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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/19/26 has been entered.
Claims 4, 9 and 13-17 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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 1-2, 6-8, 10-12, 18, 21 and 25 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.
In lines 9 and 10 of each of independent claims 1 and 12, the recitations “the entire … movement” and “its forwardmost position” lack antecedent basis.
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, 6-8, 10-12 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neufeldt (US 5,057,154, previously cited) in view of Rocholl et al (US 2020/0346861, previously cited) and Jones et al (US 7,563,066).
Neufeldt shows a refuse vehicle 10-14 comprising:
a tailgate 15 coupled to a body 13 of the refuse vehicle, the tailgate movable between a closed position (Fig. 1) and an open position (such as but not necessarily limited to Fig. 9, noting that “an open position” can be any position other than the closed position of Fig. 1);
an ejector 25/33 deployed in the body, the ejector comprising a refuse contacting surface that extends between a location proximate an upper wall of the body and a location proximate a lower wall of the body, the ejector configured to translate between forward and rearward positions to eject refuse from the body, wherein, during an ejection cycle, the ejector moves in a direction parallel to a longitudinal axis of the body and parallel to a ground on which the refuse vehicle is positioned, and wherein the ejection cycle comprises [the] a rearward movement of the refuse from [its] a forwardmost position in the body to a position proximate the tailgate (Figs. 4 and 9); and
a linear actuator 60/61 configured to provide an actuation force that translates the ejector between the forward and rearward positions in the body, wherein, in response to translation of the ejector towards the rearward position, the ejector is configured to apply the actuation force to the refuse in the body to cause the refuse in the body to contact the tailgate and transfer at least a portion of the actuation force to the tailgate to assist moving the tailgate from the closed position towards the open position, when the tailgate is unlocked, to at least partially open the tailgate (see Fig. 9 and col. 5:21-31).
Note that while Neufeldt does not explicitly state that the refuse contacts the tailgate to transfer the force of the ejector to the tailgate to assist its movement to an open position, it is nevertheless considered to inherently do so, as this chain of events would clearly physically occur, at least to some extent, as the ejector pushes the refuse towards the rear of the vehicle after the tailgate is unlocked from its closed position. Further note that Neufeldt discloses a pusher bar 66 mounted on the ejector which contacts the tailgate as it approaches the end of its travel to assist in holding the tailgate open so that the last remnants of trash can be effectively emptied, a tacit acknowledgement that the small amount of trash left in the vehicle body at that stage of emptying would be insufficient to hold the tailgate open far enough on its own. If Neufeldt utilized a separate device, such as a hydraulic cylinder, other than the trash itself to initially move the tailgate to its open position, there would be no need to utilize such a pusher bar, because such a device would hold the tailgate fully open regardless of the position of the ejector and/or the amount of trash left in the body, and as such this is considered evidence that it is in fact the refuse itself that transfers “at least a portion of the actuation force” of the ejector to “at least partially open the tailgate” as claimed.
Neufeldt does not show that throughout an entire ejection cycle, the ejector moves in the direction parallel to a longitudinal axis of the body and parallel to a ground on which the refuse vehicle is positioned, wherein the ejection cycle comprises the entire rearward movement of the refuse from its forwardmost position in the body to a position proximate the tailgate.
Further, Neufeldt shows the linear actuator to be hydraulically rather than electrically powered.
Jones discloses a substantially similar refuse collection vehicle 10 wherein an ejector 6 comprises a refuse contacting surface that extends between a location proximate an upper wall of a body 12 of the vehicle and a location proximate a lower wall of the body, the ejector configured to translate between forward (Figs. 1-4) and rearward (Fig. 6) positions to eject refuse 15 from the body, wherein, throughout an entire ejection cycle, the ejector moves in a direction parallel to a longitudinal axis of the body and parallel to a ground on which the refuse vehicle is positioned, and wherein the ejection cycle comprises the entire rearward movement of the refuse from its forwardmost position in the body to a position proximate the tailgate.
Rocholl shows a substantially similar refuse collection vehicle wherein an ejector 340 can be translated between forward and rearward positions to eject refuse from a body 230 of the vehicle by using either electrically or hydraulically powered linear actuators 342 (Fig. 7 and pars. [0062] – [0063]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Neufeldt by utilizing an ejector that, throughout an entire ejection cycle, moved in a direction parallel to a longitudinal axis of the body and parallel to a ground on which the refuse vehicle was positioned, and wherein the ejection cycle comprised the entire rearward movement of the refuse from its forwardmost position in the body to a position proximate the tailgate, as shown by Jones, as a single rigid ejector plate spanning the height of the refuse vehicle body would not only be stronger and thus better able to withstand compression forces than the pivoting ejector of Neufeldt, but would also be simpler and cheaper to produce, assemble, and maintain by eliminating the extraneous parts of the pivoting mechanism thereof.
It also would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Neufeldt by utilizing an electrically instead of hydraulically powered linear actuator, as Rocholl explicitly discloses that this would merely be the substitution of one known alternate equivalent type of linear actuator for another in the same environment, the selection of which in the apparatus of Neufeldt would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art and would have neither required undue experimentation nor produced unexpected results.
Re claim 2, the ejector of Neufeldt is configured to cause the actuation force to be applied to the tailgate in response to translation of the ejector towards the rearward position beyond an intermediate position (Fig. 9).
Re claim 6, all of the references show that the tailgate is hinged to the body and rotatable between the closed and the open positions.
Re claim 7, the ejector of Neufeldt is configured to: 1) compact refuse in a storage container when the tailgate is locked and is in the closed position, and 2) eject the refuse from the storage container when the tailgate is at least partially open in response to translation of the ejector towards the rearward position (col. 5:10-31).
Re claim 8, the refuse vehicle of Neufeldt further comprises:
a hopper 14 configured to receive refuse; and
a storage container 13 configured to store compacted refuse,
wherein the ejector is configured to transfer the refuse from the hopper to the storage container, compact the refuse in the storage container, and eject the compacted refuse from the storage container (col. 4:63 to col. 5:31).
Re claim 10, the refuse vehicle of Neufeldt further comprises a locking assembly 20 configured to lock the tailgate in the closed position.
Re claim 11, the refuse vehicle of Neufeldt is mounted to a vehicle chassis 10.
Re claim 12, Neufeldt further discloses a tailgate actuation system 66 configured to transfer a second portion of the actuation force from the actuator, via the ejector, to the tailgate when the ejector is translated towards the rearward position, wherein the second portion of the actuation force is applied to the tailgate in a direction that assists moving the tailgate from the closed position to the open position (Fig. 9 and col. 5:21-31). Insofar as claim 12 is otherwise equivalent to claim 1, Neufeldt as modified above would meet all limitations of claim 12, and no further analysis is deemed necessary.
Claim 25 is treated in the same manner as analogous claim 7 above.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neufeldt in view of Rocholl et al and Jones et al, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hammond (US 2022/0178191, previously cited).
Neufeldt as modified does not disclose a ratcheting mechanism configured to hold the tailgate in the open position.
Hammond shows a ratcheting mechanism 102/106 configured to hold a tailgate 101 of a vehicle body in an open position (pars. [0028], [0029], [0032]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the apparatus of Neufeldt by utilizing a ratcheting mechanism configured to hold the tailgate in the open position, as shown by Hammond, to prevent unwanted or inadvertent closing of the tailgate.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neufeldt in view of Rocholl et al and Jones et al, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Hagenbuch (US 7,878,751, previously cited).
Neufeldt as modified does not show that the tailgate actuation system comprises a cable coupled to the ejector and the tailgate, the cable being configured to transfer the second portion of the actuation force from the ejector to the tailgate, wherein the cable is routed along a side of the body.
Hagenbuch shows a vehicle 10 having a body 12 comprising:
a tailgate 16 coupled to the body, the tailgate movable between a closed position and an open position;
an ejector 18 deployed in the body, the ejector configured to translate between forward and rearward positions in a direction parallel to a longitudinal axis of the body;
an actuator 20 configured to translate the ejector between the forward and rearward positions in the body; and
a tailgate actuation system 50 configured to transfer a force from the actuator, via the ejector, to the tailgate when the ejector is translated, thereby moving the tailgate between the closed and open positions, wherein the tailgate actuation system comprises a cable (chain 54) coupled to the ejector and the tailgate, the cable being configured to transfer the force from the ejector to the tailgate, wherein the cable is “routed along a side of the body”, as broadly claimed (e.g., see at least Fig. 14 and note col. 8:37-42).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the apparatus of Neufeldt by configuring the tailgate actuation system as a cable coupled to the ejector and the tailgate, wherein the cable was configured to transfer (at least) the second portion of the actuation force from the ejector to the tailgate, and wherein the cable was routed along a side of the body, as suggested by Hagenbuch, as a more positive and effective means of connecting the movement of the tailgate between the open and closed positions to the extended and retracted positions of the actuator.
Claims 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neufeldt in view of Hagenbuch, Edwards (US 2,130,951, previously cited) and Beck et al (US 7,878,751).
As noted above in par. 9 with respect to claims 1 and 12, Neufeldt shows a refuse vehicle comprising:
a tailgate 15 coupled to a body 13 of the refuse vehicle, the tailgate movable between a closed position and an open position;
an ejector 25/33 deployed in the body, the ejector configured to translate between forward and rearward positions in a direction parallel to a longitudinal axis of the body;
an actuator 60/61 configured to translate the ejector between the forward and rearward positions in the body; and
a tailgate actuation system 66 configured to transfer a force from the actuator, via the ejector, to the tailgate when the ejector is translated towards the rearward position, thereby moving the tailgate from the closed position to the open position.
Neufeldt does not show that the tailgate actuation system comprises a cable coupled to the ejector and the tailgate, the cable being configured to transfer the force, wherein the cable is routed through at least one spring-biased tensioner pulley, the spring-biased tensioner pulley configured to accommodate translation of the ejector in the rearward position to an intermediate position without causing the cable to apply the force to the tailgate, wherein the spring-biased tensioner pulley comprises a spring having a longitudinal axis oriented parallel to a ground on which the refuse vehicle is positioned while the spring is retracted and extended.
As noted above in par. 11 with respect to claim 18, Hagenbuch shows a similar vehicle ejection system with a tailgate actuation system 50 configured to transfer a force from an actuator, via an ejector, to a tailgate when the ejector is translated, thereby moving the tailgate between closed and open positions, wherein the tailgate actuation system comprises a cable (chain 54) coupled to the ejector and the tailgate, the cable being configured to transfer the force from the ejector to the tailgate, and it would have been obvious to modify Neufeldt with such features for the same reasons as set forth therein.
However, Neufeldt as so modified does not show that the cable is routed through at least one spring-biased tensioner pulley, the spring-biased tensioner pulley configured to accommodate translation of the ejector in the rearward position to an intermediate position without causing the cable to apply the force to the tailgate, wherein the spring-biased tensioner pulley comprises a spring having a longitudinal axis oriented parallel to a ground on which the refuse vehicle is positioned while the spring is retracted and extended.
Edwards shows a refuse vehicle body 12 comprising a tailgate 18/20 coupled to the body, the tailgate being movable between a closed position and an open position, a tailgate actuation system 32-44 configured to transfer a force from an actuator 16 to the tailgate when actuated, thereby moving the tailgate from the closed position to the open position, wherein the tailgate actuation system comprises a cable 32 coupled to the tailgate, the cable being configured to transfer the force, and wherein the cable is routed through at least one spring-biased tensioner pulley 42, the spring-biased tensioner pulley configured to accommodate translation of the actuator to an intermediate position without causing the cable to apply the force (col. 2:7-18 and col. 2:43 to col. 3:25), but the spring of the spring-biased tensioner pulley does not have a longitudinal axis oriented parallel to a ground on which the refuse vehicle is positioned while the spring is retracted and extended.
Beck shows a tailgate actuation system for a vehicle, comprising a cable 11 coupled to a tailgate 10, wherein the cable is routed through at least one spring-biased tensioner pulley 14, and wherein the spring-biased tensioner pulley comprises a spring 15 having a longitudinal axis oriented parallel to a ground on which the vehicle is positioned while the spring is retracted (Fig. 3) and extended (Fig. 2).
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the apparatus of Neufeldt by routing the cable through at least one spring-biased tensioner pulley to accommodate translation of the ejector in the rearward position to an intermediate position without causing the cable to apply the force to the tailgate, wherein the spring of the spring-biased tensioner pulley had a longitudinal axis oriented parallel to a ground on which the refuse vehicle was positioned while the spring was retracted and extended, as collectively suggested by Edwards and Beck, as the former would more effectively control the application of force to the tailgate via the movement of the ejector and the latter would provide a more compact, out of the way location to mount the spring-biased tensioner pulley.
Re claim 24, Edwards further shows that the actuator is configured to fully extend the spring-biased tensioner pulley, thereby causing the cable to apply the force in response to translation of the actuator towards its fully extended position beyond the intermediate position. When modified as above, the ejector of Neufeldt, in a similar manner, would obviously be configured to fully extend the spring-biased tensioner pulley, thereby causing the cable to apply the force in response to translation of the ejector towards the rearward position beyond the intermediate position.
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/19/26 with respect to claims 1, 12 and 22 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on any references applied in the prior rejections of record for any teachings or matters specifically challenged in the arguments.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Parks and Johnson show refuse vehicle ejectors similar to Jones. Ballard shows a spring-biased cable-tensioner for a tailgate actuation mechanism similar to Beck.
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
3/25/26
Prosecution Insights