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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
As concerns Claim 10, the phrase “cargo assembly” appears to be used mistakenly. The phrase has been examined as though referring to the ‘cargo floor assembly’ mentioned elsewhere in the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “second engagement elements” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by unpatentable by Nowarre et al (US 2018/0290724).
As concerns claim 1, Nowarre et al (US 2018/0290724) discloses a cargo floor assembly for a cargo hold of an aircraft comprising a plurality of planar floor elements (Nowarre - 20) arranged in at least two parallel rows in a common plane so as to form a cargo floor of the cargo hold extending in the common plane,
at least one main drive rail (Nowarre - 1010, 1020) extending between the at least two rows (Nowarre – Figure 2),
wherein the at least one main drive rail (Nowarre - 1010, 1020) is adapted to fixedly support cargo handling members such as a power drive unit (Nowarre – Paragraph [0063] ‘may contain… an electrical dive unit’) configured for moving cargo unit load devices over the cargo floor along the main drive rail (Nowarre - 1010, 1020),
at least one of a latch member (Nowarre - 112) configured to engage with the cargo unit load devices to prevent the cargo unit load devices from moving along the main drive rail (Nowarre - 1010, 1020) and perpendicular to the common plane, or a roller assembly unit (Nowarre - 111) configured to facilitate movement of the cargo unit load devices along the main drive rail (Nowarre - 1010, 1020),
the main drive rail (Nowarre - 1010, 1020) comprising first and second engagement flanges (Nowarre - flanges of 1010 and 1020 extending upwards) extending perpendicularly to the common plane and running parallel to and spaced from each other along the main drive rail (Nowarre - 1010, 1020),
a connecting portion (Nowarre - central horizontal portion of 1010 and 1020) interconnecting the first and second engagement flanges (Nowarre - flanges of 1010 and 1020 extending upwards) and extending along the main drive rail (Nowarre - 1010, 1020), and
first and second support flanges (Nowarre - horizontal flanges of 1010), the first support flange extending laterally outwardly away from the first engagement flange and an intermediate space between the first and second engagement flanges (Nowarre - flanges of 1010 and 1020 extending upwards) and the second support flange extending laterally outwardly away from the second engagement flange and the intermediate space between the first and second engagement flanges (Nowarre - flanges of 1010 and 1020 extending upwards),
wherein the planar floor elements (Nowarre - 20) are supported on the support flanges (Nowarre - horizontal flanges of 1010), and
wherein the first and second engagement flanges (Nowarre - flanges of 1010 and 1020 extending upwards) comprise first engagement elements configured to engage with second engagement elements of a cargo handling member arranged between the engagement flanges (Nowarre - flanges of 1010 and 1020 extending upwards).
PNG
media_image1.png
732
510
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As concerns claim 3, Nowarre discloses the cargo floor assembly according to claim 1, wherein the first and the second engagement flanges (Nowarre - flanges of 1010 and 1020 extending upwards) comprise openings (1025) pointing towards an opposite engagement flange and being configured to receive bolt members laterally movably supported in the cargo handling members. (Nowarre – Figure 5, Paragraph [0075])
As concerns claim 4, Nowarre discloses the cargo floor assembly according to claim 3, wherein the openings are arranged such that at least two openings in each engagement flange are engaged by the bolt members of a single cargo handling member. (Nowarre – Figure 5 illustrates such a configuration)
As concerns claim 5, Nowarre discloses the cargo floor assembly according to claim 4, further comprising a plurality of cargo handling members of a first type (Nowarre – latch member 112) and a plurality of cargo handling members of a second type (Nowarre – roller 111), and
wherein two of the bolt members of the cargo handling members of the first type are arranged to engage with the first engagement flange and have a first distance from each other,
wherein two of the bolt members of the cargo handling members of the first type are arranged to engage with the second engagement flange and have a second distance from each other,
wherein two of the bolt members of the cargo handling members of the second type are arranged to engage with the first engagement flange and have a third distance from each other,
wherein the two bolt members of the cargo handling members of the second type are arranged to engage with the second engagement flange have a fourth distance from each other,
wherein the first and the third distances differ from each other and the second and the fourth distances differ from each other,
wherein the first engagement flange comprises a plurality of first pairs of openings being arranged with the first distance and a plurality of second pairs of openings being arranged with the third distance, and
wherein the second engagement flange comprises a plurality of first pairs of openings being arranged with the second distance and a plurality of second pairs of openings being arranged with the fourth distance. (Nowarre illustrates wherein the rollers have corresponding openings through the side walls of 1021; similarly, latches have their own bolt locations between the openings of the roller openings. This configuration anticipates Applicant’s claimed invention.)
As concerns claim 7, Nowarre discloses the cargo floor assembly according to claim 1, wherein the connecting portion (Nowarre - central horizontal portion of 1010 and 1020) is planar and extends parallel to the common plane between the first and second engagement flanges (Nowarre - flanges of 1010 and 1020 extending upwards). (Figure 3)
As concerns claim 8, Nowarre discloses the cargo floor assembly according to claim 7, wherein the connecting portion (Nowarre - central horizontal portion of 1010 and 1020) extends in a plane below a plane defined by upper surface of the floor elements. (Figure 3)
As concerns claim 9, Nowarre discloses the cargo floor assembly according to claim 1, wherein openings in the connecting portion (Nowarre - central horizontal portion of 1010 and 1020) are provided. (Figure 5)
As concerns claim 10, Nowarre discloses the cargo floor assembly according to claim 3, comprising a plurality of cargo handling members (111, 112), each of the cargo handling members comprising at least two first bolt members (Figure 3 and 5) laterally movably supported on the cargo handling member so that the first bolt members are laterally movable between an unlocked position and a locking position and capable of engaging with openings in the first engagement flange, wherein in the locking position the distal end of the first bolt members have a larger distance from a longitudinal center plane of the cargo handling member than in the unlocked position, wherein the cargo assembly comprises at least two second bolt members laterally movable supported on the cargo handling member so that the second bolt members are laterally movable between an unlocked position (Fig 5, right side) and a locking position (Fig 5, left side) and capable of engaging with openings in the second engagement flange, and wherein in the locking position the distal end of the second bolt members have a larger distance from the longitudinal center plane of the cargo handling member than in the unlocked position. (When the bolt is secured and sticking through both sides of the rail, it would have a larger distance than a moment in time when unsecured being pulled outward, when the end of the bolt would cross the center plane in question.)
As concerns claim 13, Nowarre discloses an aircraft comprising a fuselage having a cargo hold comprising a cargo floor assembly according to claim 1 with the at least two rows extending parallel to the longitudinal axis of the fuselage. (Figure 1)
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Nowarre in view of Hudson et al (US 7,713,009)
As concerns claim 2, Nowarre discloses the cargo floor system according to claim 1, however fails to specify wherein first and second flanges extend downwardly from and perpendicularly to the common plane.
Hudson teaches a cargo floor assembly comprising first and second lower flanges extending downwardly from, and perpendicularly to, the common plane and running parallel to and spaced from each other along the main drive rail. (Figure 12 illustrates wherein such a configuration is known)
PNG
media_image2.png
503
750
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Nowarre as taught by Hudson to include the flanges as shown in Figure 12 of Hudson, for the expected benefit of providing a known, structurally stable cross section of rail for the expected benefit of handling torsional forces placed there-upon by loaded and fixed cargo, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Nowarre in view of Pump et al (US 2015/0225084).
As concerns claim 6, Nowarre discloses the cargo floor assembly according to claim 4, further comprising a plurality of the power drive units (Nowarre – Figure 2 illustrates a plurality of 110s which include both latch and roller members 111 and 112) configured to move the cargo unit load devices over the cargo floor along the main drive rail, a plurality of latch members (Nowarre – 112 is also shown in plurality in Figure 2) similarly configured to engage with the cargo unit load devices to prevent the cargo unit load devices from moving along the main drive rail and perpendicularly to the common plane,
wherein each latch member (112) comprises two bolt members (Figures 3 and 5 illustrate each having two bolt members at least) arranged to engage with the first engagement flange and having a third distance from each other and two bolt members arranged to engage with the second engagement flange and having a fourth distance from each other,
wherein each roller assembly unit comprises two bolt members (Figure 3 and 5) arranged to engage with the first engagement flange and having a fifth distance from each other and two bolt members arranged to engage with the second engagement flange and having a sixth distance from each other,
wherein the first, third and fifth distances are mutually different and the second, fourth and sixth distances are mutually different,
wherein the first engagement flange comprises a plurality of first pairs of openings being arranged with the first distance, a plurality of second pairs of openings being arranged with the third distance, and a plurality of third pairs of openings being arranged with the fifth distance (openings shown in Nowarre Figures 3-5 for bolts or fasteners for coupling the various elements to the tracks), and
wherein the second engagement flange comprises a plurality of first pairs of openings being arranged with the second distance, a plurality of second pairs of openings being arranged with the fourth distance, and a plurality of third pairs of openings being arranged with the sixth distance (openings shown in Nowarre Figures 3-5 for bolts or fasteners for coupling the various elements to the tracks). (Nowarre – Figure 3 illustrates wherein the rollers have corresponding openings through the side walls of 1021; similarly, latches have their own bolt locations between the openings of the roller openings. This configuration anticipates Applicant’s claimed invention.)
Nowarre fails to specify wherein the rollers and drive units are incorporated with one another, with regards to the bolts and thus is silent about spacing.
Pump however teaches a cargo floor assembly comprising a plurality of roller assembly units and power drive units (PDUs) configured to facilitate movement of the cargo unit load devices along the main drive rail. (Paragraph [0042], Figure 1, element 21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Nowarre as taught by Pump to include a collection of rollers and pumps interspersed for the expected benefit of providing the ability to more easily propel cargo loaded on to the cargo deck surface, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As concerns claim 11, Nowarre discloses the cargo floor assembly according to claim 10, however fails to specify wherein the first and second bolt members are coupled to an actuating member such that actuation of the actuation member effects movement of each of the first and second bolts between the locking position and the unlocked position.
Neither Nowarre nor any additionally cited art of record teaches or fairly suggests, alone or in combination, inter alia, wherein the bolt members are actuated between the locking and unlocking positions, as claimed.
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 AARON L LEMBO whose telephone number is (571)270-3065. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-4pm.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached on (571) 272-5405. 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.
/AARON L LEMBO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights