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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant filed remarks and amendments on 03/03/2026. Claims 1-9, 15-17 and 19-20 were canceled. Claims 21-26 are newly added. Claims 10-14, 18, and 21-26 are pending examination.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 101: Applicant’s remarks do not address or traverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is therefore maintained for the reasons set forth in the Office Action.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103: Applicant's arguments filed 03/03/2026 with respect to Maroney et al. (US20200247609A1) in view of Clifton et al . (CA3138365A1) and Johnson et al. (US6004092A) and Dietrich (US 20220180330 A1) and Romano et al . (US 20190385384 A1) have been fully 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 in view of Szoke-Sieswerda et al. (US11527072B2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 10-14, 18, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claimed invention is directed to the concept of operating a refuse vehicle. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The Examiner will further explain in view of the Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance:
Claims 10 and 21 are directed to a system of a vehicle (i.e., an apparatus). Therefore, claim 10 and 21 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claims 10 and 21 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claims 10 and 21 recites: A refuse vehicle comprising:
a chassis;
a cab coupled to the chassis;
a refuse compartment supported by the chassis and including a storage section and a hopper section, the hopper section being arranged between the cab and the storage section;
a lift assembly operable to engage and lift a refuse container;
a camera coupled to a portion of the cab or the refuse compartment;
and a controller including a processor and at least one memory, the controller being in communication with the camera and being configured to:
instruct the camera to capture an image of a target area at a predefined stopping location in response to a user manually activating the camera to capture the image of the target area;
and transmit the image and a collection exception associated with the target area to a remote server or cloud platform.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example “instruct …” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and manually activating a camera to capture an image. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A system comprising:
A refuse vehicle comprising:
a chassis;
a cab coupled to the chassis;
a refuse compartment supported by the chassis and including a storage section and a hopper section, the hopper section being arranged between the cab and the storage section;
a lift assembly operable to engage and lift a refuse container;
a camera coupled to a portion of the cab or the refuse compartment;
and a controller including a processor and at least one memory, the controller being in communication with the camera and being configured to:
instruct the camera to capture an image of a target area at a predefined stopping location in response to a user manually activating the camera to capture the image of the target area;
and transmit the image and a collection exception associated with the target area to a remote server or cloud platform.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “Memory, Processor” the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the instruct by a processor is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. The processor is claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer processor.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 10 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “Memory, processor” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 11-14, 18, and 22-26 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 11-14, 18, and 22-26 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Claims 10 and 21.
Therefore, claims 10-14, 18, and 21-26 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claims 10–13, 18, 21–24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clifton et al. (CA3138365A1) in view of Szoke-Sieswerda et al. (US11527072B2), hereinafter referred to as Clifton and Szoke respectively.
Regarding claims 10 and 21, Clifton discloses
a refuse vehicle comprising:
a chassis (“a chassis (14) supporting a plurality of wheels (16)” [Abstract]; “The refuse vehicle 10 has a vehicle chassis [0015]);
a cab coupled to the chassis ( “The vehicle body 18 can include a cab 20” ( [0015]);
a refuse compartment supported by the chassis and including a storage section and a hopper section, the hopper section being arranged between the cab and the storage section ( “a vehicle body supported by the chassis and defining a receptacle for storing refuse therein” (Claim 17);; “The vehicle body defines a receptacle (12) for storing refuse” (Abstract); “ a lifting system 26 (e.g., a hydraulic arm assembly, can tipper assembly, grabber arm assembly) can engage and raise a waste container until it is inverted or angled downward toward the on-board receptacle 12.” and “on-board receptacle 12 is sized to receive the contents of multiple waste containers” ( [0016]).
a lift assembly operable to engage and lift a refuse container ( “a lifting system (26) is movable between a first position and a second position vertically offset from the first position” (Abstract; Claim 1); “lifting system 26 (e.g., a hydraulic arm assembly, can tipper assembly, grabber arm assembly)” ( [0016]);
a camera coupled to a portion of the cab or the refuse compartment ( “An imaging device (32) is in communication with the processing unit and is positioned on the refuse vehicle to have a field of view (34) extending outwardly away from the refuse vehicle” (Abstract; Claim 1; Claim 17); “The imaging device 32 can be located on the vehicle body 18, lifting system 26, or some other location on the vehicle so that the imaging device field of view 34 extends at least partially outwardly away from the refuse vehicle 10” ( [0018]).
a controller including a processor and at least one memory, the controller being in communication with the camera (“The clock 46 can provide a time stamp for when the imaging device 32 operated (i.e., captured and/or recorded media), which can then be assigned to the particular piece of recorded media (i.e., image(s) or video). Data from the GPS 44 and clock 46 can be provided to the processing unit 30, which can then group the captured media and informational data together and store each piece of information as an event on a memory 48. The memory 48 can be local or remote memory in communication with the processing unit 30. For example, cloud-based or network-based memory devices can be used, as well as on-board random access memory (RAM) and/or a hard drive or flash drive.” [0020]) and being configured to:
instruct the camera to capture an image of a target area at a predefined stopping location in response detecting that the refuse vehicle stopped at the predefined stopping location (“whenever the vehicle transitions between drive and park (e.g., which would indicate that a stop along a route was occurring)” ( [0023]); “Whenever the current location of the refuse vehicle 10 matches a stored address of a customer, the processing unit 30 can issue a command to the area sensor 36 to perform step 102” ( [0023]); “the processing unit 30 can then, upon receiving confirmation that an indicator 40 is present within the area sensor field of view 38, issue a command to the imaging device 32 to capture an image or video” ( [0019]); “the indicator present within the field of view is an omission of a waste container” (Abstract; Claim 3); “an operator within the refuse vehicle 10 can input a command to the processing unit 30 and the area sensor 36 to operate” ( [0023]); “the prompt that an indicator is present within the field of view is provided by an operator positioned within the refuse vehicle” [Claim 18]; “For example, the GPS 44 and clock 46 can supply an exact location and a time stamp for when the area sensor 36 detected the presence of the indicator 40 within the area sensor field of view 38, and the time in which the event occurred. Each of these pieces of information can then be associated with the captured media and stored within the memory 48, where they may be accessed at a later time. The communications module 50 on board the refuse vehicle 10 may then communicate information associated with the event to an external computing source, like a main office or fleet command center 56, where the information can be further processed or used to archive the event.” [0027]);
transmit the image and a collection exception associated with the target area to a remote server or cloud platform ( “The communications module 50 can include a transmitter 52… send a signal that includes information related to the event to an external computing device, like a fleet command center 56 or network computer” ( [0021]); “the transmitter 52 issues a signal containing the time, address, and media associated with the event” [0021]); “The communications module 50 on board the refuse vehicle 10 may then communicate information associated with the event to an external computing source, like a main office or fleet command center 56” [0027]); “ The refuse vehicle or a central network computer could then provide a notification to a customer associated with an address where no waste container was detected and waste collection service was not performed.” [0014]; “the processing unit generates an alert and issues a notification to an account associated with a location… the notification including at least one of the image of the indicator…” (Claim 8);
Clifton does not explicitly teach failed to actuate a lift assembly
However, Szoke does teach failed to actuate a lift assembly (“The system 100 comprises a camera 104, an arm-actuation module 106, and an arm 108 for collecting the waste from a waste receptacle 110.” [Col.5 ln 20-25]; “In some embodiments, the object candidate can be rejected if it is not acceptable. When an object candidate is rejected, it will not be subject to further processing. In some embodiments, the selected action can include actions for the processor 604, the arm-actuation module 106, the arm 108, the divider actuation module, the divider, and/or other devices.” [Col.10 ln 51-62] and “the processor is further configured for selecting the action of picking up the waste receptacle if the object candidate is acceptable; and selecting the action of rejecting the object candidate if the object candidate is not acceptable. If the action of picking up the waste receptacle is selected, the processor is further configured for calculating a location of the waste receptacle. The arm-actuation module is configured for automatically moving the arm in response to the location of the waste receptacle.” [Col.3 ln 25-35]). Both Clifton and Szoke teach methods for operating a refuse vehicle. However, Szoke explicitly teaches detecting a failed lift assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the operating method of Clifton to also include detecting a failed lift assembly, as taught by Szoke, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves the efficiency of operating a refuse vehicle (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Szoke, Col.10 ln 51-62 & Col.3 ln 25-35]).
Regarding claims 11 and 22, Clifton discloses wherein the camera is coupled to a sidewall of the cab, an external surface of the hopper section, or an external surface of the storage section ( [0018]): “The imaging device 32 can be located on the vehicle body 18, lifting system 26, or some other location on the vehicle so that the imaging device field of view 34 extends at least partially outwardly away from the refuse vehicle 10.”).
Regarding claims 12 and 23, Clifton discloses wherein the collection exception includes a refuse container not being present at a predefined stopping location (“the indicator present within the field of view is an omission of a waste container” (Abstract; Claim 3); “the indicator 40 can be the lack of a waste container within the area sensor field of view” ( [0025]).
Regarding claims 13 and 24, Clifton discloses wherein the collection exception includes a refuse container being present at a predefined stopping location and overflowing ( [0024]): “over-filled, contaminated, or tipped-over waste containers”; “non-compliant waste containers.”).
Regarding claims 18 and 26, Clifton discloses wherein the controller is further configured to: transmit a GPS location of the image to the remote server or cloud platform; and correlate the GPS location with contact information for a customer along a planned route (“a global positioning system (GPS) 44 can provide a specific coordinate or address where the imaging device 32 was operated” ( [0020]); “associate and store the current location of the refuse vehicle with the image captured by the imaging device” (Claim 5); “Whenever the current location of the refuse vehicle 10 matches a stored address of a customer” ( [0023]); “sending a notification to a customer associated with a location of the refuse vehicle” (Claim 14); “the notification including at least one of the image of the indicator, a time…, and the location…” (Claim 8).
Claims 14 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clifton in view of Szoke and in further in view of Dietrich (US 20220180330 A1), hereinafter referred to as Clifton, Szoke and Dietrich respectively.
Regarding claims 14 and 25,
Clifton in view of Szoke does not explicitly teach wherein the collection exception includes a refuse container being irretrievable from a predefined stopping location.
However, Dietrich does teach wherein the collection exception includes a refuse container being irretrievable from a predefined stopping location (“The optical sensors may be automatically capable of detecting and recording data regarding the state of the waste container including but not limited to if a container is broken, misplaced, or overflowing or this data is manually entered by an operator.” [0113]). Both Clifton in view of Szoke and Dietrich teach methods for operating a refuse vehicle. However, Dietrich explicitly teaches the collection exception includes a refuse container being irretrievable from a predefined stopping location.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the operating method of Clifton in view of Szoke to also include the collection exception includes a refuse container being irretrievable from a predefined stopping location, as taught by Dietrich, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves the efficiency of operating a refuse vehicle (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Dietrich, 0113]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED ALKIRSH whose telephone number is (703) 756-4503. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am-5:00 pm EST.
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, FADEY JABR can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.
/A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/MOHAMED ABDO ALGEHAIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights