DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to the following communication: a non-provisional Application filed on August 23, 2024, a Preliminary Amendment to the Specification and Drawings filed on November 6, 2024, and an Information Disclosure Statement filed on March 4, 2025. This action is made non-final.
2. Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1 and 17 are independent claims.
3. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
4. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the weight balance adjustment system comprises a screw-based movement mechanism,” and Claim 16 recites “further comprising an electro-mechanical interface between the cargo container and the vehicle,” but it is not clear how these limitations are intended to be interpreted. Paragraph 0078 of instant Specification (as published, see US 2025/0068188 A1) states “In some embodiments, the electrical interface between the smart box and the aircraft is combined with the mechanical means for adjusting its position within the cargo compartment, for example the leadscrew/clamp shown in Fig. 21.” Paragraph 0114 recites “In some embodiments of the invention, smart box 106 position adjustment within the aircraft can be carried out using a screw assembly 2110 or a worm gear along with a motorized clamp 2112 for driving movement fore and aft while being attached to the hardpoint 2108 of the smart box 106.” However, it does not appear that either of “screw-based movement mechanism” or “electro-mechanical interface” is sufficiently described or illustrated in the instant Specification. The examples provided in the above-noted paragraphs do not appear to clearly establish what does or does not comprise the recited mechanism and interface.
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.
5. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-14, and 16-20 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).
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).
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 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 (see also ¶ 112 rejection, above)).
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).
6. 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached on 571-272-5109. 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 3667