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 .
Applicant's amendment filed on 12/29/2025 did not define over the cited prior art and the rejections are explained below. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
This action is a final rejection and is intended to close the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited either to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board or to an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply identifying the rejected claim or claims appealed.
If applicant should desire to file an amendment, entry of a proposed amendment after final rejection cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made earlier. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing a good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include the appeal from, or cancellation of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds the claims to be in condition for allowance. Accordingly, if a Notice of Appeal has not been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b), the application will become abandoned.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
1. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ambrosio (US PG PUB NO 2009/0018716) in view of Ghibaudo (US 6,007,291). [CLAIM 1] Regarding claim 1, Ambrosio discloses a utility vehicle suitable for refuse transport, comprising: a chassis (Vehicles inherently have a chassis, see drivetrain in FIG 1 which is supported by a chassis); a body (Vehicles inherently have a body) coupled to the chassis, the body defining a refuse compartment (Any area of a vehicle can house refuse if desired) an electric energy system (5); and an auxiliary power system detachably mounted to the chassis or body (10 can be mounted as desired and all components can be detached for service/replacement) the auxiliary power system comprising a reservoir to hold a hydraulic fluid and a hydraulic pump (Ambrosio is exemplary and a hydraulic auxiliary system conventionally includes a reservoir container to supply a hydraulic "fluid" pump which is recited in Ambrosio Claim 2) powered by an electric motor (4), wherein the electric motor (4) is powered by the electric energy system (5) and the hydraulic pump pressurizes the hydraulic fluid to power one or more actuators; and a prime mover (1) separate from the auxiliary power system and configured to charge the electric energy system (Ambrosio, FIG 1 and paragraph [0036] and prime movers conventionally provide current via generator to the auxiliary components).
-However, Ambrosio fails to disclose one or more actuators and wherein the one or more actuators include a packer actuator configured to compact refuse in the refuse compartment of the body assembly.
-Nevertheless, Ghibaudo discloses a packing refuse truck having actuators, see Column 6, lines 50-55 which can be driven by hydraulic pressure.
-Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Ambrosio to have refuse operations as taught by Ghibaudo with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide additional capability to utility vehicles equipped with hydraulics and PTO.
PNG
media_image1.png
734
727
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
622
726
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[CLAIM 2] Regarding claim 2, Ambrosio/Ghibaudo disclose the refuse vehicle of Claim 1, wherein the auxiliary power system includes a second electric motor including a power take-off configured to power an external device (Ambrosio is exemplary and can have additional electric motors like 4 to support accessory demand. Regarding a duplication of parts, see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the combination to have plural motors with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase utility).
[CLAIM 3] Regarding claim 3, Ambrosio/Ghibaudo disclose the refuse vehicle of Claim 1, wherein the auxiliary power system is positioned between a cab of the refuse vehicle and the body of the refuse vehicle (Ambrosio discloses schematic illustrations without vehicle position designation as it is a matter of design choice based on particular applications. Regarding rearrangement of parts which is an obvious modification that does not alter the vehicle accessory function, see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the combination to have auxiliary equipment housed near the cab and refuse housing as taught with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve vehicle packing for other required equipment to be housed).
[CLAIM 4] Regarding claim 4, Ambrosio/Ghibaudo disclose the refuse vehicle of Claim 1, wherein the auxiliary power system is positioned below the body of the refuse vehicle (Ambrosio discloses schematic illustrations without vehicle position designation as it is a matter of design choice based on particular applications. Regarding rearrangement of parts which is an obvious modification that does not alter the vehicle accessory function, see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the combination to have auxiliary equipment housed below the vehicle body with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve vehicle packing for other required equipment to be housed).
[CLAIM 5] Regarding claim 5, Ambrosio/Ghibaudo disclose the refuse vehicle of Claim 1, wherein the auxiliary power system is mounted on a surface of the body of the refuse vehicle (Ambrosio discloses schematic illustrations without vehicle position designation as it is a matter of design choice based on particular applications. Regarding rearrangement of parts which is an obvious modification that does not alter the vehicle accessory function, see in re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950} Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the combination to have auxiliary equipment housed on the vehicle body with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve vehicle packing for other required equipment to be housed).
[CLAIM 6] Regarding claim 6, Ambrosio/Ghibaudo disclose the refuse vehicle of Claim 1, wherein the auxiliary power system includes a cooling system configured to thermally regulate the electric motor (Ambrosio discloses an ICE which inherently includes a thermal management e.g. “fluid” system and can incorporate a cooling loop to include the motor(s) if desired to manage temperature).
[CLAIM 7] Regarding claim 7, Ambrosio/Ghibaudo disclose the refuse vehicle of Claim 1, wherein the auxiliary power system includes one or more electrical energy storage devices configured to power the electric motor (Ambrosio, storage 5 includes a battery for the motor 4).
[CLAIM 8] Regarding claim 8, Ambrosio discloses a power system for a utility vehicle having an auxiliary accessory (10), comprising: a reservoir to hold a hydraulic fluid and a hydraulic pump configured to pressurize the hydraulic fluid (Ambrosio is exemplary and a hydraulic power system conventionally includes a “fluid” reservoir to supply a hydraulic “fluid” pump which is recited in Ambrosio Claim 2); an electric motor (4) configured to power the hydraulic pump (Ambrosio FIG 1) and a mounting assembly
configured to detachably couple the auxiliary power system to the refuse vehicle (Ambrosio, FIG 1 is exemplary and illustrates the drivetrain which can be detachably mounted for a desired utility vehicle system to reduce service and labor time.
-However, it fails to disclose wherein one or more actuators which operate on hydraulic fluid include a packer actuator configured to compact refuse in the refuse compartment.
-Nevertheless, Ghibaudo discloses a packing refuse/utility truck having actuators, see Column 6, lines 50-55 which can be driven by hydraulic pressure.
-Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Ambrosio to have refuse operations as taught by Ghibaudo with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide additional capability to utility vehicles equipped with hydraulics and PTO.
[CLAIM 9] Regarding claim 9, Ambrosio/Ghibaudo disclose the auxiliary power system of Claim 8, wherein the mounting assembly is configured to couple the auxiliary power system between a cab of the refuse vehicle and a body of the refuse vehicle (Ambrosio discloses schematic illustrations without vehicle position designation as it is a matter of design choice. Regarding rearrangement of parts which is an obvious modification that does not alter the vehicle accessory function, see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the combination to have auxiliary equipment housed near the cab and refuse housing as taught with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve vehicle packing for other required equipment to be housed).
[CLAIM 10] Regarding claim 10, Ambrosio/Ghibaudo disclose the auxiliary power system of Claim 8, wherein the mounting assembly is configured to couple the auxiliary power system below a body of the refuse vehicle (Ambrosio discloses schematic illustrations without vehicle position designation as it is a matter of design choice based on particular applications. Regarding rearrangement of parts which is an obvious modification that does not alter the vehicle accessory function, see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the combination to have auxiliary equipment housed below the vehicle body with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve vehicle packing for other required equipment to be housed).
[CLAIM 11] Regarding claim 11, Ambrosio/Ghibaudo disclose the auxiliary power system of Claim 8, wherein the mounting assembly is configured to couple the auxiliary power system to a surface of the body of the refuse vehicle (Ambrosio discloses schematic illustrations without vehicle position designation as it is a matter of design choice based on particular applications. Regarding rearrangement of parts which is an obvious modification that does not alter the vehicle accessory function, see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the combination to have auxiliary equipment housed on the vehicle body with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve vehicle packing for other required equipment to be housed).
[CLAIM 12] Regarding claim 12, Ambrosio/Ghibaudo disclose the auxiliary power system of Claim 8, further including a second electric motor including a power take-off configured to power an external device (Ambrosio has PTO 3 to operate auxiliary accessories 10 as desired and is exemplary and can have additional electric motors to support accessory demand. Regarding a duplication of parts, see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the combination to have plural motors with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase utility).
[CLAIM 13] Regarding claim 13, Ambrosio/Ghibaudo disclose the auxiliary power system of Claim 8, further including a cooling system configured to thermally regulate the electric motor (Ambrosio discloses an ICE (1) which inherently includes a thermal management e.g. "fluid" system and can incorporate a loop to include the motor(s) if desired).
[CLAIM 14] Regarding claim 14, Ambrosio/Ghibaudo disclose the auxiliary power system of Claim 8, further including one or more electrical energy storage devices configured to power the electric motor (Ambrosio, storage 5 includes a battery for the motor 4).
[CLAIM 15] Regarding claim 15, Ambrosio discloses a utility vehicle, comprising: a chassis (Vehicles inherently have a chassis); a body (Vehicles inherently have a body) coupled to the chassis, the body defining a refuse compartment (Any area of a vehicle can house refuse if desired); a prime mover (1) wherein the prime mover is a first electric motor (4); and an auxiliary power system (10) comprising a reservoir to hold a hydraulic fluid and a hydraulic pump (Ambrosio is exemplary and a hydraulic power system conventionally includes a "fluid" reservoir to supply a hydraulic "fluid" pump which is recited in Ambrosio Claim 2) powered by a second electric motor (Plural motors are conventional on vehicles operating hydraulics and pneumatics for lifting) disposed on the body and separate from the prime mover (Ambrosio is exemplary and can have additional electric motors to support accessory demand. Regarding a duplication of parts, see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the combination to have plural motors with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase utility).
-However, Ambrosio fails to disclose wherein the hydraulic pump pressurizes the hydraulic fluid to power one or more actuators, the one or more actuators including a packer actuator configured to compact refuse in the refuse compartment.
-Nevertheless, Ghibaudo discloses a packing refuse truck having actuators, see Column 6, lines 50-55 which can be driven by hydraulic pressure cylinders.
-Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Ambrosio to have refuse operations as taught by Ghibaudo with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide additional capability to utility vehicles equipped with hydraulics and PTO.
[CLAIM 16] Regarding claim 16, Ambrosio/Ghibaudo disclose the electric refuse vehicle of Claim 15, wherein the electric refuse vehicle includes one or more electrical energy storage devices (Ambrosio, storage 5) configured to provide power to at least one of the first electric motor (Ambrosio, motor 4) or the second electric motor, and wherein at least one of the one or more electrical energy storage devices are detachably coupled header to the electric refuse vehicle (All components on a vehicle are detachable for storage, service and replacement thus increasing utility).
[CLAIM 17] Regarding claim 17, Ambrosio/Ghibaudo disclose the electric refuse vehicle of Claim 15, wherein the auxiliary power system is positioned between a cab of the electric refuse vehicle and the body of the electric refuse vehicle (Ambrosio discloses schematic illustrations without vehicle position designation as it is a matter of design choice based on particular applications. Regarding rearrangement of parts which is an obvious modification that does not alter the vehicle accessory function, see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the combination to have auxiliary equipment housed near the cab and refuse housing as taught with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve vehicle packing for other required equipment to be housed).
[CLAIM 18] Regarding claim 18, Ambrosio/Ghibaudo disclose the electric refuse vehicle of Claim 15, wherein the auxiliary power system includes a third electric motor (The argument recited in Applicant's claim 2 rejected is incorporated herein with respect to additional electric motors) including a power take-off (Ambrosio PTO 3) configured to power an external device (Ambrosio auxiliary 10).
[CLAIM 19] Regarding claim 19, Ambrosio/Ghibaudo disclose the electric refuse vehicle of Claim 15, wherein the auxiliary power system is positioned on a surface of the body of the electric refuse vehicle (Ambrosio discloses schematic illustrations without vehicle position designation as it is a matter of design choice based on particular applications. Regarding rearrangement of parts which is an obvious modification that does not alter
the vehicle accessory function, see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the combination to have auxiliary equipment housed on the vehicle body with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve vehicle packing for other required equipment to be housed).
[CLAIM 20] Regarding claim 20, Ambrosio/Ghibaudo disclose the electric refuse vehicle of Claim 15, wherein the auxiliary power system is positioned below the body of the electric refuse vehicle (Ambrosio discloses schematic illustrations without vehicle position designation as it is a matter of design choice based on particular applications. Regarding rearrangement of parts which is an obvious modification that does not alter the vehicle accessory function, see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the combination to have auxiliary equipment housed below the vehicle body with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve vehicle packing for other required equipment to be housed).
Response to Applicant Arguments (In Bold/Italics)
The combination of Ambrosio and Ghibaudo does not disclose, teach, or suggest a refuse vehicle including "an auxiliary power system detachably mounted to the chassis or the body, the auxiliary power system comprising a reservoir to hold a hydraulic fluid, and a hydraulic pump powered by an electric motor, wherein the electric motor is powered by the electric energy system and the hydraulic pump pressurizes the hydraulic fluid to power one or more actuators" and "a prime mover separate from the auxiliary power system," The Office Action alleges that Ambrosio discloses "an auxiliary power system (10) comprising a reservoir to hold a hydraulic fluid and a hydraulic pump (Ambrosio is exemplary and a hydraulic auxiliary system conventionally includes a reservoir to supply a hydraulic 'fluid' pump which is recited in Ambrosio Claim 2) powered by an electric motor (4)." paragraph [0072] of Ambrosio states that an "Electric Motor' (4) which is used through the 'PTO clutch' (3) for both acceleration and regenerative braking also powers a 'Hydraulic Pump' (35)." However, even assuming, arguendo, that the PTO hybrid system of Ambrosio included a reservoir, Ambrosio does not disclose or suggest an auxiliary power system separate from the prime mover and including all three of "a reservoir to hold a hydraulic fluid," "a hydraulic pump," and "an electric motor" is "detachably mounted to the chassis or the body," (Refuse vehicles conventionally include hydraulics requiring a pump a motor/ICE to provide substantive pressure via fluid).
Paragraph [0060] of Ambrosio states that the electric motor (4) is connected to a PTO element (3) by a driveshaft, and paragraph [0077] discloses that the motor (4) is "also shaft-connected to the hydraulic pump (35)." However, Ambrosio does not describe if or how these components could be removed from a chassis or body of a refuse vehicle, much less does Ambrosio disclose, teach, or suggest that these components are removable as a system. Moreover, even if the electric motor (4) and the hydraulic pump (35) were removable as a system, Ambrosio does not describe a reservoir at all, much less how a reservoir would be mounted to a chassis or body of a refuse vehicle (Any person of ordinary skill can remove the components during service or disassembly. Applicant is respectfully advised to further describe how each component can be “readily” detached). Thus, Ambrosio does not disclose, teach, or suggest a system in which an auxiliary power system including a reservoir, a hydraulic pump, and an electric motor is "detachably mounted to the chassis or the body," as recited in amended Claim 1 (Rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein).
Ghibaudo does not remedy the deficiencies of Ambrosio discussed above with respect to Claim 1. For at least these reasons, Claim 1 is allowable over the combination of Ambrosio and Ghibaudo (Rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein).
Claim 8 is amended in a similar manner as Claim 1 and is allowable for at least similar reasons as described above. Claim 8 further recites a "a mounting assembly configured to detachably couple the auxiliary power system to" a refuse vehicle including a prime mover. The Office Action equates the engine (1) of Ambrosio to the claimed prime mover on page 3, and alleges on page 9 that FIG. 1 of Ambrosio "illustrates the drivetrain which can be mounted using any desired system." However, the engine (1) of Ambrosio is part of the drivetrain that allegedly "can be mounted using any desired system." Ambrosio thus does not disclose that the drivetrain includes "a mounting assembly configured to detachably couple" an auxiliary power system including an electric motor, a hydraulic pump, and a reservoir to a refuse vehicle including a prime mover (Any ICE can selectively power an auxiliary system such as hydraulics, generator and auxiliary components).
The combination of Ambrosio and Ghibaudo does not disclose, teach, or suggest the combination of features recited in Claim 15. For example, combination of Ambrosio and Ghibaudo does not disclose, teach, or suggest a refuse vehicle including "a prime mover, wherein the prime mover is a first electric motor (ICE and motors are conventional for refuse/utility vehicles and selectively interchangeable or operate in concert); and an auxiliary power system comprising a reservoir to hold a hydraulic fluid, and a hydraulic pump powered by a second electric motor disposed on the body and separate from the prime mover."(As stated above, vehicles operating with hydraulics require fluid and one or both of a gas powertrain or motor each is conventional in the art and selectable from the known group of prime movers).
On page 11, the Office Action alleges that Ambrosio discloses a "prime mover (1) wherein the prime mover is a first electric motor (4)." However, the internal combustion engine(1) and the electric motor (4) of Ambrosio are not the same component. Further, the internal combustion engine (1) of Ambrosio is not an "electric motor" as recited in claim 1 and the Office Action alleges that "Ambrosio is exemplary and can have additional electric motors to support accessory demand. Regarding a duplication of parts, see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (COPA 1960)." Even assuming that this is a proper application of In re Harza, which Applicant does not concede, an additional electric motor to support accessory demand is not a "prime mover" as recited in amended claim 1 (Motors are conventional to move vehicles in the electric and hybrid families). Ambrosio relies on an internal combustion engine (1) "to drive wheels of a vehicle" and to provide power to the electric motor. (Ambrosio 11 [0033], [0060]) (As stated above, a motor or series thereof can be used to drive wheels if desired for a particular vehicle application).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be found on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to whose telephone number is (571)270-3411. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-6PM PST.
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, Marc Jimenez can be reached on (571)272-.4530. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES J TRIGGS/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/MARC Q JIMENEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights