The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/06/25 has been entered.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2, line 4 refers to “an outer diameter surface of the arcuate rack”. However, line 3 of the claim has previously recited that the arcuate rack comprises “an outer diameter surface”.
Claims 27 and 29, the recitation “rearward beyond the channel” is indefinite in that no spatial relationship has been established in these claims or the claims from which they respectively depend in a manner which would apprise one of ordinary skill in the art so as to understand relative to what the term rearward refers.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-12, 19-23 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocholl et al (US 2020/0346862) in view of Johnson et al (US 6,092,337), both previously cited.
Rocholl shows in the Figs. 42-43 embodiment a refuse vehicle body 1505 comprising:
a tailgate 1510 hinged to the body, the tailgate rotatable about a hinge between a closed position (Fig. 42) and an open position (Fig. 43);
a pinion 1525 supported by the body;
an arcuate rack 1520 retained in engagement with the pinion, one end of the arcuate rack fixed to the tailgate; and
an electric actuator 18 configured to rotate the pinion, thereby rotating the arcuate rack to open and close the tailgate (pars. [0129] – [0130]).
Rocholl does not show the arcuate rack to be concentric with the hinge throughout movement of the tailgate between the closed position and the open position, or an arcuate channel rigidly fixed to the body, with a portion of the arcuate rack deployed in the arcuate channel such that the arcuate channel is configured to retain the arcuate rack in engagement with the pinion.
Johnson shows a vehicle body 10 comprising: a tailgate 12 hinged to the body, the tailgate rotatable about a hinge 14 (includes 16, 18, 20) between a closed position (Figs. 2 and 3) and an open position (Figs. 1 and 4); a pinion 28a/b supported by the body; an arcuate rack 36 (36a) retained in engagement with the pinion, one end of the arcuate rack fixed to the tailgate (col. 4:3-4 and Figs. 3-4), the arcuate rack being concentric with the hinge throughout movement of the tailgate between the closed position and the open position (col. 3:38-40 and 51-60); an arcuate channel 30 (30a) rigidly fixed to the body (via housing for gear unit 28 and hanger 37; col. 3:27-32), a portion of the arcuate rack deployed in the arcuate channel such that the arcuate channel is configured to retain the arcuate rack in engagement with the pinion (col. 4:18-33); and an electric actuator 26 configured to rotate the pinion, thereby rotating the arcuate rack to open and close the tailgate.
It would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the apparatus of Rocholl by configuring the arcuate rack so as to be concentric with the hinge throughout movement of the tailgate between the closed position and the open position, and by deploying a portion of the arcuate rack in an arcuate channel rigidly fixed to the body such that the arcuate channel was configured to retain the arcuate rack in engagement with the pinion, as shown by Johnson, to help guide and retain the rack as it rotated the tailgate between the open and closed positions and to simplify the control system insofar as the rate of closure movement of the tailgate would remain consistent throughout its travel, resulting in no variation in the mechanical advantage between the motor and tailgate regardless of whether the tailgate was being opened or closed, and to easily seal the arcuate rack at the vehicle body exit by eliminating pivotal movement of the rack with respect to the tailgate (see, e.g., Johnson, col. 3:56-60).
Re claim 2, the arcuate rack of Johnson comprises: an inner diameter surface and an outer diameter surface that is distal to the hinge relative to the inner diameter surface, wherein the pinion engages [an] the outer diameter surface [of the arcuate rack], as readily apparent in Fig. 4. Such features would (or at least could) obviously be included in the apparatus of Rocholl when modified as above.
Re claim 4, both references show that the pinion comprises (at least) a pinion gear.
Re claim 5, Rocholl does not show a gear box rotationally coupling the pinion to the electric actuator, but does generally teach the use of gearboxes for actuators of other components of the vehicle (e.g., gearbox 745 in Fig. 25).
However, Johnson discloses that the electric actuator 26 is rotationally coupled to pinion 28a/b via gear reduction unit 28 which is disposed in a housing (Fig. 2) and provides speed reduction and torque multiplication (col. 3:25), and as such is considered to be a gearbox, as broadly recited.
It would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for one of ordinary skill in the art to have additionally modified the apparatus of Rocholl by providing a gear box that rotationally coupled the pinion to the electric actuator, as taught by Johnson, to provide one or more of the well-known advantages of gearboxes, such as multiplying the torque or speed of the motor, and/or changing the direction of output thereof to accommodate size or space restrictions.
Re claim 6, Rocholl shows an axis of the pinion to be substantially orthogonal to the side of the body, but does not show an output shaft of the electric actuator to be substantially parallel with a side of the body. However, the examiner notes that a well-known use for a gearbox is to make a 90 degree change in the direction of output of a motor connected to the gearbox, as exemplified by gearbox 745 in Fig. 25. Additionally, Johnson shows in Fig. 2 that an output shaft of the electric motor 26 is mounted parallel with a side of the vehicle body, and an axis of the pinion is orthogonal to the side of the body. As such, it would have been obvious to have utilized the gearbox of Rocholl when modified in the manner above to change the output direction of the motor such that an output shaft thereof was substantially parallel with a side of the body, thereby allowing the motor to be more closely mounted to the vehicle body and thus less likely to incur damage.
Re claim 7, both references show that the pinion engages “an outer surface” of the arcuate rack, as broadly recited.
Re claim 9, Rocholl discloses that the electric actuator is a first electric actuator, the pinion is a first pinion, and the arcuate rack is a first arcuate rack, but does not disclose that the body further comprises a second electric actuator, a second pinion, and a second arcuate rack, wherein the first and second electric actuators are configured to rotate the corresponding first and second pinions supported by corresponding first and second opposing sides of the body, with the first and second pinions engaging the corresponding first and second arcuate racks fixed to first and second opposing sides of the tailgate.
However, in general, the mere duplication of parts has been held to involve only routine skill in the art and has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is obtained. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8; In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378. Furthermore, in this particular application, it is believed that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found have the use of a second actuator, a second pinion, and a second arcuate rack on the opposing side of the vehicle to be conventional and expected. Further still, not only does Johnson show such a duplicate rack and pinion on the opposite side of the body (Fig. 1), but discloses this as an alternative to a single drive unit (col. 4:48-52).
Therefore, the inclusion of a second rack, a second pinion and a second actuator for the opposite side of the vehicle body would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, to ensure an equal distribution of forces on each side of the tailgate when opening and closing same.
Re claim 10, Rocholl further discloses a locking assembly 240 (par. [0086]) configured to lock the tailgate in the closed position.
Re claim 11, Rocholl shows that the refuse vehicle body further comprises:
a hopper configured to receive refuse;
a storage container configured to store compacted refuse; and
an ejector movable in the body and configured to compact refuse in the storage container when the tailgate is in the closed position and eject refuse from the storage container when the tailgate is in the open position, as described in at least pars. [0003] – [0005] and [0077] – [0083].
Re claim 12, the body is mounted to a vehicle chassis 12.
Re claim 19, Rocholl as modified does not disclose a worm drive engaged with the rack to rotate the rack, although par. [0127] discloses that pinion drive gear 1425 may be “any other suitable gear type for converting rotational motion to translational motion” to drive the rack.
Johnson discloses the rack to be “retained in engagement with” worm gear output 27 (i.e., worm drive), as broadly recited.
It would have been obvious to have modified the apparatus of Rocholl by utilizing a worm gear instead of a pinion gear to drive the arcuate rack, as shown by Johnson, as this would simply be the selection of “any other suitable gear type for converting rotational motion to translational motion” to drive the rack, the selection of which in the apparatus of Rocholl would have neither required undue experimentation nor produced unexpected results.
Insofar as the claim is otherwise a slightly broader version of claim 1, no further analysis is deemed necessary.
Re claim 20, insofar as the claim is a slightly broader version of claims 1 and 10 combined, no further analysis is deemed necessary.
Re claim 21, both references disclose the electric actuator to be a motor.
Re claims 22 and 23, Johnson further discloses that the arcuate channel has a radius of curvature substantially identical to a radius of curvature of the arcuate rack, and wherein the arcuate channel comprises at least one of internal rollers 38 [or wear pads]. These features would obviously be included in the apparatus of Rocholl when modified as above.
Re claims 27 and 29 (as best understood given the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth above), although Johnson does not show that when the tailgate is in the closed position, the one end of the arcuate rack fixed to the tailgate does not extend rearward beyond the arcuate channel, this is due to the fact that Johnson’s arrangement is situated in a recess between the vehicle body and tailgate (Fig. 1), rather than on the outside of the vehicle body as in Rocholl, and therefore the rack must extend slightly outward from the channel in order to connect to the tailgate when in the closed position (Fig. 3). However, as can be seen in Figs. 42-43 of Rocholl, the connection point 1530 between the end of the rack and the tailgate is proximate to the edge of the tailgate, such that when the tailgate is closed, the connection between the tailgate and rack is coincident with the connection between the tailgate and the body. As such, when the apparatus of Rocholl was modified as above with an arcuate rack, mounted to be concentric with the tailgate hinge and moving in an identically shaped arcuate channel, not only would there be no need for such an extension, but it would actually be undesirable to have one, as it would leave the end of the rack exposed and enable water and/or contaminants to enter the channel. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have configured the connection between the end of the rack and the tailgate such that when the tailgate was in the closed position, the end of the arcuate rack fixed to the tailgate did not extend rearward beyond the arcuate channel, as this would prevent water/contaminants from entering the channel and protect the end of the rack when not in use.
Re claim 28, Johnson discloses that the one end of the arcuate rack fixed to the tailgate is pivotally rather than rigidly fixed to the tailgate. However, as noted above, Johnson also discloses that the purpose of the concentric path of movement of the rack within the channel is to eliminate pivotal movement of the rack relative to the tailgate, making it easier to seal. As such, there appears to be little or no reason for the connection therebetween to be pivotal instead of rigid, other than to possibly account for minor manufacturing tolerances and/or misalignments. It is believed that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the decision to have a pivotal or rigid connection between the end of the rack and the tailgate would depend on the value associated with the advantages and disadvantages of each, i.e., the pivotal connection could better account for manufacturing tolerances and/or misalignments but would be more complicated and costly to manufacture and assemble, whereas a rigid connection would be less likely to accommodate misalignments but would be easier and cheaper to make. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the apparatus of Rocholl by providing a rigid rather than pivotal connection between the end of the rack and the tailgate, as the examiner takes Official Notice that the choice therebetween would depend on the values associated with the well-known and art recognized advantages and disadvantages of each option.
Claims 8 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocholl et al in view of Johnson et al, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rocholl et al ‘659 (US 2020/0347659, previously cited).
Rocholl as modified does not show that the electric actuator further comprises a brake, wherein actuation and de-actuation of the brake is configured to lock and unlock the tailgate.
However, Rocholl ‘659 shows a substantially similar refuse vehicle body, wherein the Figs. 4A-C embodiment disclose that electric actuator 410 comprises a brake 428, wherein actuation and de-actuation of the brake is configured to lock and unlock the tailgate (pars. [0077] – [0078]).
It would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the apparatus of Rocholl by providing the electric actuator with a brake, wherein actuation and de-actuation of the brake was configured to lock and unlock the tailgate, as taught by Rocholl ‘659, to ensure the tailgate stayed in a desired position even upon failure of the actuator.
Re claim 24, when so modified, the brake would clearly be configured to be engaged to secure the tailgate in at least one of the open position or the closed position.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 19 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on any references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Keenan whose telephone number is (571)272-6925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. The examiner’s supervisor, Saul Rodriguez can be reached on 571-272-7097. 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.
/James Keenan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652