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 .
Status of claims
The following claims have been rejected or allowed for the following reasons:
Claim(s) 1-20 is rejected under 35 USC § 103
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement/statements (IDS) were filed on 12/10/24. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to Lewis (US 20200247609 A1), in further view of Wildgrube (US 20190325220 A1), in further view of Maroney (US 20200339346 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Lewis teaches A refuse vehicle comprising: a chassis; a body coupled to the chassis; a cab coupled to the chassis and positioned in front of the body; a lift assembly coupled to at least one of the chassis or the body, the lift assembly comprising: a positioning member; an interface member coupled to a distal end of the positioning member and configured to engage with a refuse container; an actuator coupled to the positioning member to facilitate movement of the interface member; (Lewis figure 2A, shown below, shows the refuse vehicle according to this limitation.)
PNG
media_image1.png
466
703
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lewis Figure 2A
and one or more position sensors configured to measure generate a first engagement value indicative of a first component of a position of the interface member; (Lewis [0049] reads “Sensors 106 can be provided on the vehicle body to evaluate cycles and/or other parameters of various body components. For example, the sensors can measure the hydraulic pressure of various hydraulic components, and/or pneumatic pressure of pneumatic components. As described in further detail herein, the sensors can also detect and/or measure the particular position and/or operational state of body components such as the top door of a refuse collection vehicle, an automated carrying can attached to a refuse collection vehicle, such as those sold under the name Curotto-Can™, a lift arm, a refuse compression mechanism, a tailgate, and so forth, to detect events such as a lift arm cycle, a pack cycle, a tailgate open or close event, an eject event, tailgate locking event, and/or other body component operations.”);
and a return assist system configured to: receive an input to engage the interface member with the refuse container; (Lewis abstract reads “manually engaging a switch to initiate a dump cycle to be performed by the refuse collection vehicle on the refuse container. The dump cycle includes engaging the refuse container with a portion of the vehicle, lifting the engaged refuse container to a dump position, and moving the refuse container to release contents of the refuse container into a hopper of the refuse collection vehicle.”);
determine an original position of the refuse container based on [[a]]the first engagement value of the component when the input is received; (Lewis [0135] reads “The dump cycle can also include lowering the refuse container to ground, or lowering the refuse container to the surface from which the container was lifted. In some implementations, the dump cycle includes lowering the refuse container to the position that the refuse container was at when it was engaged by the refuse collection vehicle (i.e. the “pick position”). For example, the dump cycle can include recording the position of the refuse container 230 at the time the refuse container is engaged (“pick position”), and, after lifting and moving the refuse container 230 to release its contents, lowering the container 230 to the recorded pick position.”);
reposition, using the actuator, the interface member to empty the refuse container into the body; and return the refuse container to the original position. (Lewis [0088] reads “In some implementations, the pick position may be determined based the location of the one or more can detection sensors 106(2), 106(3). In some instances, the pick position is determined based on the location of the lift arm 104(1) and fork mechanism 104(2) based on data provided by sensors 106 at the time when the container 130 is engaged by the fork mechanism 104(2).”);
Lewis does not teach prevent movement of the interface member (Wildgrube [0050] reads “If the control system 400 determines that the object is an obstacle X, it may be undesirable for any part of the refuse vehicle 10 to come into contact with the object. It may also be undesirable for certain parts of the refuse vehicle 10 to come into contact with any object (e.g., the front end, the rear end, etc.). If the control system 400 determines that there is potential undesirable contact with an object, the control system 400 may provide a warning (e.g., a sound provided through the speaker 456, a visual notification on the display 452, etc.) to the operator or disable some functionality of the refuse vehicle 10 to avoid contact with the object.”);
Wildgrube in analogous art, teaches prevent movement of the interface member (Wildgrube [0050] reads “If the control system 400 determines that the object is an obstacle X, it may be undesirable for any part of the refuse vehicle 10 to come into contact with the object. It may also be undesirable for certain parts of the refuse vehicle 10 to come into contact with any object (e.g., the front end, the rear end, etc.). If the control system 400 determines that there is potential undesirable contact with an object, the control system 400 may provide a warning (e.g., a sound provided through the speaker 456, a visual notification on the display 452, etc.) to the operator or disable some functionality of the refuse vehicle 10 to avoid contact with the object.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Lewis with that or Wildgrube to include a system that alerts the operator of potential conflict points around the current vehicle as well as so methods to stop the system from contracting those conflict points. This would allow the system to be safer for all of those involved as well as decrease the potential for damage to the system. (Wildgrube abstract reads “A controller is configured to use the object detection data to determine if the refuse container is present within an aligned zone relative to the chassis, the aligned zone representing a range of locations in which the refuse collection arm is capable of engaging the refuse container. In response to a determination that the refuse container is within the aligned zone, the controller is configured to provide an indication to an operator that the refuse container is within the aligned zone.”);
Lewis/Wildgrube does not teach responsive to operator commands to a value that is beyond the first engagement value;
Maroney in analogous art, teaches responsive to operator commands to a value that is beyond the first engagement value; (Maroney [0107] reads “In some implementations, once the lift arm 111 is lowered below a threshold height, the control push button 540 b is disengaged to prevent an operator from adjusting the angle of the grabber 113 below the baseline angular position 702. Restricting or eliminating the operator's ability to adjust the grabber 113 angle below the baseline angular position 702 when the lift arm 111 is positioned below a threshold height reduces the risk of damage to the vehicle 102 by preventing the grabber 113 from hitting the ground.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Lewis/Wildgrube with that of Maroney to include an advanced system that could limit the operator of the vehicle from damaging the vehicle. This would provide a safer environment for workers as well as decrease the amount of repairs needed for the vehicle. (Maroney [0028] reads “Potential benefits of the one or more implementations described in the present specification may include increased waste collection efficiency and reduced operator error in refuse collection. The one or more implementations may also reduce the likelihood of damaging refuse containers and refuse collection vehicles during the refuse collection process. The one or more implementations may also reduce the risk of injury to refuse collection vehicle operators by reducing the need for the operators to exit the vehicle to physically interact with the refuse containers.”);
Regarding claim 2 Lewis/Wildgrube/Maroney teaches The refuse vehicle of Claim 1, wherein the one or more position sensors is configured to measure the position of the interface member based on an actuator position of the actuator when the input is received. (Lewis [0088] reads “In some implementations, the pick position may be determined based the location of the one or more can detection sensors 106(2), 106(3). In some instances, the pick position is determined based on the location of the lift arm 104(1) and fork mechanism 104(2) based on data provided by sensors 106 at the time when the container 130 is engaged by the fork mechanism 104(2).”);
Regarding claim 3 Lewis/Wildgrube/Maroney teaches The refuse vehicle of Claim 1, wherein the first component is first engagement value includes a vertical distance between the interface member and the ground. (Wildgrube [0054] reads “First, the controller 410 may determine an initial location of the refuse container C and store the initial location in the memory 414. The initial location may include a longitudinal location, a lateral location, and/or a vertical location of the refuse container C. The initial location may be determined using the object detection system 440. In the embodiments that include the collection arm assembly 204 or the lift assembly 300, the controller 410 determines a grabbing position of the collection arm assembly 204 or the lift assembly 300 in which the grabber assembly 250 or the grabber assembly 306 can successfully engage the refuse container C. The controller 410 controls the lift arm actuators 44, the articulation actuators 50, the translation actuator 234, the lift actuator 244, or the lift arm actuators 308 to move the collection arm assembly 204 or the lift assembly 300 into the grabbing position.”);
Regarding claim 4 Lewis/Wildgrube/Maroney teaches The refuse vehicle of Claim 3, wherein preventing movement of the interface member responsive to operator commands comprises preventing the movement of the (Wildgrube [0050] reads “If the control system 400 determines that the object is an obstacle X, it may be undesirable for any part of the refuse vehicle 10 to come into contact with the object. It may also be undesirable for certain parts of the refuse vehicle 10 to come into contact with any object (e.g., the front end, the rear end, etc.). If the control system 400 determines that there is potential undesirable contact with an object, the control system 400 may provide a warning (e.g., a sound provided through the speaker 456, a visual notification on the display 452, etc.) to the operator or disable some functionality of the refuse vehicle 10 to avoid contact with the object.”);
responsive to operator commands to a value that is below the vertical distanc(Maroney [0107] reads “In some implementations, once the lift arm 111 is lowered below a threshold height, the control push button 540 b is disengaged to prevent an operator from adjusting the angle of the grabber 113 below the baseline angular position 702. Restricting or eliminating the operator's ability to adjust the grabber 113 angle below the baseline angular position 702 when the lift arm 111 is positioned below a threshold height reduces the risk of damage to the vehicle 102 by preventing the grabber 113 from hitting the ground.”);
