DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Application 18/808,642 filed on 08/19/2024.
In the instant application, claims 1, 11 and 20 are independent claims; Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending. This action is made non-final.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 08/19/2024 are acceptable.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/19/2024 and 02/17/2026 were filed before the mailing date of the first office action on the merits. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 of this title, 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 1-5, 8, 11-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nayak et al. (“Nayak,” US 2020/0361607), published on Nov. 19, 2020 in view of Daw Perez et al. (“Perez,” US 2021/0318668), published Oct. 14, 2021.
Regarding claim 1, Nayak teaches A human-machine interface (HMI) controller for a cargo handling system (Nayak: ¶0049 and Fig. 3; a portable Cargo Panel “PCP” 200), comprising:
a touch screen display; at least one processor; and a memory operatively coupled to the at least one processor (Nayak: ¶0051 and Fig.3; a Portable Cargo Panel (PCP) 200, which is a portable electronic device having a touch screen 202, a processor 204 and a wireless transceiver 206. The PCP 200 remotely controls the CHUs 120 to allow for loading and unloading ULDs 100 from the cargo compartments 110 and to manipulate ULDs 100 within the cargo compartments 110. The disclosed PCP 200 includes but is not limited to tablet computing devices, mobile phones, etc…),
the memory comprising instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the at least one process to:
present [multiple cargo operating modes] to an operator via the touch screen display (Nayak: ¶0004; detecting a gesture on a display of the Portable Cargo Panel (PCP), determining that the gesture is a command to view on the display a first cargo compartment. 0053 and Fig. 4; at power-up, there is an option for an operator to connect to the compartments 110. ¶0052; the PCP 200 may recognize gestures as commands to execute cargo handling operations and the PCP 200 may forward the commands to the control panels 160 for execution in the compartments 110 by the CHUs 120. ¶0054 and Figs. 5a-5b; an operator may provide an input gesture on the display of the PCP 200 to select a control panel 160);
responsive to receiving a selection of a cargo operating mode from the multiple cargo operating modes (Nayak: ¶0052 and Fig. 2; the PCP 200 may support recognition of a plurality of gestures including single-touch gestures and multi-touch gestures as commands to execute cargo handling operations and the PCP may forward the commands to the control panels 160 for execution in the compartments 110 by the CHUs 120. ¶0053 and Fig. 4; at power-up, there is an option for an operator to connect to the compartments 110. ¶0054 and Figs. 5a-5b; an operator may provide an input gesture on the display of the PCP 200 to select a control panel 160. The PCP 200 directly communicates with each of the control panels 160), present a set of operations associated with the cargo operating mode to the operator (Nayak: ¶0054 and Figs. 4-5B; wherein Fig. 5a shows the display of the PCP 200 after connecting to the first control panel 160a. Such connection is obtained following an operator has engaged the PCP 200 and provided an input command, via an input gesture, to connect to the first control panel 160a. Similarly, Fig. 5B shows the display on the PCP 200 after connecting to the second control panel 160b. ¶0051; the portable cargo panel (PCP) 200 remotely controls the CHUs 120 to allow for loading and unloading ULDs 100 from the selected cargo compartment and to manipulate ULDs 100 within the selected cargo compartment. The PCP 200 provides real-time interfacing with the CHS 105 to provide functionalities including tracking of ULDs and monitoring of operational and health states of the CHUs 120 within the selected cargo compartment. ¶0054; the PCP 200 presents the selected cargo compartment including ULDs 100, CHUs 120, control panel 160 as shown in Figs. 5A-5B); and
responsive to receiving a selection of at least one operation from the set of operations associated with the cargo operating mode (Nayak: ¶0058; the PCP 200 transmits a command to the first control panel 160a to control the CHUs 120 to move the first ULD 100a along the first transport part 210a. The first control panel 160a in turn controls the CHUs 120 in the first compartment 110a to move the first ULD 100a along the first transport path 210a), send at least one command to at least one power drive unit (PDU) of a plurality of power drive units (PDUs), wherein the plurality of PDUs operate in a decentralized control architecture, with each PDU of the plurality of PDUs autonomously making decisions based on a current commanded objective of the at least one command and directly communicating with at least one other PDU of the plurality of PDUs and wherein each PDU in the plurality of PDUs comprises: a drive roller; a motor configured to rotate the drive roller; and a PDU controller, the PDU controller is configured to directly communicate with the at least one other PDU of the plurality of PDUs to drive cargo as per the at least one command (Nayak: ¶0012; the method includes detecting a third gesture on the display, determining that the third gesture is a command for rotating a ULD by ninety degrees and linearly moving the ULD along a second transport path that is into, within, or out of the first cargo compartments. ¶0006; updating the display when changes in the health state of the plurality of CHUs is detected). ¶0004; controlling one or more of the CHUs in the first cargo compartment by transmitting, to the first control panel, a command to run a diagnostic test against the one or more of the plurality of CHUs, or control the plurality of CHUs to move a Unit Load Device (ULD) into, within or out of the first cargo compartment; ¶0005; CHUs may be visually displayed differently between a Power Drive Unit (PDUs) and a Turntable Unit (TUs). ¶0007-0008; forwarding a command to move the first ULD along the first transport path to the first control panel, whereby the first control panel commands the plurality of CHUs to move the ULD along the first transport path. ¶0054; Fig. 5a shows the display of the PCP 200 after connecting to the first control panel 1601. Such connection is obtained following an operator has engaged the PCP 200 and provided an input command, via an input gesture, to connect to the first control panel 160a).
Nayak does not appear to teach: multiple cargo operating modes.
However Perez teaches methods for operating multiple-level autonomous cargo handling systems. Perez also teaches: multiple cargo operating modes (Perez: ¶0047; the result of the confidence assessment may direct the cargo handling system to adjust the level of control from a higher level of autonomous control to a lower level of autonomous control. ¶0048 and Fig. 4B; the system autonomy level may comprise one of a discrete mode of operation, a manual mode of operation, an operator-assisted mode of operation, a semi-autonomous mode of operation, and a full-autonomous mode of operation).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art , before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Perez and Nayak in front of them to incorporate the methods of adjusting a level of autonomous control of the cargo handling system as disclosed by Perez with the method of handling aircraft cargo from a portable panel as taught by Nayak to control the movement of a plurality of ULDs through the cargo desk with a greater level of autonomy and safety and at a lower cost than cargo systems requiring greater human interaction (Perez: ¶0032).
Regarding claim 2, Nayak and Perez teach the HMI controller of claim 1,
Nayak and Perez also teach: wherein the multiple cargo operating modes comprise an autonomous mode, a semi-autonomous mode, a zone mode, and a discrete mode (Perez: ¶0048 and Fig. 4B; the system autonomy level may comprise one of a discrete mode of operation, a manual mode of operation, an operator-assisted mode of operation, a semi-autonomous mode of operation, and a full-autonomous mode of operation. ¶0040; during the ULD localization task, each of the plurality of sensing agents 360 may monitor a sensing zone 372 to locate and generate data on objects within the sensing zone 372).
Regarding claim 3, Nayak and Perez teach the HMI controller of claim 2,
Nayak and Perez also teach: wherein in the autonomous mode (Perez: ¶0048 and Fig. 4B; the system autonomy level may comprise one of a discrete mode of operation, a manual mode of operation, an operator-assisted mode of operation, a semi-autonomous mode of operation, and a full-autonomous mode of operation. ¶0040; during the ULD localization task, each of the plurality of sensing agents 360 may monitor a sensing zone 372 to locate and generate data on objects within the sensing zone 372), the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the at least one processor to: load a loading plan for loading a unit load device (ULD) into a cargo compartment (Perez: ¶0040 and Figs. 1A-4B; the plurality of sensing agents 360 may be configured to perform one or more tasks during the cargo loading or unloading process. For example, the plurality of sensing agents 360 may be configured to perform a ULD localization task, a non-ULD detection task or a ULD modeling task); and responsive to receiving an initiate command from the operator, set high-level objectives for the PDUs to autonomously load the ULD into the cargo compartment according to the loading plan (Nayak: ¶0007; the method includes detecting a second gesture on the display; determining that the second gesture is a command for moving a first ULD along a first transport path that is a linear path into, within, or out of the first cargo compartment, whereby the first control panel commands the plurality of CHUs to move the ULD along the first transport path. Perez: ¶0048 and Fig. 4B; adjusting a level of autonomous control to perform operations of the cargo handling system).
