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. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the "electrical activation system" (claim 4) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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. 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 , 2 , 5, 7 , 8 , 9 , 16, 17 & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kann (US 5,716,103) in view of Kouri (US 2006/0280582). W ith respect to claim s 1 & 16 , Kann discloses a refuse vehicle comprising: a chassis 22 ; a cab 20 coupled to a chassis; a body 16 coupled to a chassis and defining a hopper 66a, 66b, 66c ; and a subhopper (indicated generally as the area near 98a, 98b, 98c ) disposed at least partially within a hopper, wherein a subhopper comprises a main body having a n upper surface 64a, 64b, 64c c onfigured to direct refuse deposited into a hopper toward an end of a hopper , e.g. the bottom of the hopper . Kann discloses a subhopper having a main body with an upper surface and does not disclose a main body that has a sloped or angled upper surface. Kouri discloses a refuse vehicle comprising a chassis 10, cab 1, body 3, 5 and a subhopper 4, wherein subhopper includes a main body having a sloped upper surface 11, 16 as shown in FIG. 2. Kouri teaches that sloped upper surfaces "guide refuse from the collection container into the compaction" subhopper as well as "prevent refuse from being expelled over the compaction" subhopper into the street. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Kann to provide a main body having a sloped upper surface, as taught by Kouri , to direct refuse into a subhopper as well as contain refuse from falling into the street. With respect to claim s 2 , 5 , 7, 8 , 9 , 17 & 18, Kann discloses a subhopper that further comprises a plurality of packer member s (the movable element identified in FIGS. 1, 2 as 60a, 60b, 60c) coupled to respective rams 72a, 72b, 72c , e.g. actuators, wherein a packer member is above and movable relative to , e.g. extendable/retractable, a main body as well as a subhopper between a first position and a second position. Kann's discloses that packer members 60a, 60c are positioned in vertical arrangement, and packer members 60a, 60b are positioned side-by-side. Claim(s) 3 , 4, 6 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kann in view of Kouri and further in view of Huang (US 6,854,949). With respect to claim s 3 & 20 , Kann does not disclose a packer member movable by rotation. Huang discloses a subhopper (indicated generally as 6) that further comprises a packing assembly comprising a rotable packer member 9 , 19 coupled to an actuator 16, wherein a packer member is movable relative to a main body between a first position (FIG. 2) and a second position (FIG. 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Kann to include a packer member movable between a first position and a second position by rotation of a packer member , as taught by Huang, because the floor of the subhopper "is normally curved to correspond to the arc of the pendular packing device and a refuse engaging face of the packing device transfers the refuse through the aperture. Since the transfer of refuse is aided by gravity and since this type of packing device is typically equipped with low-volume, fast-acting hydraulic cylinders, refuse can be transferred to the storage compartment at a faster rate than with a conventional sliding packing device, which usually increases the overall efficiency of refuse collection. " With respect to claim s 4 & 6 , Kann discloses "electrical control means which form cab 20" (C5/L56-60), e.g. an electric system by which actuators operate, coupled to a subhopper , and does not disclose an electric actuation system configured to reposition a subhopper relative to a body within at least a portion of a hopper between a receiving position and an eject position. Huang discloses an actuation system 21 configured to reposition a subhopper 6 relative to a body within at least a portion of a hopper 7 between a receiving position (FIG. 3) and an eject position (FIG. 5). Huang further discloses a packing member movable from a first ready position (FIG. 2) to a second packing position (FIG. 3), and a subhopper and packing member are together movable to a third eject position (FIG. 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the electrical actuation system of Kann to provide an actuation system configured to reposition a subhopper relative to a body within at least a portion of a hopper between a receiving position and an eject position as well as a packing member movable from a first ready position to a second packing position, and a subhopper and packing member are together movable to a third eject position, as taught by Huang, for ejection of contents of the subhopper as well as the storage hopper 7. Claim(s) 10 , 12 & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang i n view of Phelps (US 2,663,439) . With respect to claim 10, Huang discloses a subhopper for use in a refuse vehicle, a subhopper comprising: a main body 7 defining an interior cavity of a subhopper ; a packer member 9, 19 disposed within an interior cavity and movable relative to a main body between a receiving position (FIG. 2) and a packing position (FIG. 3) ; and an actuator 16, 21 coupled to a packer member and a main body and configured to selectively reposition- a packer member with respect to a main body, and both a main body and a packer member at a same time. Huang disclose that a pair of actuators selectively reposition ( i ) a packer member with respect to a main body, and (ii) both a main body and a packer member at a same time. Huang does not disclose a single actuator that accomplishes bullets ' i ' and 'ii'. Phelps discloses a main body 1 defining an interior cavity of a subhopper 5, a packer member (indicated generally as 6 in FIGS. 1-3, e.g. the back wall of subhopper 5), and a single actuator 16 which selectively repositions ( i ) a packer member 6 with respect to a main body, and (ii) both a main body 4 and a packer member 6 at a same time. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Huang to include an actuator coupled to a packer member and a main body and configured to selectively reposition ( i ) a packer member with respect to a main body, and (ii) both a main body and a packer member at a same time, as taught by Phelps, because telescopic main body and subhoppers allow for larger bodies and lighter weigh t construction. With respect to claim 12, Huang discloses a subhopper that includes a sloped upper surface (shown but unlabeled in FIG. 1) configured to direct refuse deposited into a subhopper toward an end of the interior cavity of a subhopper . With respect to claim 15, Huang discloses a subhopper (indicated generally as 6) that further comprises a packing assembly comprising a rotable packer member 9, 19 coupled to an actuator 16, wherein a packer member is movable relative to a main body between a first position (FIG. 2) and a second position (FIG. 3). Claim(s) 13 & 14 i s/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang In view of Phelps and further in view of Kann which discloses a plurality of packer members (the movable element identified in FIGS. 1, 2 as 60a, 60b, 60c) coupled to respective rams 72a, 72b, 72c, e.g. actuators, wherein a packer member is movable, e.g. extendable/retractable, relative to a main body as well as a subhopper between a first position and a second position. Kann's discloses that packer members 60a, 60c are positioned in vertical arrangement, and packer members 60a, 60b are positioned side-by-side. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Huang to include a second packer member positioned alongside a packer member in a horizontal relation, a second packer member actuatable between a first ready position and a second packing position and a second packer member positioned above the packer member in a vertical relation , as taught by Kann , such that the refuse collection industry can respond to trends in recent years whereby "communities and states have developed programs for the segregation and collection of recyclable materials to minimize the consumption of natural resources and the exhaustion of landfills. In several states and communities, recycling programs have been mandated." Allowable Subject Matter Claims 11 & 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT GREGORY W ADAMS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8101 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon - Fri, 8am-5pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Saul Rodriguez can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-7097 . 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. /GREGORY W ADAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652