031 showing “the centre of gravity range allowable within the manufactured limits for safe operation of a flight are provided for each aircraft. It is necessary for the centre of gravity in operation to fall within that range”; note that one of ordinary skill would understand a center of gravity as referring to the weight balance of the aircraft) based on each of the one of the plurality of possible shipping configurations (Fuscone: ¶ 0035-0044, ¶ 0062-0063 showing the cargo weight and distribution, i.e. configuration, impacts the center of gravity and is adjusted optimally according to the nominal optimum starting centre of gravity), an estimated weight of passengers on a flight (Fuscone: ¶ 0035-0044, ¶ 0050-0051, ¶ 0060-0062 showing estimated payload/weight of passengers for the flight and is distributed to affect the center of gravity for the aircraft), and an estimated weight of passenger checked bags for the flight (Fuscone: ¶ 0035-0044, ¶ 0050, ¶ 0059, ¶ 0062 showing the center of gravity is also based on total payload including baggage load and distribution; ¶ 0050 specifies that “The payload on an aircraft is determined herein to be the cargo, hold baggage, crew, crew hand luggage, passengers and passenger hand luggage,” i.e. it considers both hold baggage (checked bags stored in baggage hold) and passenger hand luggage)
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 rules for optimizing a center of gravity within required range by loading an aircraft based upon cargo weight and distribution, passenger weights, and baggage in a baggage hold (i.e. checked baggage) of Fuscone in the loading configuration system of Olin/Wintz/Honnalli with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “It is therefore advantageous to the economic operation of an aircraft from a departure point to a destination point to efficiently plan the load for optimum efficiency” (Fuscone: ¶ 0007) and address the issue that “A key factor in cost-effective operation and reducing carbon emissions is reducing fuel consumption of aircraft to the lowest level possible whilst maintaining the desirable and required safety standards” (Fuscone: ¶ 0002).
Claims 10-11 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 20250124363 A1 to Honnalli et al. (Honnalli), and further in view of NPL Reference U (“Export licenses and EEI filing”, see current PTO-892).
Claim 10: Olin/Wintz/Honnalli teach claim 1. With respect to the limitation:
wherein the receiving of the second data indicative of the plurality of shipments available for transportation in the aircraft occurs at least a predetermined amount of time before a scheduled flight
Olin teaches obtaining data indicating a plurality of shipments that are to be loaded for transportation on the aircraft prior to loading/departure (Olin: ¶ 0044 “ULD information, i.e., 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”), but does not explicitly describe receiving load/shipment information for the shipments available to be loaded at least a predetermined amount of time before a scheduled flight, i.e. before the scheduled transportation.
However, NPL Reference U (“Export licenses and EEI filing”) teaches that shipping export information must be filed at least 2 hours prior to departure, and may be filed through couriers or freight forwards when processing a shipment, and thus the shipping information must be received/processed by the couriers/freight forwarders at least 2 hours or more prior to departure (Export licenses and EEI filing: Pg. 2). Therefore, the combined teachings would render obvious the concept of receiving shipment information 2 hours prior to departure of a flight.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include receiving shipping information at least two hours prior to departure as taught by NPL Reference U (“Export licenses and EEI filing”) in the loading configuration system of Olin/Wintz/Honnalli (such that the shipping information of Olin is received at least two hours prior to departure of the flight), 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 11: Olin/Wintz/Honnalli/“Export licenses and EEI filing” teach claim 10. With respect to the limitation:
wherein the predetermined amount of time is approximately one hour, approximately two hours, approximately three hours, or approximately four hours before the scheduled flight
Olin teaches obtaining data indicating a plurality of shipments that are to be loaded for transportation on the aircraft prior to loading/departure (Olin: ¶ 0044 “ULD information, i.e., 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”), but does not explicitly describe receiving load/shipment information for the shipments available to be loaded at least a predetermined amount of time before a scheduled flight, i.e. before the scheduled transportation.
However, NPL Reference U (“Export licenses and EEI filing”) teaches that shipping export information must be filed at least 2 hours prior to departure, and may be filed through couriers or freight forwards when processing a shipment, and thus the shipping information must be received/processed by the couriers/freight forwarders at least 2 hours or more prior to departure (Export licenses and EEI filing: Pg. 2). Therefore, the combined teachings would render obvious the concept of receiving shipment information 2 hours prior to departure of a flight.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include receiving shipping information at least two hours prior to departure as taught by “Export licenses and EEI filing” in the loading configuration system of Olin/Wintz/Honnalli/“Export licenses and EEI filing” (such that the shipping information of Olin is received at least two hours prior to departure of the flight), for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 10 above.
Claim 14 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), further in view of US 20250124363 A1 to Honnalli et al. (Honnalli), and further in view of US 20190244170 A1 to Brownell.
Claim 14: Olin/Wintz/Honnalli teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitation, Olin/Wintz/Honnalli do not explicitly teach, however, Brownell teaches:
further comprising receiving, by the processor, an input from a user via a user interface, wherein the input indicates whether one of the plurality of shipments is stackable (Brownell: ¶ 0037-0038, with ¶ 0037 receiving user input of an item descriptor indicating an item is stackable)
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 receiving user input indicating a shipping item is stackable of Brownell in the loading configuration system of Olin/Wintz/Honnalli with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to solve the problems that “investing significant time in determining a proper classification code consumes valuable time and resources which could be utilized in shipping operations” (Brownell: ¶ 0006), and “there exists a need in the fields of commercial shipping and freight transportation for quick and efficient methods of classifying objects with a proper classification code” (Brownell: ¶ 0007).
Claim 15 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), further in view of US 20250124363 A1 to Honnalli et al. (Honnalli), and further in view of US 20200302375 A1 to Ganesh et al. (Ganesh).
Claim 15: Olin/Wintz/Honnalli teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitation, Olin/Wintz/Honnalli do not explicitly teach, however, Ganesh teaches:
further comprising receiving, by the processor, an input from a user via a user interface, wherein the input indicates whether one of the plurality of shipments is a priority shipment (Ganesh: ¶ 0044-0046 showing receiving user input of a shipping option which may include priority options over a standard shipping option, such as two day shipping, overnight shipping, or next day air shipping)
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 receiving user input of a priority shipping option of Ganesh in the loading configuration system of Olin/Wintz/Honnalli with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, 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.
Conclusion
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