DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 21, 2026 has been entered.
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, 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(s) 1 – 3, 6, 8 – 14, 26, 27, and 32 – 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocholl et al. (US 2020/0346557 A1) in view of Soriano (EP 3 483 092 A1).
As for claims 1 and 10, Rocholl et al. disclose a refuse vehicle (10) comprising: a vehicle chassis, the chassis including a chassis frame (12); an electric vehicle body on the chassis, the body including a hopper and refuse container (14); and further including electrically powered body systems, the body systems including an electrically an electrically actuated refuse loading assembly (40) and an electrically actuated refuse packing assembly (“packer”); a plurality of electric actuators (paragraph [0021]) configured to electrically actuate the electrically powered body systems; and at least one rechargeable battery pack (20) configured to provide electric power to the body systems; and at least one processor in electronic communication with the plurality of electric actuators and configured to perform operations comprising: determining, based at least in part on energy usage data received from a first electric actuator of the plurality of electric actuators, an amount of electrical energy drawn from the at least one rechargeable battery pack by a first body system of the body systems (i.e., the lift assembly, see Fig. 3), the first electric actuator configured to electrically actuate the first body system (paragraph [0028] and [0032]). An amount of refuse contained within the hopper is determined based on the amount of electrical energy drawn from the battery (paragraph [0032]). Rocholl et al. further disclose a second electric actuator, supplied with power from the battery pack, and configured to electrically actuate a second, distinct body system of the body systems (see the “packer system” of paragraphs [0019 - 0020]).
Rocholl et al. do not explicitly disclose: in response to determining that the amount of refuse contained within the hopper of the vehicle body exceeds a threshold, causing electrical energy to be supplied from the at least one rechargeable battery pack to the second electric actuator.
Soriano discloses a refuse vehicle which estimates an amount of refuse contained within a hopper of the vehicle body, comparing the amount to a threshold and, in response to determining that the amount of refuse contained within the hopper of the vehicle body exceeds the threshold, causing an actuator to actuate a packer system (see Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Rocholl et al. to actuate the second body system (i.e., the packer of Rocholl et al.) when the determined amount of refuse exceeds a threshold in order to efficiently load the refuse vehicle.
As for claim 2, the battery pack of Rocholl et al. is deployed on an underside of vehicle body between adjacent rails in the chassis frame (Fig. 1).
As for claim 3, Rocholl et al. disclose an internal combustion engine which generates electricity to charge the energy storage system (paragraph [0023]). An alternator is a very well-known means of converting energy from an engine to electrical energy, and therefore would be obvious to implement in the prior art system.
As for claim 6, Rocholl et al. disclose an electrically actuated side loader comprising an electrically actuated side arm and an electrically actuated grabber configured to load refuse into the vehicle body (paragraph [0025]).
As for claim 8, Rocholl et al. disclose a vehicle body that does not include any hydraulically powered components (note in paragraph [0025], Rocholl et al. disclose electric actuators as an alternative to hydraulic actuators).
As for claim 9, Rocholl et al. disclose a power management module (“control hardware”) configured to regulate energy usage of the body systems and/or record and track electrical energy usage in each of the body systems.
As for claims 11 and 12, Soriano discloses a power management module which estimates the quantity of refuse in the hopper (by estimating a weight or using a camera to estimate a volume) and triggers the refuse packing assembly (see page 5, claim 8). As for claim 13, it would have been obvious to evaluate electrical usage of a side arm to avoid overloading the hopper and manage battery usage.
As for claim 26, the power management module of Rocholl et al. is configured to automatically block use of one or more of the electrically powered body systems when remaining battery life falls below a threshold (paragraph [0037]). Note that the use of electrically powered body systems is inherently blocked when the battery life falls below a level required to operate the systems.
As for claim 27, at least one rechargeable battery system (20) of Rocholl et al. is configured to provide electric power to the body systems.
As for claim 32, Rocholl et al. disclose a fully electric vehicle (paragraph [0023]).
As for claims 33 and 34, Rocholl et al. disclose a loading assembly (lift assembly 40) and packing assembly (“packer system”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As clarified above, Rocholl et al. disclose the claimed first body system (lift assembly 40) and distinct second body system (packer system) with corresponding first and second electric actuators. Rocholl et al. disclose determining an amount of refuse based on the determined amount of electric energy drawn from the battery by the first body system (i.e., calculating the weight of the refuse based on measured current draws from the lift assembly). While Rocholl et al. is silent with respect to the operation of the packer system, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to actuate the packer system when the amount of refuse exceeds a threshold. Such operation of a packer system is disclosed by Soriano. Furthermore, Rocholl et al. teach that the process of managing power to the lift assembly may apply to other body systems (see paragraph [0035]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katy M Ebner whose telephone number is (571)272-5830. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 10 a.m. - 3 p.m.
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, J. Allen Shriver can be reached at (303)297-4337. 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.
/Katy M Ebner/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613