DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
1. This action is responsive to the following communication: Remarks in Response to Non-Final Office Action, filed on June 15, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in the case; Claims 1 and 17 are independent claims; no claims were amended. This action is made final.
Response to Arguments
2. In the Non-Final Rejection mailed on January 15, 2026, Claims 15 and 16 were rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) as being indefinite (see Non-Final Rejection, pgs. 2-3). However, Applicant's arguments, see Remarks filed on June 15, 2026 (hereinafter Remarks), with respect to § 112(b) rejections (see pgs. 5-6), have been fully considered and are persuasive. The § 112(b) rejection of Claims 15 and 16 has been withdrawn.
3. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks (pgs. 6-8), with respect to § 103 rejections (see Non-Final Rejection, pgs. 4-11), have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “Dixon’s robotic pallet cannot reposition itself within the cargo compartment once loaded” (see Remarks, pg. 7), but it should be noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., self-repositioning of a robot once it is loaded into the cargo compartment) are not recited in the independent claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 1 (and similarly, Claim 17) merely requires “a weight balance adjustment mechanism, comprising at least one of a load sensor and a position sensor, configured to adjust the position of the cargo container within the cargo compartment using data received from the at least one of a load sensor and a position sensor,” and Dixon teaches that “the robotic pallet … has the ability to self-weigh and measure the center-of-gravity (CG) of its cargo which will enable a team of pallets to determine a more optimal load configuration for specific aircraft” (see ¶¶ 0010, 0018, see also ¶¶ 0011-12, discussing fine position control while autonomously loading an aircraft). While Dixon does not appear to teach or suggest repositioning of the pallet robot based on the self-weighing and measuring once it has been loaded, Dixon teaches or at least clearly suggests that the determination of an optimal loading configuration, based on self-weighing and measuring, results in an adjustment of the robotic pallet’s position within the cargo compartment, when the robotic pallet is loading the aircraft, which reads on Claim 1 as currently presented.
Applicant should consider further clarifying the claims to ensure that they are interpreted in the argued-for manner, such as by explicitly reciting that the position adjustment step is performed after the cargo container is loaded within the cargo compartment.
Applicant also argues that Claim 11 further distinguishes over Dixon because Dixon’s pallet retracts its wheels during flight, rendering it incapable of adjusting its position while the vehicle is in motion (see Remarks, pgs. 7-8), but it should be noted that Claim 11, as currently presented, (i) does not require an adjustment of the position while the vehicle is in motion (because the claimed limitation can be met while the vehicle is still), and (ii) does not require the cargo container to be loaded into the cargo container when the position adjustment is being performed. Applicant should consider further clarifying the Claim 11 to ensure that it is interpreted in the argued-for manner, such as by explicitly reciting that the position adjustment step is performed after the cargo container is loaded within the cargo compartment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
4. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dixon et al. (hereinafter Dixon), US 2014/0309809 A1, published on October 16, 2014.
With respect to independent Claim 1, Dixon teaches a cargo container system, comprising:
…
a cargo container configured to fit within the cargo compartment (see Fig. 5, ¶ 0010, showing a robotic pallet that is designed to move cargo onto/off of cargo aircraft).
a weight balance adjustment mechanism, comprising at least one of a load sensor and a position sensor, configured to adjust the position of the cargo container within the cargo compartment using data received from the at least one of a load sensor and a position sensor (see ¶¶ 0012, 0018, showing a suite of sensors, including positioning sensors, that allow the robotic pallet to detect its surroundings, perform collision avoidance, determine its location, etc., and further showing load cells (i.e., load sensors) that can determine a load on the top deck of the pallet as well as measure the center of gravity; see also ¶¶ 0010, 0019, showing that the robotic pallet can determine a more optimal load configuration and load the aircraft accordingly; see also § Response to Arguments, above).
While Dixon does not appear to explicitly require a vehicle with a cargo compartment, Dixon makes it clear that the robotic pallets can be used to move cargo within a vehicle, such as an aircraft (see Abstract; see also ¶¶ 0003-04, 0010), and a skilled artisan would understand that a pallet of an appropriate size would be used to load items into a corresponding vehicle’s cargo compartment.
With respect to dependent Claim 2, Dixon teaches the system according to claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein the vehicle is an aircraft (see ¶ 0010; see also discussion of Claim 1, above).
With respect to dependent Claim 4, Dixon teaches the system according to claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein the cargo container is a pallet (see Fig. 5, Abstract).
With respect to dependent Claim 5, Dixon teaches the system according to claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein the weight balance adjustment mechanism comprises a controller for processing the data and/or at least partially automatically controlling the weight balance adjustment mechanism (see ¶¶ 0010, 0013, 0015, showing that the robotic pallet interacts with one or more control systems, and further showing monitoring and control stations, as well as handheld pallet controllers, that allow for intra-pallet communication, configuration, and optimization).
With respect to dependent Claim 7, Dixon teaches the system according to claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein the cargo container comprises a plurality of wheels on an underside of the cargo container (see Figs. 8-10, ¶¶ 0017, 0019, Cl. 2).
With respect to dependent Claim 8, Dixon teaches the system according to claim 7, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein the wheels are attached to the cargo container by folding and/or retractable and expandable struts (see Fig. 9 (“pendulum arm” and “hydraulic lift cylinder”), ¶ 0017, discussing retracting wheels internally to the pallet).
With respect to dependent Claim 9, Dixon teaches the system according to claim 7, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein the wheels are motorized (see Fig. 4 (“Propulsion: Drive Motor), Cls. 1-2 (a motor coupled with the plurality of drive wheels)).
With respect to dependent Claim 10, Dixon teaches the system according to claim 8, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein the folding and/or retractable/expandable struts are actuated (see Fig. 9 (“hydraulic lift cylinder”)).
With respect to dependent Claim 11, Dixon teaches the system according to claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein the weight balance adjustment mechanism is configured to adjust the position of the cargo container while the vehicle is still or in motion based on the data (see ¶¶ 0010, 0012, showing ability to self-weigh and measure the center-of-gravity in order to optimize load configuration, and further showing ability to autonomously move onto a cargo aircraft; see also § Response to Arguments, above).
With respect to dependent Claim 12, Dixon teaches the system according to claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein the at least one of a load sensor and a position sensor is disposed on the vehicle, on the cargo container or both (see ¶ 0018, showing load cells (load sensors) disposed on the cargo container).
With respect to dependent Claim 13, Dixon teaches the system according to claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests further comprising an integrated power source (see Fig. 6 (“battery bank”), ¶ 0016, Cl. 1 (a power source coupled with the motor)).
With respect to dependent Claim 14, Dixon teaches the system according to claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein the cargo container is at least partially automatically loaded into the cargo compartment (see ¶ 0010, discussing autonomous operation).
With respect to dependent Claim 15, Dixon teaches the system according to claim 1, as discussed above, and while Dixon does not appear to explicitly show wherein the weight balance adjustment system comprises a screw-based movement mechanism, there does not appear to be anything in Dixon that would prevent the robotic pallet from being handled in a desired manner, such as by a screw-based movement mechanism, once loaded into the cargo compartment (see ¶ 0017, discussing maintaining 463L compatibility of the robotic pallet; see also Remarks filed on June 15, 2026, pg. 5, stating that a screw-based mechanisms for linear motion are well-known in the mechanical arts).
With respect to dependent Claim 16, Dixon teaches the system according to claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests an electro-mechanical interface between the cargo container and the vehicle (see Figs. 8-9, ¶¶ 0010, 0019, discussing the propulsion system of the robotic pallet, which reads on “electro-mechanical interface” as recited herein).
With respect to independent Claim 17, Dixon teaches a method of using a cargo container system, comprising:
placing cargo into a cargo container (see ¶¶ 0003, 0010).
inserting the cargo container into a cargo compartment of a vehicle (see ¶ 0010).
adjusting the weight balance of the cargo container within the cargo compartment using a weight balance adjustment mechanism comprising at least one of a load sensor and a position sensor, configured to adjust the position of the cargo container within the cargo compartment using data received from the at least one of a load sensor and a position sensor (see ¶¶ 0010, 0012, 0018, 0019; see also discussion of Claim 1, above).
With respect to dependent Claim 18, Dixon teaches the method according to claim 17, as discussed above, and further suggests calculating the weight balance state of the cargo container prior to inserting (see ¶¶ 0010, 0018, discussing ability to determine a load configuration – a skilled artisan would understand that this determination can occur at any point in time).
With respect to dependent Claim 19, Dixon teaches the method according to claim 17, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein at least one of inserting and adjusting is performed at least partially automatically (see ¶¶ 0010, 0018, describing autonomous loading and self-weighing).
With respect to dependent Claim 20, Dixon teaches the method according to claim 17, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein the adjusting is performed using data derived from at least one of the cargo container and the vehicle (see ¶¶ 0010, 0018, showing adjustments based on data derived from the robotic pallet).
5. Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dixon in view of Burch, V et al. (hereinafter Burch), US 2016/0239802 A1, published on August 18, 2016.
With respect to dependent Claim 3, Dixon teaches the system according to claim 1, as discussed above, and while Dixon illustrates a robotic pallet, Dixon does not appear to illustrate a box having an interior space with at least one door for accessing the interior space. However, a skilled artisan would understand that other configurations can be utilized in order to load cargo onto a vehicle (see ¶ 0011), such as a cargo container illustrated by the teachings of Burch. Burch is directed towards managing logistics information related to a container (see Burch, Abstract). Burch teaches a cargo container with a door (see Burch, Fig. 3A, Cl. 33) and further teaches such cargo container having a plurality of sensors and interfaces (see Burch, Fig. 3A, ¶¶ 0014, 0029). It would have been obvious to incorporate the cargo container features of Burch with the robotic pallet of Dixon in order to better protect the cargo.
With respect to dependent Claim 6, Dixon teaches the system according to claim 1, as discussed above, and while Dixon illustrates the robotic pallet interacting with one or more control or monitoring systems (see ¶¶ 0010, 0015), Dixon does not appear to explicitly illustrate a user interface configured to provide information regarding the system and control of the system to a user. However, the teachings of Burch can be relied upon for an explicit suggestion of this limitation (see Burch, Figs. 1, 3A (element 150), ¶¶ 0028, 0067-68).
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. 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)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1,215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DINO KUJUNDZIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5188. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5pm.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached on 571-272-4876. 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.
/DINO KUJUNDZIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights