Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/399,488

SERVICE LIFT FOR A REFUSE VEHICLE

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Dec 28, 2023
Examiner
CRANDALL, JOEL DILLON
Art Unit
3723
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Oshkosh Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
58%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 58% of resolved cases
58%
Career Allow Rate
434 granted / 751 resolved
-12.2% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+22.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
790
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
42.2%
+2.2% vs TC avg
§102
26.0%
-14.0% vs TC avg
§112
29.3%
-10.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 751 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: A “lift assembly” of claims 1 and 12 with means “to place refuse material into the body.” The term “assembly” simply means a collection of parts that go to make up a machine, structure, or unit of a machine and is, therefore, considered a generic placeholder term. Applicant defines the “lift assembly” as a “service lift assembly” identified as numeral 222 and is said to be the structure responsible for separating the body 202 from the frame 210 and may include service lifts [Application Publication; paragraph 0038]. Therefore, this is considered an actuator, manual or otherwise, and equivalents thereof. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1 and 12, and those claims depending therefrom, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claims 1 and 12, the claimed “a lift assembly configured to place refuse material into the body” is indefinite. First, the claim requires both a “lift assembly” and a “service lift” which, under 35 USC 112(b) interpretation of the “lift assembly,” seems to refer to the same structure. In the specification, the numeral ‘222’ is referred to as “at least one service lift assembly” and then is referred throughout as “service lift assembly 222.” Therefore, “lift assembly” and “service lift” appear to both refer to the “service lift assembly.” Second the functional limitation “configured to place refuse material into the body” is unclear. The specification states that “[l]oose refuse may be placed into the body 102” [Application Publication; paragraph 0028], but it is assumed that another structure or device actually places the refuse in the body 102 as no mechanism (or refuse for that matter) is shown for placing refuse into the body 102. As it pertains to the “lift assembly,” which seemingly appears away from any opening on the body 222, it’s unclear how this would be structurally capable of the claimed function, let alone how the claimed function would modify the claimed structure beyond simply a “lift assembly.” Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-9 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Channell (US-4,148,528). Regarding claim 1, Channell (US-4,148,528) discloses a refuse vehicle, comprising: a chassis (longitudinal main frame members 20) including a pair of frame rails (members 20) (Fig. 1); a body (dump body B) coupled to the chassis (members 20) (Fig. 1), the body (dump body B) including a lift assembly (hoist H) configured to place refuse material into the body (Fig. 1); and a service lift (hoist H) configured to lift the body (dump body B) away from the chassis (members 20) (Fig. 1), the service lift (hoist H) disposed between the chassis (members 20) and the body (dump body B) and laterally between the pair of frame rails (members 20) (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 2, Channell discloses the refuse vehicle of claim 1, further comprising a pivot mount (ears 29 and transverse shaft 30) pivotally coupling the body (dump body B) to the chassis (members 20) (Fig. 1), such that the body (dump body B) is rotatable from a first position at which the body extends substantially parallel to the chassis (“The front end of the body is immediately behind the cab 21 whenever the body B is lowered and the hoist is retracted.”) [Channell; col. 4, lines 3-6] and a second position at which the body (dump body B) extends at an angle relative to the chassis (members 20) and a forward portion of the body (dump body B) is spaced apart from the chassis (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 3, Channell discloses the refuse vehicle of claim 1, wherein the service lift (H) comprises a scissor lift (“The hoist H is formed by the improved scissor frame and cylinder connected thereto”) [Channell; col. 4, lines 7-8]. Regarding claim 4, Channell discloses the refuse vehicle of claim 3, wherein the scissor lift (H) comprises: a lower portion coupled to the chassis (members 20) (Fig. 1); an upper portion coupled to the body (dump body B) (Fig. 1); a middle portion, comprising at least one scissor linkage (“The hoist H is formed by the improved scissor frame and cylinder connected thereto”) [Channell; col. 4, lines 7-8]; and an actuator (compound cylinders) configured to power the scissor lift from a collapsed position in which the lower portion is disposed adjacent the upper portion to an extended position in which the lower portion is spaced apart from the upper portion (“It follows that objects of the invention are to provide a novel and improved scissor frame which: can be effectively mounted in the largest of dump trucks available; can use the cylinders in an efficient manner to lift the dump body under a full load”) [Channell; col. 2, lines 36-40]. Regarding claim 5, Channell discloses the refuse vehicle of claim 1, the body (dump body B) having at least one mounting point (at support pivot 35) that is configured to engage with an external lift (hoist H) for lifting the body away from the chassis (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 6, Channell discloses the refuse vehicle of claim 1, wherein at least one end of the service lift (hoist H) is rotatably coupled to at least one of the body or the chassis (“A cylindrical stub 63 is affixed to the inner face of each upstanding leg 61 and a transverse pivot tube 64 is welded to the end of the upper leg 32 of the scissor frame.”) [Channell; col. 6, lines 5-8] (“The base beams 27 are hinged to the rear end of the frame members 20 by an ear 29 depending from each beam 27 to connect with a transverse shaft 30 at the rear of the frame members.”) [Channell; col. 3, lines 64-67]. Regarding claim 7, Channell discloses the refuse vehicle of claim 1, wherein an end of the service lift (hoist H) extends into the body (dump body B, between sills 27 of the dump body B) (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 8, Channell discloses the refuse vehicle of claim 1, wherein a first end of the service lift (hoist H) is mounted to the body (dump body B) (Fig. 1), and a second end of the service lift (hoist H) is mounted above the pair of frame rails (20) (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 9, Channell discloses the refuse vehicle of claim 1, wherein an end of the service lift (hoist H) is mounted in between the pair of frame rails (20) (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 12, Channell discloses a refuse vehicle comprising: a chassis (longitudinal main frame members 20) including a pair of frame rails (members 20) (Fig. 1); a body (dump body B) coupled to the chassis (20) (Fig. 1), the body (B) including a lift assembly (hoist H) configured to place refuse material into the body; and a service lift (hoist H) configured to lift at least a portion of the body (body B) away from the chassis (20) (Fig. 1), at least a portion of the service lift (hoist H) disposed within the body (inside the sills 27 of the body B) (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 13, Channell discloses the refuse vehicle of claim 12, further comprising a pivot mount (29, 30) pivotally coupling the body (body B) to the chassis (20) (Fig. 1), such that the body (body B) is rotatable from a first position at which the body extends substantially parallel to the chassis (“The front end of the body is immediately behind the cab 21 whenever the body B is lowered and the hoist is retracted.”) [Channell; col. 4, lines 3-6] and a second position at which the body extends at an angle relative to the chassis and a forward portion of the body is spaced apart from the chassis (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 14, Channell discloses the refuse vehicle of claim 12, wherein the service lift (H) comprises a scissor lift (“The hoist H is formed by the improved scissor frame and cylinder connected thereto”) [Channell; col. 4, lines 7-8]. Regarding claim 15, Channell discloses the refuse vehicle of claim 14, wherein the scissor lift comprises: a lower portion coupled to the chassis (members 20) (Fig. 1); an upper portion coupled to the body (dump body B) (Fig. 1); a middle portion, comprising at least one scissor linkage (“The hoist H is formed by the improved scissor frame and cylinder connected thereto”) [Channell; col. 4, lines 7-8]; and an actuator (compound cylinders) configured to power the scissor lift from a collapsed position in which the lower portion is disposed adjacent the upper portion to an extended position in which the lower portion is spaced apart from the upper portion (“It follows that objects of the invention are to provide a novel and improved scissor frame which: can be effectively mounted in the largest of dump trucks available; can use the cylinders in an efficient manner to lift the dump body under a full load”) [Channell; col. 2, lines 36-40]. Regarding claim 16, Channell discloses the refuse vehicle of claim 12, wherein a first end of the service lift (hoist H) is mounted to the body (dump body B) (Fig. 1), and a second end of the service lift (hoist H) is mounted above the pair of frame rails (members 20) (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 17, Channell discloses the refuse vehicle of claim 12, wherein an end of the service lift (hoist H) is mounted in between the pair of frame rails (members 20) (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 18, Channell discloses a method of installing a service lift onto a refuse vehicle, the method comprising: mounting a first end of the service lift (hoist H) to a chassis (members 20) of the refuse vehicle (truck T) so that the first end is disposed laterally between a pair of frame rails (longitudinal members 20) of the chassis (members 20); and mounting a second end of the service lift (hoist H) to a body (dump body B) of the refuse vehicle (truck T) so that the service lift (hoist H) is disposed between the chassis (members 20) and the body (dump body B) (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 19, Channell discloses the method of claim 18, further comprising positioning the second end of the service lift (hoist H) within the body (dump body B) (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 20, Channell discloses the method of claim 18, wherein mounting the first end of the service lift (hoist H) to the chassis (members 20) comprises positioning the first end within a space formed between the pair of frame rails (members 20) (Fig. 1) (“It is also to be noted that the location of the saddle pivot 35 upon the longitudinal frame members 20 of the truck T is such that the cylinders will lie between and clear the transverse cross members 22”) [Channell; col. 4, line 66 – col. 5, line 2]. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Channell (US-4,148,528) in view of Smith (US-5,513,901). Regarding claim 10, Channell discloses the refuse vehicle of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the service lift (hoist H) includes at least one of an airbag, a lead screw, or a rack and pinion. However, Smith (US-5,513,901) teaches that a cylinder, such as the cylinder 36 of Channell, could be a lead screw (screw drive) (“In this embodiment the actuator means is a hydraulic cylinder 25, but it will be understood by those skilled in the art that other hydraulic motors, pneumatic cylinders, screw drives and the like may be used.”) [Smith; col. 6, lines 16-19]. Since lead screws is a known option within the art for the cylinder 36 of Channell, as taught by Smith, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a lead screw in order to lift the dump body of Channell as desired [Smith; col. 6, lines 16-19]. Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Channell (US-4,148,528) in view of Day (US-4,126,357). Regarding claim 11, Channell discloses the refuse vehicle of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the service lift (hoist H) includes at least one electric actuator. However, Day (US-4,126,357) teaches actuating a ram, such as the cylinder 36 of Channell, with an electric motor (“In order to operate the ram, that is to extend or retract the ram, there is provided a pump which may be either manual or electric motor driven, and which may be fitted either within the cab of the vehicle or attached to a rear panel of the cab.”) [Day; col. 2, lines 45-49]. Since Day is in the same field of endeavor, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an electric actuator, such as an electric motor as taught by Day, in order to actuate the cylinder 36 of Channell in order to lift and lower the dump body of Channell as desired (“In order to operate the ram, that is to extend or retract the ram, there is provided a pump which may be either manual or electric motor driven, and which may be fitted either within the cab of the vehicle or attached to a rear panel of the cab.”) [Day; col. 2, lines 45-49]. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-6254192, US-5067774, US-4741576, US-3642324, US-6371564, and US-4943118 are pertinent to claims 1 and 12. US-9241577, US-4653727, US-4055329, US-6331016, and US-4759540 are pertinent to claim 3. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL DILLON CRANDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5947. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 5:30. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-270-5947. 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. /JOEL D CRANDALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 28, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600006
POLISHING PAD WITH WINDOW AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594647
SANDING AUTOMATION SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589466
SANDBLASTING MASK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583080
Wet and Dry Abrasive Media Blasting System
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583077
PRODUCTION APPARATUS AND PRODUCTION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
58%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+22.1%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 751 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month