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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11 December 2025 has been entered.
Therein, Applicant amended claims 1, 11 and 16; Applicant cancelled claim 20. Claim 23 is newly added. The submitted claims are considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8 October 2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s cancellation of claim 20, which results from a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) , renders the rejection moot. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's amendments and related arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserted that the prior art of record does not disclose, teach, or suggest a refuse vehicle that includes "a suspension coupled to the cab, the suspension positioned within an interior of the cab," "a seat supported within the interior of the cab and including a seat support and a backrest, the seat coupled to the suspension to allow the seat to move relative to the cab," and "a control console arranged within the interior of the cab and including a joystick, the control console coupled to the suspension separately from the seat to allow the control console to move relative to the cab," as recited in claim 1. Specifically, applicant asserts that “the vibration reduction unit 308 cannot be positioned within the operator platform of Casey, as required in amended claim 1.” Examiner does not agree.
As quoted in the Advisory Action, Casey teaches that "vibration reduction unit 308 may include one or more of an active suspension component of work machine 10, a stabilized operator platform, a stabilized operator seat, or any other actively controlled device" (see para. 0061, emphasis added). Applicant fails to acknowledge that Casey teaches that the vibration reduction unit may be both the stabilized operator platform and the stabilized operator seat. Based on this interpretation, Casey still teaches that the claimed suspension is “positioned within an interior of the cab” as well as “allow the seat to move relative to the cab” because the stabilized operator platform performs a different function from the stabilized operator seat.
Lastly, the teaching of Kimberley discloses a control panel that and is anchored to the floor (and therefore affixed to the stabilized operator platform/suspension) and not affixed to the operator seat. Accordingly, the teachings of Kimberley teach a control panel that moves relative to the cab (see Figs. 2-4).
The rejection is maintained.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casey, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0136110) in view of Kimberley (U.S. Patent No. 5,632,353) and in view of Official Notice.
For claim 1, Casey discloses a refuse vehicle, comprising: a chassis coupled to a wheel, the chassis including a first portion and a second portion (see para. 0014); a cab supported by the first portion of the chassis (see para. 0014, equivalent to known dump truck structure); a refuse compartment supported by the second portion of the chassis (see para. 0014, equivalent to known dump truck structure); a suspension coupled to the cab (see para. 0039, operator platform equivalent to “cab”; see also para. 0061, stabilized operator platform is included in the vibration reduction unit), the suspension positioned within an interior of the cab (see para. 0061, stabilized operator seat is included in the vibration reduction unit and within the interior); a seat supported within the interior of the cab and including a seat support and a backrest (see para. 0039), the seat coupled to the suspension to allow the seat to move relative to the cab (see para. 0039, 0061, the seat is stabilized by the vibration reduction unit and so interpreted as coupled to a part of the suspension; stabilized operator seat moves independent from/relative to cab); and a control console arranged within the interior of the cab and including a joystick (see para. 0017). Casey does not explicitly disclose the last limitation.
A teaching from Kimberley discloses a control console that is coupled to the suspension separately from the seat to allow the control console to move relative to the cab (see Figs. 2-4 and related text). Regarding the last limitation, the combination of Casey and Kimberley teach wherein the suspension supports the seat and the control console so that a position of the control console relative to the seat is maintained (see Kimberley, Figs. 2-4 and related text teaches the console maintains relative position to seat). Specifically, as Casey teaches that the operator cab and seat are supported by the suspension and the console of Kimberly is supported by the cab, the combination makes it so that the Kimberly console would also be supported by the suspension. Thus, the seat position is maintained relative to the console position.
It would have been obvious at the effective date of filing to modify Casey with the teachings of Kimberley based on a reasonable expectation of success and a motivation to improve an adjustable console to allow the operator thereof to adjust the console for his particular needs when operating the vehicle (see col. 1:13-16).
It is noted that Casey does not explicitly disclose the energy storage system and drive motor. However, the components are part of well-known electrical vehicle systems. Official Notice is taken in that electrical vehicles, including electrical refuse trucks are well known to one of ordinary skill in the art and in light of Neufeldt (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0170932). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Casey to include well known elements related to electrical vehicle systems based on the motivation to improve efficiency of work machines.
Regarding claim 2, Casey further teaches wherein the control console includes an armrest (see Fig. 1, #24).
Claims 3, 15, 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casey, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0136110) in view of Kimberley (U.S. Patent No. 5,632,353) and Official Notice as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Bisick, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0000656).
Referring to claim 3, Bisick teaches the suspension includes one or more linkage rods or scissor arms coupled between a seat platform of the cab and the seat (see para. 0013, shock absorbers equivalent to linkage rods).
It would have been obvious at the effective date of filing to modify Casey with the teachings of Bisick based on a reasonable expectation of success and a motivation to improve a work machine that includes a work machine body to which an operator control station with a seat assembly is attached via a suspension system (see para. 0006).
Referring to claims 15 and 17, Bisick further teaches wherein the suspension includes one or more linkage rods or scissor arms coupled between a seat platform of the cab and the seat (see para. 0013, shock absorbers equivalent to linkage rods).
Regarding claim 21, Bisick further teaches a grab handle coupled to the seat such that a position of the grab handle relative to the seat is maintained (see Fig. 4, #32).
Claims 6-14, 16, 18, 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casey, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0136110) and Kimberley (U.S. Patent No. 5,632,353) as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Kelley (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0280286).
For claim 6, Casey does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitation. A teaching from Kelley discloses a grab handle coupled to an interior wall of the interior of the cab (see Fig. 3, #162). It would have been obvious at the effective date of filing to modify Casey with the teachings of Kelley based on a reasonable expectation of success and a motivation to improve a work machine so that an operator can more easily view the working components, the operator may require less training and, in addition, work more efficiently (see para. 0034).
Referring to claim 7, Kelley further discloses comprising a second grab handle coupled to an opposing interior wall of the interior of the cab (see Fig. 3, #162).
With regards to claim 8, Kelley further teaches wherein the grab handle is arranged laterally outwardly from the seat (see Fig. 3, #162).
For claim 9, Kelley further teaches wherein the grab handle is arranged at a height that aligns with the seat support of the seat (see Fig. 3, #162).
Regarding claim 10, Kelley further discloses wherein the grab handle includes a first end arranged at a height above the seat support and a second end arranged at a height below the seat support (see Fig. 3, #162).
Claim 11 largely defines substantially similar elements to claims 1, 2 and 6-9. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning provided for claims 1, 2 and 6-9.
Claims 12-14 are taught by Kelley (see Fig. 3, #162).
For claim 16, the claim largely mirrors claimed subject matter from claims 1 and 11. For those limitations not explicitly recited in this rejection, the substantive ground of rejection of claim 1 and/or claim 11 should be applied to claim 16. Additionally, Kelley further teaches a first grab handle coupled to a rear wall of an interior of the cab and arranged laterally outwardly from the seat (see Fig. 3, #162); a second grab handle coupled to a front wall of the interior of the cab, wherein the second grab handle is arranged at a height that is greater than a height of the first grab handle (see Fig. 3, #162).
For claim 18, Kelley further teaches wherein the grab handle is arranged at a height that aligns with the seat support of the seat (see Fig. 3, #162).
Regarding claim 19, Kelley further discloses wherein the grab handle includes a first end arranged at a height above the seat support and a second end arranged at a height below the seat support (see Fig. 3, #162).
With reference to claim 22, Kelley further teaches grab handle coupled to an interior wall of the interior of the cab (see para. 0023, horizontal bar for support). Kelley does not explicitly disclose that the grab handle may be slidably coupled. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider it obvious for an interior wall having a handle coupled to a door as in Kelley, and further obvious a door that is slidable or hinged.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casey, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0136110) in view of Kimberley (U.S. Patent No. 5,632,353) and Bisick, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0000656) as applied to claim 21 above, in view of Kelley (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0280286).
Referring to claim 23, Kelley discloses wherein the grab handle includes a first end arranged at a height above the seat support and a second end arranged at a height below the seat support (see Fig. 3, #162). It would have been obvious at the effective date of filing to modify Casey with the teachings of Kelley based on a reasonable expectation of success and a motivation to improve a work machine so that an operator can more easily view the working components, the operator may require less training and, in addition, work more efficiently (see para. 0034).
Conclusion
Examiner previously stated at the end of the previous rejection that Applicant is considered to have implicit knowledge of the entire disclosure once a reference has been cited. The cited figures, columns and lines should not be considered the only relevant teachings. The entire reference must be taken as a whole. This includes any teachings within the reference that were not explicitly cited in the previous Office action. Any new citation of additional teachings of the previously cited art is not a new ground of rejection. Taking the references as a whole, the art supports the new rejection of the currently amended claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D TISSOT whose telephone number is (571)270-3439. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/ADAM D TISSOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663