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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “182”, “319”, “501”, “522”, “720”, “910” and “925”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 § 112
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 1-18 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the at least one actuator” in Line 10 of the Claim. It is not clear if “actuator” must be singular as recited in Line 7 of the Claim or if there can be more than one as recited in Claim 10 rendering the claim indefinite. For examination purposes “the at least one actuator” is being interpreted as the actuator”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the at least one actuator” in Line 7 of the Claim. It is not clear if “actuator” must be singular as recited in Line 4 of the Claim or if there can be more than one as recited in Claim 7 rendering the claim indefinite. For examination purposes “the at least one actuator” is being interpreted as the actuator”.
The remaining claims are rejected because they depend on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-4 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kay et al. 2018/0155124.
In Re Claim 1, as best understood, Kay et al. teach a refuse vehicle comprising: a chassis; (chassis shown supporting wheels 140) a cab (110) coupled to the chassis; a refuse body (130) coupled to the chassis and defining a refuse compartment; and a packer assembly comprising: a packer body (160) disposed within the refuse compartment; and an actuator (170, 180, 190) coupled to the packer body and configured to move the packer body within the refuse compartment; (Fig. 1-3) and an enclosure (270, Fig. 4) that extends along the refuse body parallel to the chassis, the enclosure at least partially separating the at least one actuator from the refuse compartment. (See Fig. 3A-5)
In Re Claim 2, Kay et al. teach wherein the actuator is spaced apart from a lower wall (lower wall of 132, Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) of the refuse body to be above a liquid level of the refuse stream within the refuse compartment. (See Fig. 1 and 2)
In Re Claim 3, Kay et al. teach wherein the at least one actuator is a ball screw actuator (170, 180, 190).
In Re Claim 4, Kay et al. teach wherein the ball screw actuator includes a ball screw and a scraper (183, 185) positioned at least partially within a groove of the ball screw to remove refuse from the ball screw during operation of the ball screw actuator. (Fig. 7b)
In Re Claim 10, Kay et al. teach wherein the packer body comprises at least one sloped surface (Middle section of 200, Fig. 3a, Fig. 3b) and at least one surface that is substantially vertical (Bottom surface of 200, Fig. 3a, Fig. 3b).
In Re Claim 11, Kay et al. teach wherein the packer body is movable between a first ready position and a second packing position by rotation of the packer body, linear movement of the packer body, or a combination of rotation and linear movement of the packer body. (See Fig. 1, 2 and 3a) (abstract)
In Re Claim 12, Kay et al. teach wherein the packer body is movable between a first ready position and a third eject position by rotation of the packer body, linear movement of the packer body, or a combination of rotation and linear movement of the packer body. (See Fig. 1, 2 and 3a)
In Re Claim 13, Kay et al. teach wherein the at least one actuator comprises a first actuator and a second actuator, the first actuator and the second actuator being ball screw actuators. (See Fig. 1-3b)
In Re Claim 14, Kay et al. teach a packer assembly comprising: a packer body (160) configured to be disposed within a refuse compartment (130) of a refuse vehicle; and an actuator (170, 180, 190) coupled to the packer body and configured to move the packer body within the refuse compartment; (Fig. 1-3) and an enclosure (270, Fig. 4) that extends along the refuse body parallel to the chassis, the enclosure at least partially separating the at least one actuator from the refuse compartment. (See Fig. 3A-5)
In Re Claim 15, Kay et al. teach wherein the at least one actuator is a ball screw actuator (170, 180, 190).
In Re Claim 16, Kay et al. teach wherein the ball screw actuator includes a ball screw and a scraper (183, 185) positioned at least partially within a groove of the ball screw to remove refuse from the ball screw during operation of the ball screw actuator. (Fig. 7b)
In Re Claim 17, Kay et al. teach wherein the packer body comprises at least one sloped surface (Middle section of 200, Fig. 3a, Fig. 3b) and at least one surface that is substantially vertical (Bottom surface of 200, Fig. 3a, Fig. 3b).
In Re Claim 18, Kay et al. teach wherein the packer body further comprises a lateral reinforcement member (230) configured to prevent rotation of the packing member in operation or a cover configured to prevent refuse from falling behind the packing member in operation.
In Re Claim 19, Kay et al. teach a packer body configured to be disposed within a refuse compartment of a refuse vehicle, the packer body comprising: a first refuse contact surface (lower vertical contact surface of 200, Fig. 3a and 3b) that is substantially vertical; a second surface (sloped surface of 200, Fig. 3a and Fig. 3b) congruent with the first surface, the second surface angled with respect to the first surface; and a third surface (Upper surface of 200, Fig. 3a and Fig. 3b) that is substantially vertical, the third surface congruent with the second surface.
In Re Claim 20, Kay et al. teach a lateral reinforcement member (230) configured to prevent rotation of the packing member in operation and a cover (top end 204, Fig. 3a) configured to prevent refuse from falling behind the packing member in operation.
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.
Claim(s) 5, 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kay et al. and in view of Rocholl et al. 2020/0346861.
In Re Claims 5, 6 and 9, Kay et al. teach the vehicle of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Kay et al. do not teach wherein the enclosure is disposed outside of the refuse compartment.
However, Rocholl et al. teach wherein the enclosure (1152) is disposed outside of the refuse compartment (1130); and wherein the actuator comprises a guide shoe (1150) disposed within the enclosure and coupled to the packer body (1140), the channel directing movement of the guide shoe along a length of the refuse body; and wherein the enclosure is coupled to an outer surface of a sidewall of the refuse body, the enclosure defining a first channel along a first side of the refuse body, wherein the actuator is disposed within the enclosure. (See Fig. 18)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use an enclosure disclosed outside of the refuse compartment of Kay et al. as taught by Rocholl et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to maximize compartment capacity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mottin, Campbell and Hamill et al. teach refuse vehicles comprising a packer assembly comprising an actuator and an enclosure at least partially enclosing the actuator.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLENN F MYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-1160. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 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.
GLENN F. MYERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/GLENN F MYERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3652