The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the rack comprising a set of teeth that extend along the entire length thereof (claims 1, 19 and 20) must be shown or the feature canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The amendment filed 5/04/26 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the recitation in each of independent claims 1, 19 and 20 that the rack comprises “a set of teeth that extend along the entire length” thereof (emphasis added). It is noted that by reciting in each of the independent claims that the rack is concentric with the hinge and is deployed in a channel, the claimed subject matter is limited to the invention shown in the Figs. 2A-B embodiment. That embodiment is not disclosed, either in the written specification or shown in the drawings, as having a rack comprising a set of teeth that extend along the entire length thereof. While Fig. 2A shows most of the length of the rack 260 as having teeth 264, the portion of the rack near its connection to the tailgate at 262 is not shown because it is inside the channel 265. Fig. 2B shows the end of the rack connected to the tailgate, but in that figure the teeth are not portrayed. As such, there is no explicit disclosure that the entire length of the rack includes the teeth. It is further noted that since Fig. 2A shows the tailgate fully closed, the pinion 270 would be unable to move the rack any further in a clockwise direction, and thus having the teeth extend all the way to the end of the rack connected to the tailgate would be unnecessary, and thus there is no basis that the feature would be inherent or implicit.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, 19-24 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As noted in par. 3 above, the recitation in each of independent claims 1, 19 and 20 that the rack comprises “a set of teeth that extend along the entire length” thereof is considered new matter.
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 19 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 19, lines 7-8, it is not clear what is meant by the recitation “concentric with the hinge between the closed position and the open position”. It is believed applicant may have intended to recite --concentric with the hinge throughout movement of the tailgate between the closed position and the open position--, as in claims 1 and 20.
Claim 29, the recitation “the one end of the rack fixed to the tailgate” lacks antecedent basis (in claim 19), as the rack has not been claimed as even being engaged with the tailgate, much less having one end thereof fixed thereto.
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) and Wygle et al (US 6,425,205), all 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. Furthermore, to whatever if any extent the limitation may be given patentable weight in light of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) set forth above in par. 5, Rocholl does not show a set of teeth that extend along the entire length of the arcuate rack and that engage with the pinion to move the tailgate between the closed position and the open position, although one of ordinary skill in the art would clearly understand the rack to have teeth engaged with corresponding teeth of the pinion to perform this function, wherein such teeth would inherently extend along at least a significant majority of the length of the rack in order to move the tailgate between the opened and closed positions shown in Figs. 42-43.
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) having a set of teeth that extend along a portion of the arcuate rack and that engage with the pinion to move the tailgate between the closed position and the open position, 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.
Wygle 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 and an open position (Figs. 1 and 3); a pinion 40 supported by the body; an arcuate rack 48 comprising a set of teeth 66 that extend along the entire length of the arcuate rack and that engage with the pinion, one end of the arcuate rack fixed to the tailgate (via 30, 32, 44, 56, etc.; see Figs. 2-3), the arcuate rack being concentric with the hinge throughout movement of the tailgate between the closed position and the open position (col. 6:48-57); an arcuate channel 38/60 fixed to the body, 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. 5:1- 5); and an electric actuator 24 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 with a set of teeth that extended along the entire length of the arcuate rack (to whatever extent the limitation may be given patentable weight) and 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 collectively taught by Johnson and Wygle, 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), and/or 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 (see, e.g., Wygle, col. 8:63 to col. 9:6), especially since the arcuate rack of Rocholl would inherently include teeth extending along at least a significant majority of the length of the rack in order to move the tailgate between the opened and closed positions in a manner generally consistent with what is actually disclosed by applicant.
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 the outer diameter surface of the arcuate rack, as readily apparent in Figs. 3-4. The Figs. 4-6 embodiment of Wygle also disclose such features. Such features would (or at least could) obviously be included in the apparatus of Rocholl when modified as above.
Re claim 4, all of the 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.
Further, Wygle discloses an alternate embodiment in Figs. 4-6 in which an electric actuator (motor 322) is rotationally coupled to pinion 240 via a gearbox 324.
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 and/or Wygle, 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. Wygle also discloses that the Figs. 4-6 embodiment enables the motor to be mounted parallel to the vehicle body to render the overall dimensions of the assembly more compact than the Figs. 1-3 embodiment (col. 12:56-62). 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, all of the 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 do Johnson (Fig. 1 and col. 4:48-52) and Wygle (Fig. 1 and col. 7:46-60) both show such a duplicate rack and pinion on the opposite side of the body, but disclose this as an alternative to a single drive unit.
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 broader version of claim 1, no further analysis is deemed necessary.
Re claim 20, insofar as the claim is a broader version of claims 1 and 10 combined, no further analysis is deemed necessary.
Re claim 21, all of the 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 internal rollers 38. Similarly, Wygle 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 internal rollers 46, 50, 58. These features would obviously be included in the apparatus of Rocholl when modified as above.
Re claims 27 and 29 although neither Johnson nor Wygle show that when the tailgate is in the closed position, the end of the rack fixed to the tailgate is enclosed within the channel, this is due to the fact that Johnson’s and Wygle’s arrangements are each 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 and Wygle 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.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 James Keenan whose telephone number is (571)272-6925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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
6/17/26
Prosecution Insights