Regarding claim 4, Nayak and Perez teach the HMI controller of claim 3,
Nayak and Perez also teach: wherein in loading the ULD into the cargo compartment, the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the at least one processor to: display, via the touch screen display, the ULD to be loaded; display, via the touch screen display, an end location in the cargo compartment for the ULD; and display, via the touch screen display, a path the ULD will move within the cargo compartment (Nayak: ¶0008; the method includes obtaining operational data updates for the plurality of CHUs from first control panel while the CHUs are moving the first ULD along the first transport path; displaying the operational states for the plurality of CHUs while the CHUs are moving the first ULD along the first transport part; wherein the operational states include: ruing and standby).
Regarding claim 5, Nayak and Perez teach the HMI controller of claim 2,
Nayak and Perez also teach: wherein in the semi-autonomous mode, the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the at least one processor to: receive a selection of a unit load device (ULD) to move within a cargo compartment; receive a selection of a destination location for the ULD; and responsive to receiving an initiate command from the operator, set high-level objectives for the PDUs to autonomously move the ULD to the destination location (Perez: ¶0048 and Figs. 1A-4B; the system autonomy level may include a semi-autonomous mode of operation, in which operation of the cargo handling system is controlled autonomously, but a human operator is responsible for performing safety critical operations, such as, for example restraining loads after being moved into position).
Regarding claim 8, Nayak and Perez teach the HMI controller of claim 1,
Nayak and Perez also teach: wherein, in order to drive the cargo as per the at least one command, the PDU controller is configured to send a command to engage the drive roller of the at least one of PDU or the at least one other PDU (Perez: ¶0025-0027; the cargo handling system includes a plurality of power drive units (PDUs) 110, each of which may include one or more drive rollers 108 that may be actively. powered by a motor. In various embodiments, the plurality of conveyance rollers 106 and the one or more drive rollers 108 may be configured to facilitate transport of the ULD 120 in the forward and the aft directions along the conveyance surface 102. Thus, the cargo handling system may receive operator input through the system controller 130 to control the plurality of PDUs).
Regarding claims 11-15, these claims are directed to a cargo handling system, comprising: a plurality of power drive units (PDUs) (Nayah: ¶0004; a first plurality of cargo handling units (CHUs) and a first control panel operationally connected to the plurality of CHUs. Controlling one or more of the CHUs in the first cargo compartment by transmitting, to the first control panel, a command to: run a diagnostic test against the one of more of the CHUs, or control the plurality of CHUs to move a unit load device (ULD) into, within or out of the first cargo compartment. CHUs may be distinguished between Power Drive Unit (PDUs) and Turntable Unit (Tus); and a human-machine interface (HMI) controller configured to control each of the plurality of PDUs (Nayah: ¶0004; detecting a gesture on a display of the Portable Cargo Panel (PCP), determining that the gesture is a command to view on the display a first cargo compartment, the first cargo compartment including a doorway, a first plurality of cargo handling units (CHUs) and a first control panel operationally connected to the plurality of CHUs. Controlling one or more of the CHUs in the first cargo compartment by transmitting, to the first control panel, a command to: run a diagnostic test against the one of more of the CHUs, or control the plurality of CHUs to move a unit load device (ULD) into, within or out of the first cargo compartment. CHUs may be distinguished between Power Drive Unit (PDUs) and Turntable Unit (Tus), the HMI controller comprising: a touch screen display; at least one processor; and a memory operatively coupled to the at least one processor (Nayak: ¶0051 and Fig.3; a Portable Cargo Panel (PCP) 200, which is a portable electronic device having a touch screen 202, a processor 204 and a wireless transceiver 206. The PCP 200 remotely controls the CHUs 120 to allow for loading and unloading ULDs 100 from the cargo compartments 110 and to manipulate ULDs 100 within the cargo compartments 110. The disclosed PCP 200 includes but is not limited to tablet computing devices, mobile phones, etc…), executing by the human machine interface (HMI) controller as claimed in claims 1-5, respectively; Claims 11-15 are similar scope to claims 1-5, respectively and are rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 20, this claim is directed to an aircraft (Nayah: ¶0046 and Fig. 1; a commercial aircraft 10), comprising: a cargo desk and a cargo handling system disposed within the cargo desk (Nayah: ¶0046 and Fig. 1; the aircraft 10 includes a cargo handling system that includes a plurality of cargo storing compartment including a first compartment 110a which may be a primary compartment on a main cargo deck), the cargo handling system comprising: a plurality of power drive units (PDUs) (Nayah: ¶0004; a first plurality of cargo handling units (CHUs) and a first control panel operationally connected to the plurality of CHUs. Controlling one or more of the CHUs in the first cargo compartment by transmitting, to the first control panel, a command to: run a diagnostic test against the one of more of the CHUs, or control the plurality of CHUs to move a unit load device (ULD) into, within or out of the first cargo compartment. CHUs may be distinguished between Power Drive Unit (PDUs) and Turntable Unit (Tus); and a human-machine interface (HMI) controller configured to control each of the plurality of PDUs (Nayah: ¶0004; detecting a gesture on a display of the Portable Cargo Panel (PCP), determining that the gesture is a command to view on the display a first cargo compartment, the first cargo compartment including a doorway, a first plurality of cargo handling units (CHUs) and a first control panel operationally connected to the plurality of CHUs. Controlling one or more of the CHUs in the first cargo compartment by transmitting, to the first control panel, a command to: run a diagnostic test against the one of more of the CHUs, or control the plurality of CHUs to move a unit load device (ULD) into, within or out of the first cargo compartment. CHUs may be distinguished between Power Drive Unit (PDUs) and Turntable Unit (Tus), the HMI controller comprising: a touch screen display; at least one processor; and a memory operatively coupled to the at least one processor (Nayak: ¶0051 and Fig.3; a Portable Cargo Panel (PCP) 200, which is a portable electronic device having a touch screen 202, a processor 204 and a wireless transceiver 206. The PCP 200 remotely controls the CHUs 120 to allow for loading and unloading ULDs 100 from the cargo compartments 110 and to manipulate ULDs 100 within the cargo compartments 110. The disclosed PCP 200 includes but is not limited to tablet computing devices, mobile phones, etc…), executing by the human machine interface (HMI) controller as claimed in claim 1; Claim 20 is similar scope to claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 6-7 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nayak and Perez as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Balasubramanian et al. (“Balasubamanian,” US 2020/0102076), published on April 2, 2020.
Regarding claim 6, Nayak and Perez teach the HMI controller of claim 2,
Nayak and Perez also teach: wherein in the zone mode, the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the at least one processor to: receive a selection of a unit load device (ULD) to move within a cargo compartment; receive the selection of at least one operation to be performed in moving the ULD within the cargo compartment (Perez: ¶0040 and Figs. 1A-4B; the plurality of sensing agents 360 may be configured to perform one or more tasks during the cargo loading or unloading process. For example, the plurality of sensing agents 360 may be configured to perform a ULD localization task, a non-ULD detection task or a ULD modeling task); and [responsive to receiving a command from the operator via a joystick, set high-level objectives for the PDUs to autonomously move the ULD according to the command received via the joystick].
Nayak and Perez do not explicitly teach: responsive to receiving a command from the operator via a joystick, set high-level objectives for the PDUs to autonomously move the ULD according to the command received via the joystick.
However, Balasubramanian teaches: responsive to receiving a command from the operator via a joystick, set high-level objectives for the PDUs to autonomously move the ULD according to the command received via the joystick (Balasubramanian: ¶0014, 0044 and Figs. 1-15; a method of operating a wireless portable cargo control panel with physical controls. The method includes detecting a docking status of a portable electronic device (PED), modifying soft controls of a display of the PED, controlling cargo operations of a cargo compartment using inputs from at least one of the soft controls of the PED or physical controls of the PCP based on the docking status, and displaying a status of the cargo operation and a status of the control components on the display of the PED. ¶0054-0057; in zone 3, the physical control joystick 108 provides the ability to move the cargo ULD in all four directions. The physical selection switches 106 provide the ability to rotate and drive the cargo ULD in zone 3).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art , before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Balasubramanian, Nayak and Perez in front of them to incorporate the method of using physical controls as disclosed by Balasubramanian with the method of handling aircraft cargo from a portable panel as taught by Nayak to provide a flexible control interface allowing an operator to perform cargo operations in both soft controls and physical controls (Balasubramanian: ¶0044-0045).
Regarding claim 7, Nayak and Perez teach the HMI controller of claim 2,
Nayak and Perez also teach: wherein in the discrete mode (Perez: ¶0052; enable cargo handling systems configured for autonomous control to be operated at multiple levels of autonomy including a discrete mode of operation), the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the at least one processor to: display, via the touch screen display, one or more PDUs associated with a unit load device (ULD) to move within a cargo compartment; receive a selection of an at least one PDU from the one or more PDUs (Perez: ¶0030; an operator may control operation of the plurality of PDUs 210 using one or more control interfaces of a system controller 230. For example, an operator may selectively control the operations of the plurality of PDUs 210 through an interface, such as, for example a master control panel 232. In various embodiments, the cargo handling system may also include one or more local control panels 234. Thus, the master control panel 232 or the local control panels 234 may be configured to allow an operator to selectively engage or activate one or more of the plurality of PDUs 210 to propel the ULD 220 along conveyance surface 202); and [responsive to receiving a command from the operator via a joystick, operate the at least one PDU according to the command received via the joystick].
Nayak and Perez do not explicitly teach: responsive to receiving a command from the operator via a joystick, operate the at least one PDU according to the command received via the joystick.
However, Balasubramanian teaches: responsive to receiving a command from the operator via a joystick, operate the at least one PDU according to the command received via the joystick (Balasubramanian: ¶0014, 0044 and Figs. 1-15; a method of operating a wireless portable cargo control panel with physical controls. The method includes detecting a docking status of a portable electronic device (PED), modifying soft controls of a display of the PED, controlling cargo operations of a cargo compartment using inputs from at least one of the soft controls of the PED or physical controls of the PCP based on the docking status, and displaying a status of the cargo operation and a status of the control components on the display of the PED. ¶0054-0057; in zone 3, the physical control joystick 108 provides the ability to move the cargo ULD in all four directions. The physical selection switches 106 provide the ability to rotate and drive the cargo ULD in zone 3).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art , before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Balasubramanian, Nayak and Perez in front of them to incorporate the method of using physical controls as disclosed by Balasubramanian with the method of handling aircraft cargo from a portable panel as taught by Nayak to provide a flexible control interface allowing an operator to perform cargo operations in both soft controls and physical controls (Balasubramanian: ¶0044-0045).
Regarding claims 16-17, these claims are directed to the cargo handling system as claimed in claims 6-7, respectively; Claims 16-17 are similar scope to claims 6-7, respectively and are rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 9-10 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nayak and Perez as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Harms et al. (“Harms,” US 2019/0210727), published on July 11, 2019
Regarding claim 9, Nayak and Perez teach the HMI controller of claim 2,
Nayak and Perez do not explicitly teach: wherein, by each PDU of the plurality of PDUs communicating with the at least one other PDU of the plurality of PDUs, a mesh network of communication is formed by of the plurality of PDUs.
However Harms teaches agent-based cargo handling system; wherein, by each PDU of the plurality of PDUs communicating with the at least one other PDU of the plurality of PDUs, a mesh network of communication is formed by of the plurality of PDUs (Harms: ¶0004; a power drive unit (PDU) is used for moving cargo within an aircraft. The PDU includes an actuator configured to move a unit load device (ULD relative to the PDU. ¶0005, 0011, 0012; the controller is further configured to transmit the current state of the PDU to the second PDU via the network access device. ¶0054 and Fig. 4; the first plurality of PDUs 204 may each be coupled together via a first bus 208, and the second plurality of PDUs 206 may each be coupled together via a second bus 210. ¶0061 the network access device 308 may be designed to communicate with the HMI 212 and the remaining PDUs of the first plurality of PDUs 204 via the first bus 208).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art , before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Harms, Nayak and Perez in front of them to incorporate the agent-based cargo handling system as disclosed by Harms with the method of handling aircraft cargo from a portable panel as taught by Nayak to provide a quick and efficient propel cargo containers and pallets within the aircraft cargo compartment (Harms: ¶0002-0003).
Regarding claim 10, Nayak and Perez teach the HMI controller of claim 1
Nayak and Perez do not explicitly teach: wherein each of the plurality of PDUs further comprises: a presence sensor, wherein the PDU controller is further configured to send a command to engage the drive roller of the at least one PDU in response to receiving a signal from the presence sensor indicating a presence of the cargo.
However Harms teaches agent-based cargo handling system; wherein each of the plurality of PDUs further comprises: a presence sensor, wherein the PDU controller is further configured to send a command to engage the drive roller of the at least one PDU in response to receiving a signal from the presence sensor indicating a presence of the cargo (Harms: ¶0004, 0008, 0011; the PDU includes a controller configured to determine a current state of the PDU based on sensor data corresponding to presence of the ULD above the PDU and the second PDU state and to control the actuator based on the current state of the PDU).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art , before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Harms, Nayak and Perez in front of them to incorporate the agent-based cargo handling system as disclosed by Harms with the method of handling aircraft cargo from a portable panel as taught by Nayak to provide a quick and efficient propel cargo containers and pallets within the aircraft cargo compartment (Harms: ¶0002-0003).
Regarding claim 18, Nayak and Perez teach the cargo handling system of claim 12,
Nayak and Perez also teach: wherein, in order to drive the cargo as per the at least one command, the PDU controller is configured to send a command to engage the drive roller of the at least one of PDU or the at least one other PDU (Perez: ¶0025-0027; the cargo handling system includes a plurality of power drive units (PDUs) 110, each of which may include one or more drive rollers 108 that may be actively. powered by a motor. In various embodiments, the plurality of conveyance rollers 106 and the one or more drive rollers 108 may be configured to facilitate transport of the ULD 120 in the forward and the aft directions along the conveyance surface 102. Thus, the cargo handling system may receive operator input through the system controller 130 to control the plurality of PDUs) and [wherein, by each PDU of the plurality of PDUs communicating with the at least one other PDU of the plurality of PDUs, a mesh network of communication is formed by of the plurality of PDUs].
Nayak and Perez do not explicitly teach: wherein, by each PDU of the plurality of PDUs communicating with the at least one other PDU of the plurality of PDUs, a mesh network of communication is formed by of the plurality of PDUs.
However Harms teaches agent-based cargo handling system; wherein, by each PDU of the plurality of PDUs communicating with the at least one other PDU of the plurality of PDUs, a mesh network of communication is formed by of the plurality of PDUs (Harms: ¶0004; a power drive unit (PDU) is used for moving cargo within an aircraft. The PDU includes an actuator configured to move a unit load device (ULD relative to the PDU. ¶0005, 0011, 0012; the controller is further configured to transmit the current state of the PDU to the second PDU via the network access device. ¶0054 and Fig. 4; the first plurality of PDUs 204 may each be coupled together via a first bus 208, and the second plurality of PDUs 206 may each be coupled together via a second bus 210. ¶0061 the network access device 308 may be designed to communicate with the HMI 212 and the remaining PDUs of the first plurality of PDUs 204 via the first bus 208).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art , before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Harms, Nayak and Perez in front of them to incorporate the agent-based cargo handling system as disclosed by Harms with the method of handling aircraft cargo from a portable panel as taught by Nayak to provide a quick and efficient propel cargo containers and pallets within the aircraft cargo compartment (Harms: ¶0002-0003).
Regarding claim 19, the claim is directed to a cargo handling system as claimed in claim 10; Claim 19 is similar scope to claim 10 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968)).
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tam T. Tran whose telephone number is (571) 270-5029. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William L. Bashore can be reached on 571-272-4088. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAM T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights