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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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, 6, 10-17, 19 and 20; Applicant did not cancel or add any additional claims. The submitted claims are considered below.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 8 October 2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the second seat". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It will be interpreted that the element "the second side including a seat" is the introduction of “a second seat” as all indications point to this being a typographical error.
Dependent claims 17-20 are subsequently rejected as depending from this rejected claim.
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, 6, 7, 10-13, 16-18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neufeldt (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0170932) in view of Lovitt, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0028542) and in view of Haller, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,952,730).
For claim 1, Neufeldt discloses a refuse vehicle, comprising: a chassis coupled to a wheel, the chassis including a first portion and a second portion (see Fig. 2); an energy storage system supported by the chassis (see para. 0019, electric version); a drive motor coupled to the wheel and configured to receive electrical energy from the energy storage system and provide rotational mechanical energy to the wheel (see para. 0019, electric version); a cab supported by the first portion of the chassis and defining a first side and a second side (see Fig. 2),
the first side including a first seat and first control console coupled to the first seat, the second side including a second seat and a second control console coupled to the seat (see para. 0021, dual steering wheels equivalent to respective control consoles); a refuse compartment supported by the second portion of the chassis (see Fig. 2). Neufeldt does not explicitly disclose the remaining limitations.
A teaching from Lovitt discloses a controller having a processor and at least one memory, the controller being in communication with the control console on the first side and the control console on the second side (see Fig. 1, #105 and related text) and being configured to: detect a presence of an operator in at least one of the first seat on the first side or the second seat on the second side based on (i) a first signal from first sensor inclusive of a weight sensor, a seatbelt sensor, or a posture sensor (see para. 0061, driver weight shifting) and (ii) a second signal from the weight sensor, the seatbelt sensor, or the posture sensor (see para. 0061, detect passenger), the second signal being different from the first signal (see para. 0061, no passenger implies different signals). It would have been obvious at the effective date of filing to modify Neufeldt with the teachings of Lovitt based on a reasonable expectation of success and a motivation to improve how to identify the user who is interacting with a device, such as which user is looking at the device display or attempting to provide inputs to the device (see para. 0001).
Lovitt does not explicitly disclose the last limitation. A teaching from Haller discloses in response to detecting the presence of a first operator on the first side of the cab and a second operator on the second side of the cab (see claim 10, col. 2:17-25; both consoles selectable implies both seats occupied/both operators detected), enable a first vehicle operator interface of the first control console on the first side and disable a second vehicle operator interface of the second control console on the second side (see claim 9, col. 3:5-16, both operators detected yields a deactivation of one side). It would have been obvious at the effective date of filing to modify Neufeldt with the teachings of Haller based on a reasonable expectation of success and a motivation to improve selecting one of several equivalent operating elements for controlling the lengthwise and/or transverse dynamics of a vehicle, especially a motor vehicle, with the operating elements being operable independently of one another (see col. 1, 13-18).
Regarding claim 6, Haller further discloses wherein the first vehicle operator interface of the first control console on the first side is a first joystick and the second vehicle operator interface of the second control console on the second side is a second joystick (see Fig. 1).
With reference to claim 7, Lovitt further discloses a user interface arranged within an interior of the cab (see paras. 0038-0043).
For claim 10, Neufeldt discloses a refuse vehicle, comprising: a chassis coupled to a wheel, the chassis including a first portion and a second portion; an energy storage system supported by the chassis (see Fig. 2; para. 0019, electrical version of vehicle); a drive motor coupled to the wheel and configured to receive electrical energy from the energy storage system and provide rotational mechanical energy to the wheel (see para. 0019); a cab supported by the first portion of the chassis and defining a first side and a second side (see Fig. 2); a refuse compartment supported by the second portion of the chassis (see Fig. 2). Neufeldt does not explicitly disclose the remaining limitations.
A teaching from Lovitt discloses a camera arranged within an interior of the cab (see Fig. 1, #107); a user interface arranged within the interior of the cab (see paras. 0038-0043); and a controller having a processor and at least one memory, the controller being in communication with the camera and the user interface (see Fig. 1, #105 and related text) and being configured to: detect a presence of an operator in at least one of the first side or the second side based on image data from the camera (see para. 0061). It would have been obvious at the effective date of filing to modify Neufeldt with the teachings of Lovitt based on a reasonable expectation of success and a motivation to improve how to identify the user who is interacting with a device, such as which user is looking at the device display or attempting to provide inputs to the device (see para. 0001).
Lovitt does not explicitly disclose the last limitation. A teaching from Haller discloses in response to detecting the presence of a first operator on the first side of the cab and a second operator on the second side of the cab (see claim 10, col. 2:17-25; both consoles selectable implies both seats occupied/both operators detected), adjust a function of one or more graphical buttons on the user interface without adjusting a position of the one or more graphical buttons on the user interface (see claim 9, col. 3:5-16, both operators detected yields a deactivation of one side; disabling passenger functions based on detection of driver equivalent “adjust a function”; position implicitly static). It would have been obvious at the effective date of filing to modify Neufeldt with the teachings of Haller based on a reasonable expectation of success and a motivation to improve selecting one of several equivalent operating elements for controlling the lengthwise and/or transverse dynamics of a vehicle, especially a motor vehicle, with the operating elements being operable independently of one another (see col. 1, 13-18).
With reference to claim 11, Haller further discloses in response to detecting the presence of the first operator on the first side of the cab and the second side of the cab (see claim 10, col. 2:17-25; both consoles selectable implies both seats occupied/both operators detected), enable a first drive component on the first side of the cab and disable a second drive component on the second side of the cab (see claim 9, col. 3:5-16, both operators detected yields a deactivation of drive components on one side; see also col. 3:23-4:4).
Regarding claim 12, Haller further teaches wherein the first drive component on the first side of the cab and the second drive component on the second side of the cab are both one of a pedal, a steering wheel, a joystick, or a graphical button (see Fig. 1).
With reference to claim 13, Lovitt further teaches a first weight sensor configured to detect a weight on a first seat on the first side of the cab and a second weight sensor configured to detect a weight on a second seat on the second side of the cab (see para. 0061, weight sensors for both sides).
For claim 16, Neufeldt discloses a refuse vehicle, comprising: a chassis coupled to a wheel, the chassis including a first portion and a second portion (see Fig. 2); an energy storage system supported by the chassis (see para. 0019, electrical version known to have battery); a drive motor coupled to the wheel and configured to receive electrical energy from the energy storage system and provide rotational mechanical energy to the wheel (see para. 0019, electrical version known to have motor); a cab supported by the first portion of the chassis and defining a first side and a second side (see Fig. 2), the first side including a first seat, the second side including a seat (see para. 0021); a refuse compartment supported by the second portion of the chassis (see Fig. 2). Neufeldt does not explicitly disclose the remaining limitations.
A teaching from Lovitt discloses a first weight sensor configured to detect a weight on the first seat on the first side (see para. 0061, driver side); a second weight sensor configured to detect a weight on the second seat on the second side (see para. 0061, passenger side); and a controller having a processor and at least one memory, the controller being in communication with the first weight sensor and the second weight sensor (see Fig. 1, #105) and being configured to: detect a presence of an operator in at least one of the first seat on the first side or the second seat on the second side based on the first weight sensor or the second weight sensor detecting a weight above a threshold weight (see para. 0061, “shifting of body weight by a driver” implies a threshold must be maintained or driver or exceeded for case of passenger). Lovitt does not explicitly teach the threshold weight being greater than a weight of a utility item and less than a weight of a user. However, as Lovitt discloses detecting “shifting of body weight by a driver”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the weight must be less than a full human weight so as to maintain presence of driver; additionally one of ordinary skill in the art would consider it obvious that a human weight that has shifted would be above the weight of “a utility item”. It would have been obvious at the effective date of filing to modify Neufeldt with the teachings of Lovitt based on a reasonable expectation of success and a motivation to improve how to identify the user who is interacting with a device, such as which user is looking at the device display or attempting to provide inputs to the device (see para. 0001).
Lovitt does not explicitly disclose the last limitation. A teaching from Haller discloses in response to detecting the presence of a first operator on the first side of the cab and a second operator on the second side of the cab (see claim 10, col. 2:17-25; both consoles selectable implies both seats occupied/both operators detected), enable a first drive component on the first side of the cab and disable a second drive component on the second side of the cab (see claim 9, col. 3:5-16, both operators detected yields a deactivation of drive components on one side). It would have been obvious at the effective date of filing to modify Neufeldt with the teachings of Haller based on a reasonable expectation of success and a motivation to improve selecting one of several equivalent operating elements for controlling the lengthwise and/or transverse dynamics of a vehicle, especially a motor vehicle, with the operating elements being operable independently of one another (see col. 1, 13-18).
With reference to claim 17, Haller further teaches wherein the first drive component on the first side of the cab and the second drive component on the second side of the cab are both one of a pedal, a steering wheel, a joystick, or a graphical button (see Fig. 1).
Referring to claim 18, Lovitt further discloses a user interface arranged within an interior of the cab (see paras. 0038-0043).
For claim 20, Lovitt discloses wherein the controller is configured to detect the presence of an operator in the seat on the first side or the seat on the second side based on detecting the weight above the threshold weight (see para. 0061, “shifting of body weight by a driver” implies a threshold must be maintained for driver or exceeded for case of passenger). A teaching from Haller discloses an activation signal from an activation switch (see col. 3:23-4:4).
With regards to claim 21, Lovitt discloses a posture sensor (see para. 0061, shifting weight is determinative of a “posture”). A teaching from Haller discloses wherein the first signal or the second signal is triggered by the sensor detecting that an operator is in position to assume control of the vehicle operator interface on the first side or the second side (see col. 3:23-4:4).
Regarding claim 22, Lovitt further teaches wherein the first signal or the second signal is triggered by the seatbelt sensor detecting that an operator has engaged a seatbelt located on the first side or the second side (see para. 0061).
Claims 5, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neufeldt (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0170932), Lovitt, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0028542) and Haller, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,952,730) as applied to claims 1, 10 and 16 above, and in view of McGill (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0300396).
For claim 5, Neufeldt does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitation. A teaching from McGill McGill discloses wherein the controller is configured to detect the presence of an operator in the seat on the first side or the seat on the second side based on the weight sensor detecting a weight in the seat on the first side or the seat on the second side above a threshold weight (see para. 0028, pressure sensor functionally equivalent). It would have been obvious at the effective date of filing to modify Neufeldt with the teachings of McGill based on a reasonable expectation of success and a motivation to improve systems and methods for switching between drivers in a dual cockpit vehicle and, more specifically, to systems and methods for switching between a primary driver and a secondary driver when one or more requirements are met based on a driving behavior (see para. 0001).
For claim 14, McGill further teaches wherein the controller is configured to detect the presence of an operator in the first seat on the first side or the second seat on the second side based on the image data and a signal from the first weight sensor or the second weight sensor (see paras. 0028, 0041, “any combination thereof”).
Referring to claim 15, McGill further discloses wherein the signal from the first weight sensor or the second weight sensor indicates that the weight in the first seat on the first side or the second seat on the second side is above a threshold weight (see para. 0028, pressure sensor functions on weight threshold).
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neufeldt (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0170932), Lovitt, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0028542) and Haller, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,952,730) as applied to claims 1, 10 and 16 above, and in view of Ahn, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12,090,847).
For claim 8, Neufeldt does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitation. A teaching from Ahn discloses in response to detecting the presence of an operator on the first side of the cab, adjust an orientation of one or more graphical buttons on the user interface to be closer to the first side than the second side (see Figs. 2A, 2B and related text). It would have been obvious at the effective date of filing to modify Neufeldt with the teachings of Ahn based on a reasonable expectation of success and a motivation to improve controlling of the display position of the information displayed on the display may include controlling a display position where cluster information is displayed, according to positional movement of a steering wheel (see col. 2:19-22).
For claim 19, Neufeldt does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitation. A teaching from Ahn discloses in response to detecting the presence of the first operator on the first side of the cab and the second operator on the second side of the cab, adjust an orientation of one or more graphical buttons on the user interface to be closer to the first side than the second side (see Figs. 2A, 2B and related text). It would have been obvious at the effective date of filing to modify Neufeldt with the teachings of Ahn based on a reasonable expectation of success and a motivation to improve controlling of the display position of the information displayed on the display may include controlling a display position where cluster information is displayed, according to positional movement of a steering wheel (see col. 2:19-22).
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