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 .
The application is CIP. 17/692712 filed on Mar. 11, 2022, now Pat. No. 11787333, related to a provisional application No. 63/159723 filed on Mar. 11, 2021.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/02/2025 have been fully considered and are moot in view new grounds of rejection. Examiner responds to the Applicant’s argument as the following reasons:
Regarding Claimed Amendment: Applicant amended claims that raised new 112(b) Rejection. See below for detail.
Regarding Double: Applicant amended claims and considering filing a terminal disclaimer when claims are in condition for allowance.
Regarding Claimed Rejection under 103: Applicant argues that Lee nor Crist do not teach “a temperature sensor within the camera and configured to detect a temperature of an objection within the hopper”.
Examiner disagrees to the Applicant’s argument.
Lee discloses a waste truck that includes a camera 26 which detects objects within and nearby the waste collection bin. The detection is based on the images taken and sent to the vehicle’s controller and controls the safety device 23 to cut off power being supplied to the waste lifting or waste compacting mechanisms of the waste collection vehicle when a deviation been detected in the digital image, see [0015]+).
Crist discloses a refuse vehicle comprises a management system 200. The system 200 includes a plurality of sensors (may be infrared cameras) positioned of the truck’s hopper. The infrared camera monitors temperatures relating the truck’s hopper, an environment associated with the truck, and etc., see [0077]+). The system includes a controller 212 which controls the vehicle’s actuators off (such as valve, engine, and etc.) when receiving signals from the infrared cameras relating pressure of the natural gas fuel, see [0081]+.
The combination of Lee and Crist is an adapted waste truck that discloses all the features of the current claims (see below update rejection for details).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11787333. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1, e.g., is generic to all that is recited in claim 1, e.g., of US Pat. No. 11787333.
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.
Claim 24 is 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 24 depends upon the canceled claim 8.
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) 1 & 18-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (20130151083) in view of Crist (20160023548)
With regard to claim 1, Lee discloses a truck camera and safety system, comprising: a truck having a lift arm mechanism and a hopper; a camera disposed within the hopper; and a control module operably connected to the camera. The control module configured to causes deactivation of an actuatable assembly within the truck when receive signals from the camera indicating a person in a digital image (a waste collection vehicle 2 includes a waste collection monitoring system 21, a storage device 20, a controller 22, a safety device, and etc., see [0012]. An image capturing device 26 positioned on a loader of the vehicle (equivalent a hopper), see [0013]. The controller 22 connects to processor 28, image capturing 26, safety device 23, and etc., see Fig. 1 & [0012]-[0017]+ and Fig. 3, [0019]-[0027]+).
Lee fails to teach a temperature sensor within the camera and configured to detect a temperature of an object within the hopper.
Crist discloses a refuse vehicle comprises a management system 200. The system 200 includes a plurality of sensors (may be infrared cameras) positioned of the truck’s hopper. The infrared camera monitors temperatures relating the truck’s hopper, an environment associated with the truck, and etc., see [0077]+). The system includes a controller 212 which controls the vehicle’s actuators off (such as valve, engine, and etc.) when receiving signals from the infrared cameras relating pressure of the natural gas fuel, see [0081]+.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Lee by including the infrared camera for detecting temperature of the objects within the hopper as taught by Crist. The combination of Lee and Crist is an adapted waste truck with infrared camera for safety operation.
With regard to claim 18, Lee discloses a waste truck safety system comprising:
a waste truck comprising: a hopper defining an interior region and configured to receive waste material; and a trash compactor configured to compress the waste material (a waste collection vehicle 2 includes a waste collection, see Fig.4, [0013]+);
a camera detects the waste material within the interior region (image capturing 26, see [0013]-[0014]; and
a control system operably coupled to the trash compactor and to the camera sensing system, the control system configured to deactivate the trash compactor in response to the detected image from the camera with a deactivation condition (the waste collection vehicle 2 includes a controller 22, the waste monitoring system 21, controls the safety device 23 to cut off power being supplied to the waste lifting or waste compacting mechanisms of the waste collection vehicle when a deviation been detected in the digital image, see [0015]+).
Lee fails to teach a temperature sensing system optically coupled to at least a portion of the interior region of the hopper and comprising a temperature sensor configured to detect a temperature of at least a portion of the waste material within the interior region; and a control system operably coupled to the trash compactor and to the temperature sensing system, the control system configured to deactivate the trash compactor in response to the temperature satisfying a deactivation condition.
Crist discloses a refuse vehicle comprises a management system 200. The system 200 includes a plurality of sensors (may be temperature sensors, and/or infrared cameras) positioned of the truck’s hopper. The temperature sensors and the infrared camera monitors temperatures relating the truck’s hopper, an environment associated with the truck, and etc., see [0077]+). The system includes a controller 212 which controls the vehicle’s actuators off (such as valve, engine, and etc.) when receiving signals from the temperature sensors and the infrared cameras relating pressure of the natural gas fuel, see [0081]+.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Lee by including the temperature sensors and the infrared camera positioned within the truck’s hopper for detecting temperature of the objects (the gas fuel) within the hopper as taught by Crist. The combination of Lee and Crist is an adapted waste truck with infrared camera for safety operation.
With regard to claim 19, Crist teaches that the waste truck safety system of claim 18, further comprising: a camera system comprising the temperature sensing system, the camera system configured to capture an infrared image; and in response to a region in the infrared image having a frequency exceeding a threshold, deactivating the trash compactor (the controller 212 identify a fault pressure threshold, and configured to deactivate solenoid valve, see [0081]+, wherein Examiner interprets the fuel pressure and frequency are related such as increased pressure typically results in higher more frequent molecular collisions in gaseous fuels, combustion instability frequencies).
With regard to claim 20, Crist teaches that waste truck safety system of claim 19, wherein the camera system further comprises a wireless transceiver coupled via a WiFi connection to the control system (information is transferred or provided over a network or communications connection such a wireless, hardwired ro a combination, see [0121]+).
With regard to claim 21, Lee teaches that the waste truck safety system of claim 18, further comprising: a speaker system mounted within a cabin of the waste truck and operably coupled to the control system (a speaker, see [0029]+) but fails to teach an alarm system coupled to the control system and configured to cause activation of an alarm audibly transmitted via the speaker system in response to the temperature satisfying the deactivation condition.
Crist teaches an audio warning device 364 alert to driver in response to data indicating an impact above a threshold range, and locks out tailgate controls, see [0117]+.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Lee by including the temperature sensors and the infrared camera positioned within the truck’s hopper for detecting temperature of the objects (the gas fuel) within the hopper, and an audio warning device 364 alert to driver in response to data indicating an impact above a threshold range, and locks out tailgate controls as taught by Crist. The combination of Lee and Crist is an adapted waste truck for safety operation.
With regard to claim 22, Lee teaches that the waste truck safety system of claim 21, wherein the speaker system comprises a waste truck horn (see [0029]+).
With regard to claim 23, Lee teaches that the waste truck safety system of claim 18, wherein: the waste truck further comprises a camera operably coupled to the control system and optically directed to the hopper; and the control system is configured to: receive an image from the camera; identify, from the image, a human; and in response to identifying the human, cause deactivation of the trash compactor (see [0013] & [0019]-[0028]+).
With regard to claim 24, Lee teaches that the waste truck safety system of claim 18, wherein the control system is co-located within the waste truck (the waste collection monitoring system 21 is within the truck, see [0018]+).
With regard to claim 25, Lee discloses a safety system for a waste truck, the safety system comprising:
a camera configured to capture an image of an internal volume of a hopper of the waste truck (the waste collection vehicle 2 includes an image capturing 26 positioned on a waste collection, wherein, Examiner interprets the waste collection as same as the truck’s hopper, see Fig.4, [0013]-[0014]+);
a control system configured to deactivate one or more systems in contact with at least a portion of the waste stream in response to a signal from the camera’s image sensing system satisfying a deactivation criteria (the waste collection vehicle 2 includes a controller 22, the waste monitoring system 21, controls the safety device 23 to cut off power being supplied to the waste lifting or waste compacting mechanisms of the waste collection vehicle when a person been detected in the digital image, see [0015]+).
Lee fails to teach the camera comprising: a temperature sensing system configured to detect a temperature of an object within the internal volume of the hopper; and a control system operably coupled to the temperature sensing system.
Crist discloses a refuse vehicle comprises a management system 200. The system 200 includes a plurality of sensors (may be temperature sensors, and/or infrared cameras) positioned of the truck’s hopper. The temperature sensors and the infrared camera monitors temperatures relating the truck’s hopper, an environment associated with the truck, and etc., see [0077]+). The system includes a controller 212 which controls the vehicle’s actuators off (such as valve, engine, and etc.) when receiving signals from the temperature sensors and the infrared cameras relating pressure of the natural gas fuel, see [0081]+.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Lee by including the temperature sensors and the infrared camera positioned within the truck’s hopper for detecting temperature of the objects (the gas fuel) within the hopper as taught by Crist. The combination of Lee and Crist is an adapted waste truck with infrared camera for safety operation.
With regard to claim 26, Crist teaches that the safety system of claim 25, wherein the camera is configured to capture the image based on infrared radiation (see [0077]+).
With regard to claims 27-28, Crist teaches that the safety system of claim 25, wherein the camera is positioned beneath a cab protector portion of the waste truck and/or comprising a guard at least partially surrounding the camera that is shield from environmental hazards (sensors includes one or more cameras (infrared cameras which is obvious can positioned at anywhere within the truck, see [0077], and [0112]+).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGA X NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5217. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30AM - 2:30PM.
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, JELANI SMITH can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
NGA X. NGUYEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3662
/NGA X NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662