Regarding claim 5 The refuse vehicle of Claim 3, wherein the one or more position sensors are further configured to measure a second component of the position of the interface member, and wherein the return assist system is further configured to determine the original position of the refuse container based on the first engagement value of the first component and a second engagement value of the second component when the input is received. (Lewis [0088] reads “In some implementations, the pick position may be determined based the location of the one or more can detection sensors 106(2), 106(3). In some instances, the pick position is determined based on the location of the lift arm 104(1) and fork mechanism 104(2) based on data provided by sensors 106 at the time when the container 130 is engaged by the fork mechanism 104(2).” The art depicted by Lewis shows that multiple sensors could be used to measure different aspects of the given arm mechanism.);
Regarding claim 6 Lewis/Wildgrube/Maroney teaches (Wildgrube [0054] reads “First, the controller 410 may determine an initial location of the refuse container C and store the initial location in the memory 414. The initial location may include a longitudinal location, a lateral location, and/or a vertical location of the refuse container C. The initial location may be determined using the object detection system 440. In the embodiments that include the collection arm assembly 204 or the lift assembly 300, the controller 410 determines a grabbing position of the collection arm assembly 204 or the lift assembly 300 in which the grabber assembly 250 or the grabber assembly 306 can successfully engage the refuse container C. The controller 410 controls the lift arm actuators 44, the articulation actuators 50, the translation actuator 234, the lift actuator 244, or the lift arm actuators 308 to move the collection arm assembly 204 or the lift assembly 300 into the grabbing position.”);
Regarding claim 7 Lewis/Wildgrube/Maroney teaches The refuse vehicle of Claim 6, wherein during the repositioning of the interface member the return assist system is further configured to limit the movement of the positioning lift assembly such that the second component is less than the second engagement value. (Wildgrube [0052] reads “By way of yet another example, if the obstacle X is positioned directly above the refuse vehicle 10 (e.g., a power line) or a specific part of the vehicle (e.g., the grabber assembly 306), the controller 410 may limit (e.g., disable, limit beyond a certain vertical position, etc.) raising of the lift arm actuators 44”.);
Regarding claim 8 Lewis/Wildgrube/Maroney teaches The refuse vehicle of Claim 5, wherein the actuator is a first actuator configured to adjust at least one of the first component or the second component, the lift assembly further comprising a second actuator configured to adjust the at least one of the first component or the second component, and wherein the one or more position sensors [[is]]includes a first position sensor further configured to measure a first actuator position of the first actuator, the lift assembly further comprising a second position sensor configured to measure a second actuator position of the second actuator. (Lewis [0068] reads “in some implementations, a computing device 112 stores data received from one or more sensors 106 regarding the lift arm 104(1) and fork mechanism 104(2) position when the can detection sensors 106(2), 106(3) detect that the container 130 is engaged for use later vehicle position, as discussed in further detail herein.”);
Regarding claim 9 Lewis teaches A control system for a refuse vehicle comprising: processing circuity configured to: obtain, from a first position sensor, data representing a first engagement value indicative of a first component of a position of an interface member of [[the]]a lift apparatus; (Lewis [0049] reads “Sensors 106 can be provided on the vehicle body to evaluate cycles and/or other parameters of various body components. For example, the sensors can measure the hydraulic pressure of various hydraulic components, and/or pneumatic pressure of pneumatic components. As described in further detail herein, the sensors can also detect and/or measure the particular position and/or operational state of body components such as the top door of a refuse collection vehicle, an automated carrying can attached to a refuse collection vehicle, such as those sold under the name Curotto-Can™, a lift arm, a refuse compression mechanism, a tailgate, and so forth, to detect events such as a lift arm cycle, a pack cycle, a tailgate open or close event, an eject event, tailgate locking event, and/or other body component operations.”);
determine an engagement position of the interface member based on the first component of the position of the interface member when the indication is received; (Lewis [0135] reads “The dump cycle can also include lowering the refuse container to ground, or lowering the refuse container to the surface from which the container was lifted. In some implementations, the dump cycle includes lowering the refuse container to the position that the refuse container was at when it was engaged by the refuse collection vehicle (i.e. the “pick position”). For example, the dump cycle can include recording the position of the refuse container 230 at the time the refuse container is engaged (“pick position”), and, after lifting and moving the refuse container 230 to release its contents, lowering the container 230 to the recorded pick position.” And [0088] reads “In some implementations, the pick position may be determined based the location of the one or more can detection sensors 106(2), 106(3). In some instances, the pick position is determined based on the location of the lift arm 104(1) and fork mechanism 104(2) based on data provided by sensors 106 at the time when the container 130 is engaged by the fork mechanism 104(2).”);
operate the lift apparatus to perform a dumping operation; and return the lift apparatus to the engagement position. (Lewis [0088] reads “In some implementations, the pick position may be determined based the location of the one or more can detection sensors 106(2), 106(3). In some instances, the pick position is determined based on the location of the lift arm 104(1) and fork mechanism 104(2) based on data provided by sensors 106 at the time when the container 130 is engaged by the fork mechanism 104(2).”);
Lewis does not teach obtain an indication of engagement of the interface member of the lift apparatus of the refuse vehicle; prevent movement of the interface member responsive to operator commands to a value that is beyond the first engagement value;
Wildgrube in analogous art, teaches obtain an indication of engagement of the interface member of the lift apparatus of the refuse vehicle; (Wildgrube [0046] reads “In some embodiments, the controller 410 is configured to provide the relative position of the refuse container C (e.g., relative to the collection arm assembly 204, relative to the lift assembly 300, etc.) to the operator. In some embodiments, the controller 410 utilizes the display 452 to provide a graphical user interface (e.g., similar to FIGS. 7-10) that visually indicates the relative position of the refuse container C. Such a graphical user interface may update in real time. In other embodiments, the controller 410 may command the speaker 456 to provide an auditory cue that indicates the relative position of the refuse container C. By way of example, the auditory cue may be a series of discrete “beeping” noise”);
Lewis/Wildgrube does not teach prevent movement of the interface member responsive to operator commands to a value that is beyond the first engagement value;
Maroney in analogous art, teaches prevent movement of the interface member responsive to operator commands to a value that is beyond the first engagement value; (Maroney [0107] reads “In some implementations, once the lift arm 111 is lowered below a threshold height, the control push button 540 b is disengaged to prevent an operator from adjusting the angle of the grabber 113 below the baseline angular position 702. Restricting or eliminating the operator's ability to adjust the grabber 113 angle below the baseline angular position 702 when the lift arm 111 is positioned below a threshold height reduces the risk of damage to the vehicle 102 by preventing the grabber 113 from hitting the ground.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Lewis with that or Wildgrube to include a system that alerts the operator of potential conflict points around the current vehicle as well as so methods to stop the system from contracting those conflict points. This would allow the system to be safer for all of those involved as well as decrease the potential for damage to the system. (Wildgrube abstract reads “A controller is configured to use the object detection data to determine if the refuse container is present within an aligned zone relative to the chassis, the aligned zone representing a range of locations in which the refuse collection arm is capable of engaging the refuse container. In response to a determination that the refuse container is within the aligned zone, the controller is configured to provide an indication to an operator that the refuse container is within the aligned zone.”);
Regarding claim 10 Lewis/Wildgrube/Maroney teaches The control system of claim 9, the processing circuity further configured to: obtain, from one of a second position sensor or the first position sensor, data representing a second component of the position of an interface member, wherein the engagement position is based on the first component and the second component. (Lewis [0088] reads “In some implementations, the pick position may be determined based the location of the one or more can detection sensors 106(2), 106(3). In some instances, the pick position is determined based on the location of the lift arm 104(1) and fork mechanism 104(2) based on data provided by sensors 106 at the time when the container 130 is engaged by the fork mechanism 104(2).” The art depicted by Lewis shows that multiple sensors could be used to measure different aspects of the given arm mechanism.);
Regarding claim 11 Lewis/Wildgrube/Maroney teaches The control system of Claim 10, wherein one of the first component or the second component represents a vertical position of the interface member, and wherein the other of the first component or the second component represents a lateral position of the interface member. (Wildgrube [0054] reads “First, the controller 410 may determine an initial location of the refuse container C and store the initial location in the memory 414. The initial location may include a longitudinal location, a lateral location, and/or a vertical location of the refuse container C. The initial location may be determined using the object detection system 440. In the embodiments that include the collection arm assembly 204 or the lift assembly 300, the controller 410 determines a grabbing position of the collection arm assembly 204 or the lift assembly 300 in which the grabber assembly 250 or the grabber assembly 306 can successfully engage the refuse container C. The controller 410 controls the lift arm actuators 44, the articulation actuators 50, the translation actuator 234, the lift actuator 244, or the lift arm actuators 308 to move the collection arm assembly 204 or the lift assembly 300 into the grabbing position.”);
Regarding claim 12 Lewis/Wildgrube/Maroney teaches The control system of claim 11, wherein preventing movement of the interface member responsive to operator commands comprises prior to the return of the lift apparatus to the engagement position, preventing the movement of the interface member (Wildgrube [0050] reads “If the control system 400 determines that the object is an obstacle X, it may be undesirable for any part of the refuse vehicle 10 to come into contact with the object. It may also be undesirable for certain parts of the refuse vehicle 10 to come into contact with any object (e.g., the front end, the rear end, etc.). If the control system 400 determines that there is potential undesirable contact with an object, the control system 400 may provide a warning (e.g., a sound provided through the speaker 456, a visual notification on the display 452, etc.) to the operator or disable some functionality of the refuse vehicle 10 to avoid contact with the object.”);
responsive to operator commands to a value that is beyond the lateral position of the interface member (Maroney [0107] reads “In some implementations, once the lift arm 111 is lowered below a threshold height, the control push button 540 b is disengaged to prevent an operator from adjusting the angle of the grabber 113 below the baseline angular position 702. Restricting or eliminating the operator's ability to adjust the grabber 113 angle below the baseline angular position 702 when the lift arm 111 is positioned below a threshold height reduces the risk of damage to the vehicle 102 by preventing the grabber 113 from hitting the ground.”);
Regarding claim 13 Lewis/Wildgrube/Maroney teaches The control system of claim 11, wherein prior to the return of the lift apparatus to the engagement position, the movement of the interface member is limited such that lateral position is less than the engagement position. (Wildgrube [0052] reads “By way of yet another example, if the obstacle X is positioned directly above the refuse vehicle 10 (e.g., a power line) or a specific part of the vehicle (e.g., the grabber assembly 306), the controller 410 may limit (e.g., disable, limit beyond a certain vertical position, etc.) raising of the lift arm actuators 44”. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, that this feature could also be used to limit the mechanical arm from contacting other things, such as the ground.);
Regarding claim 14 Lewis/Wildgrube/Maroney teaches The control system of Claim 9, the lift apparatus further comprising an actuator configured to move the interface member, and wherein the first component of the position is based on an aspect of the actuator measured by the first position sensor. (Lewis [0133] reads “In some implementations, a sensor 206(1) on the rotary actuator of grabber mechanism 204(2), such as an inclinometer, provides data to an onboard computing device (e.g., onboard computing device 112 of FIG. 1A) that analyzes the sensor data to determine adjustments necessary to level the engaged refuse container 23”);
Regarding claim 15 Lewis/Wildgrube/Maroney teaches The control system of Claim 9, wherein the indication of engagement represents engagement of the interface member with a refuse container, (Wildgrube [0046] reads “In some embodiments, the controller 410 is configured to provide the relative position of the refuse container C (e.g., relative to the collection arm assembly 204, relative to the lift assembly 300, etc.) to the operator. In some embodiments, the controller 410 utilizes the display 452 to provide a graphical user interface (e.g., similar to FIGS. 7-10) that visually indicates the relative position of the refuse container C. Such a graphical user interface may update in real time. In other embodiments, the controller 410 may command the speaker 456 to provide an auditory cue that indicates the relative position of the refuse container C. By way of example, the auditory cue may be a series of discrete “beeping” noise”);
and wherein the dumping operation comprises controlling the lift apparatus to empty the refuse container into a body of the refuse vehicle. (Lewis [0005] reads “In some implementations, operating a refuse collection vehicle to collect refuse from a refuse container includes positioning a refuse collection vehicle with respect to a refuse container to be emptied, and manually engaging a switch to initiate a dump cycle to be performed by the refuse collection vehicle on the refuse container. The dump cycle includes engaging the refuse container with a portion of the vehicle, lifting the engaged refuse container to a dump position, and moving the refuse container to release contents of the refuse container into a hopper of the refuse collection vehicle.“);
Regarding claim 16 Lewis/Wildgrube/Maroney teaches The control system of Claim 9, wherein the first component represents a vertical position of the interface member, (Wildgrube [0054] reads “First, the controller 410 may determine an initial location of the refuse container C and store the initial location in the memory 414. The initial location may include a longitudinal location, a lateral location, and/or a vertical location of the refuse container C. The initial location may be determined using the object detection system 440. In the embodiments that include the collection arm assembly 204 or the lift assembly 300, the controller 410 determines a grabbing position of the collection arm assembly 204 or the lift assembly 300 in which the grabber assembly 250 or the grabber assembly 306 can successfully engage the refuse container C. The controller 410 controls the lift arm actuators 44, the articulation actuators 50, the translation actuator 234, the lift actuator 244, or the lift arm actuators 308 to move the collection arm assembly 204 or the lift assembly 300 into the grabbing position.”);
and wherein the engagement position comprises the vertical position of the interface member when the indication is received. (Wildgrube [0046] reads “In some embodiments, the controller 410 is configured to provide the relative position of the refuse container C (e.g., relative to the collection arm assembly 204, relative to the lift assembly 300, etc.) to the operator. In some embodiments, the controller 410 utilizes the display 452 to provide a graphical user interface (e.g., similar to FIGS. 7-10) that visually indicates the relative position of the refuse container C. Such a graphical user interface may update in real time. In other embodiments, the controller 410 may command the speaker 456 to provide an auditory cue that indicates the relative position of the refuse container C. By way of example, the auditory cue may be a series of discrete “beeping” noise”);
Regarding claim 17 Lewis/Wildgrube/Maroney teaches The control system of Claim 16, the processing circuity further configured to: obtain, from one of a second position sensor or the first position sensor, data representing a second component of the position of an interface member, wherein the second component represents a lateral position of the interface member, (Wildgrube [0054] reads “First, the controller 410 may determine an initial location of the refuse container C and store the initial location in the memory 414. The initial location may include a longitudinal location, a lateral location, and/or a vertical location of the refuse container C. The initial location may be determined using the object detection system 440. In the embodiments that include the collection arm assembly 204 or the lift assembly 300, the controller 410 determines a grabbing position of the collection arm assembly 204 or the lift assembly 300 in which the grabber assembly 250 or the grabber assembly 306 can successfully engage the refuse container C. The controller 410 controls the lift arm actuators 44, the articulation actuators 50, the translation actuator 234, the lift actuator 244, or the lift arm actuators 308 to move the collection arm assembly 204 or the lift assembly 300 into the grabbing position.”);
and wherein the engagement position further comprises the lateral position of the interface member when the indication is received. (Wildgrube [0046] reads “In some embodiments, the controller 410 is configured to provide the relative position of the refuse container C (e.g., relative to the collection arm assembly 204, relative to the lift assembly 300, etc.) to the operator. In some embodiments, the controller 410 utilizes the display 452 to provide a graphical user interface (e.g., similar to FIGS. 7-10) that visually indicates the relative position of the refuse container C. Such a graphical user interface may update in real time. In other embodiments, the controller 410 may command the speaker 456 to provide an auditory cue that indicates the relative position of the refuse container C. By way of example, the auditory cue may be a series of discrete “beeping” noise”);
Regarding claim 18 Lewis teaches A method for controlling a refuse vehicle, the method comprising: obtaining first data representing a first engagement value indicative of a first component of a position of an interface member of [[the]]a lift apparatus of the refuse vehicle; (Lewis [0049] reads “Sensors 106 can be provided on the vehicle body to evaluate cycles and/or other parameters of various body components. For example, the sensors can measure the hydraulic pressure of various hydraulic components, and/or pneumatic pressure of pneumatic components. As described in further detail herein, the sensors can also detect and/or measure the particular position and/or operational state of body components such as the top door of a refuse collection vehicle, an automated carrying can attached to a refuse collection vehicle, such as those sold under the name Curotto-Can™, a lift arm, a refuse compression mechanism, a tailgate, and so forth, to detect events such as a lift arm cycle, a pack cycle, a tailgate open or close event, an eject event, tailgate locking event, and/or other body component operations.”);
determining an engagement position of the interface member based on the first component of the position of the interface member when the indication is received; (Lewis [0135] reads “The dump cycle can also include lowering the refuse container to ground, or lowering the refuse container to the surface from which the container was lifted. In some implementations, the dump cycle includes lowering the refuse container to the position that the refuse container was at when it was engaged by the refuse collection vehicle (i.e. the “pick position”). For example, the dump cycle can include recording the position of the refuse container 230 at the time the refuse container is engaged (“pick position”), and, after lifting and moving the refuse container 230 to release its contents, lowering the container 230 to the recorded pick position.” And [0088] reads “In some implementations, the pick position may be determined based the location of the one or more can detection sensors 106(2), 106(3). In some instances, the pick position is determined based on the location of the lift arm 104(1) and fork mechanism 104(2) based on data provided by sensors 106 at the time when the container 130 is engaged by the fork mechanism 104(2).”);
controlling the lift apparatus to perform a dumping operation; and returning the lift apparatus to the engagement position. (Lewis [0135] reads “The dump cycle can also include lowering the refuse container to ground, or lowering the refuse container to the surface from which the container was lifted. In some implementations, the dump cycle includes lowering the refuse container to the position that the refuse container was at when it was engaged by the refuse collection vehicle (i.e. the “pick position”). For example, the dump cycle can include recording the position of the refuse container 230 at the time the refuse container is engaged (“pick position”), and, after lifting and moving the refuse container 230 to release its contents, lowering the container 230 to the recorded pick position.”);
Lewis does not teach obtaining an indication of engagement of the interface member; prevent movement of the interface member responsive to operator commands to a value that is beyond the first engagement value;
Wildgrube in analogous art, teaches obtaining an indication of engagement of the interface member; (Wildgrube [0046] reads “In some embodiments, the controller 410 is configured to provide the relative position of the refuse container C (e.g., relative to the collection arm assembly 204, relative to the lift assembly 300, etc.) to the operator. In some embodiments, the controller 410 utilizes the display 452 to provide a graphical user interface (e.g., similar to FIGS. 7-10) that visually indicates the relative position of the refuse container C. Such a graphical user interface may update in real time. In other embodiments, the controller 410 may command the speaker 456 to provide an auditory cue that indicates the relative position of the refuse container C. By way of example, the auditory cue may be a series of discrete “beeping” noise”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Lewis with that of Wildgrube to include a system that alerts the operator of potential conflict points around the current vehicle as well as so methods to stop the system from contracting those conflict points. This would allow the system to be safer for all of those involved as well as decrease the potential for damage to the system. (Wildgrube abstract reads “A controller is configured to use the object detection data to determine if the refuse container is present within an aligned zone relative to the chassis, the aligned zone representing a range of locations in which the refuse collection arm is capable of engaging the refuse container. In response to a determination that the refuse container is within the aligned zone, the controller is configured to provide an indication to an operator that the refuse container is within the aligned zone.”);
Lewis/Wildgrube does not teach prevent movement of the interface member responsive to operator commands to a value that is beyond the first engagement value;
Maroney in analogous art, teaches prevent movement of the interface member responsive to operator commands to a value that is beyond the first engagement value; (Maroney [0107] reads “In some implementations, once the lift arm 111 is lowered below a threshold height, the control push button 540 b is disengaged to prevent an operator from adjusting the angle of the grabber 113 below the baseline angular position 702. Restricting or eliminating the operator's ability to adjust the grabber 113 angle below the baseline angular position 702 when the lift arm 111 is positioned below a threshold height reduces the risk of damage to the vehicle 102 by preventing the grabber 113 from hitting the ground.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Lewis/Wildgrube with that of Maroney to include an advanced system that could limit the operator of the vehicle from damaging the vehicle. This would provide a safer environment for workers as well as decrease the amount of repairs needed for the vehicle. (Maroney [0028] reads “Potential benefits of the one or more implementations described in the present specification may include increased waste collection efficiency and reduced operator error in refuse collection. The one or more implementations may also reduce the likelihood of damaging refuse containers and refuse collection vehicles during the refuse collection process. The one or more implementations may also reduce the risk of injury to refuse collection vehicle operators by reducing the need for the operators to exit the vehicle to physically interact with the refuse containers.”);
Regarding claim 19 Lewis/Wildgrube/Maroney teaches The method of Claim 18, wherein the first data is obtained from a first sensor monitoring a first actuator of the lifting lift apparatus configured to control the movement of the interface member. (Lewis [0133] reads “ In some implementations, a sensor 206(1) on the rotary actuator of grabber mechanism 204(2), such as an inclinometer, provides data to an onboard computing device (e.g., onboard computing device 112 of FIG. 1A) that analyzes the sensor data to determine adjustments necessary to level the engaged refuse container 23”);
Regarding claim 20 Lewis/Wildgrube/Maroney teaches The method of claim 19, the method further comprising: obtaining second data representing a second component of the position of the interface member, wherein the first component represents a vertical distance between the interface member and the ground and the second component represents a lateral distance between the interface member and a chassis of the refuse vehicle; (Lewis [0136] reads “ In some implementations, the pick position is determined based on the location of the one or more can detection sensors 206(2), 206(3) at the time the container 230 is engaged by vehicle 202. In some instances, the pick position is determined based on the location of the lift arm 204(1) and grabber mechanism 204(2), as determined by the sensors 206, when the container is engaged by the grabber mechanism 204(2).” And [0060] reads “Sensors 106 can include, but are not limited to, a mechanical plunger, a contact sensor, an analog sensor, a digital sensor, a CAN bus sensor, a radio detection and ranging (RADAR) sensor, a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, a camera, or a combination thereof. In some implementations, the container detection sensors 106(2), 106(3) include one or more analog ultrasonic sensors. In some implementations, container detection sensors 106(2), 106(3) include one or more mechanical plungers.” It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art that the inclusion of ultrasonic and/or Lidar sensors for the purpose of detecting the range between any two objects during the picking of a refuse container would include measuring the lateral distance that the arm is away from the vehicle or curb and a vertical distance away from the ground);
determining an engagement position of the interface member based on the first component and the second component of the position of the interface member when the indication is received; (Lewis [0088] reads “In some implementations, the pick position may be determined based the location of the one or more can detection sensors 106(2), 106(3). In some instances, the pick position is determined based on the location of the lift arm 104(1) and fork mechanism 104(2) based on data provided by sensors 106 at the time when the container 130 is engaged by the fork mechanism 104(2).”);
and controlling the lift apparatus to perform a dumping operation, wherein during the dumping operation the movement of the lift apparatus (Lewis [0005] reads “In some implementations, operating a refuse collection vehicle to collect refuse from a refuse container includes positioning a refuse collection vehicle with respect to a refuse container to be emptied, and manually engaging a switch to initiate a dump cycle to be performed by the refuse collection vehicle on the refuse container. The dump cycle includes engaging the refuse container with a portion of the vehicle, lifting the engaged refuse container to a dump position, and moving the refuse container to release contents of the refuse container into a hopper of the refuse collection vehicle.”);
is limited such that the first component is greater than the engagement position and the second component is less than the engagement position. (Wildgrube [0052] reads “By way of yet another example, if the obstacle X is positioned directly above the refuse vehicle 10 (e.g., a power line) or a specific part of the vehicle (e.g., the grabber assembly 306), the controller 410 may limit (e.g., disable, limit beyond a certain vertical position, etc.) raising of the lift arm actuators 44”. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, that this feature could also be used to limit the mechanical arm from contacting other things, such as the ground.);
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues < The Office Action does not demonstrate that any of the cited references, alone or in combination, disclose, teach, or suggest at least a "return assist system configured to: ... prevent movement of the interface member responsive to operator commands to a value that is beyond the first engagement value," as recited in amended claim 1. Rather, Lewis relates to automatic control techniques, and is silent regarding any boundaries placed on changes to controls associated with operator commands.> [page 7 paragraph 5]. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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. Specifically, the currently claimed limitation of limiting movement and subsequently overriding the operators actions was not sufficiently claimed in the prior claim set. The new rejection clearly shows that with the addition of Maroney that the combination teaches limiting the range of commands that the system will do based on other factors. (Maroney [0107] reads “In some implementations, once the lift arm 111 is lowered below a threshold height, the control push button 540 b is disengaged to prevent an operator from adjusting the angle of the grabber 113 below the baseline angular position 702. Restricting or eliminating the operator's ability to adjust the grabber 113 angle below the baseline angular position 702 when the lift arm 111 is positioned below a threshold height reduces the risk of damage to the vehicle 102 by preventing the grabber 113 from hitting the ground.”);Therefore, the combination teaches the claimed invention.
Other references not Cited
Throughout examination other references were found that could read onto the prior art. Though these references were not used in this examination they could be used in future examination and could read on the contents of the current disclosure. These references are, Tang (NPL: Simple Method to Limit Motor Operation Range for Robotics Safety); Mahan (US 20210292086 A1); Secibovic (US 20210107050 A1);
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN MARTIN O'MALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6228. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 am - 5 pm.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at (571) 270 - 5744. 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.
/JOHN MARTIN O'MALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658