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 .
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).
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,964,566. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
1. Regarding claim 1, it is substantially similar to claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,964,566 with the exception of adding two instances of “disposed on” associated with the hydraulic pump and electric motor locations and elimination of the limitation that the hydraulic pump provide pressurized fluid to the carry can. However, the component mounting location and hydraulic fluid destinations in a system are a matter of design choice and obvious in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,964,566.
2. Regarding claim 6, it is substantially similar to claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,964,566 with the exception of not reciting that the electric motor is coupled to the carry can and an alternate single fluid destination to the carry can rather than to one or more actuators and the carry can. the component mounting location and hydraulic fluid destinations in a system are a matter of design choice and obvious in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,964,566. Additionally, “integrated with” and “coupled to” are interpreted as equivalent with respect to the tailgate.
3. Regarding claim 11, it is substantially similar to claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,964,566 with the exception of adding two instances of “disposed on” associated with the hydraulic pump and electric motor locations and not reciting the pressurized fluid to the carry can. However, the component mounting location and hydraulic fluid destinations in a system are a matter of design choice and obvious in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,964,566.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,964,566 in view of Lewis et al. (US Patent No. 11,208,262).
[CLAIM 16] Regarding claim 16, Rocholl discloses the refuse vehicle of Claim 14.
-However, it fails to disclose wherein at least one of the one or more electrical energy storage devices are coupled to the carry can.
-Nevertheless, Lewis discloses an exemplary battery in column 7, lines 1-2 associated with sound and video input for monitoring refuse vehicle system operation such as vehicle position and lifting device function. As such a carry can have some of this communication equipment such as a battery mounted thereon if desired without altering its operation of storing and supplying power. Lewis further discloses in column 5, lines 45-50 “Sensors may be arranged in the body components, or in proximity to the body components, to monitor the operations of the body components.”. Similarly, components such as batteries which power selective sensors can be “arranged in the body components” e.g. a carry can.
- Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Rocholl to have similar communication equipment as taught by Lewis and then mounting desired components on the carry can with a reasonable expectation of success in order to package navigation equipment for a refuse vehicle.
PNG
media_image1.png
734
663
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,964,566 in view of Lewis et al. (US Patent No. 11,208,262).
[CLAIM 20] Regarding claim 20, Rocholl discloses the refuse vehicle of Claim 11.
-However, it fails to disclose further comprising a controller operatively coupled to the auxiliary power system and configured to vary operation of the auxiliary power system in response to the carry can being decoupled from the lift assembly.
-Nevertheless, Lewis discloses in column 5, line 44-65 a computing device that monitors/analyzes inputs and component condition and position, as such an operation response/modification could be made when the carry can and a lift separate.
-Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Rocholl to have computer control that alters operation of selective systems when a detection is made that the carry can and lift separate as taught by Lewis with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase automated functionality of the refuse vehicle.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-i.jsp.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s submission of the Response After Final dated 6/22/26 is acknowledged. The arguments presented to overcome the rejections citing references to Duell (US Patent 6,123,497) and Ambrosio (US PG PUB NO 2009/0018716) are found persuasive and the rejections (Claims 1-20) are withdrawn.
Applicant requested that the Double Patenting rejections cited in the office action dated 10/1/25 be held in abeyance. Upon revisiting, the examiner has added them back to the instant office action for conclusion.
Allowable Subject Matter
1. Claims 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 11 but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Rocholl and the prior art of record fail to disclose further comprising an internal combustion engine and an alternator coupled to the internal combustion engine, wherein the internal combustion engine is configured to drive the alternator to charge the one or more electrical energy storage devices. Claims 18-19 depend from claim 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be found on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to whose telephone number is (571)270-3411. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-6PM PST.
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, Marc Jimenez can be reached on (571)272-.4530. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES J TRIGGS/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/MARC Q JIMENEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
