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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 5, 7-12, 14-18 have been amended. Claims 1-4, and 6 have been canceled. Claims 5, 7-18 have been examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 5, filed 07/28/2025, with respect to the claim numbering and objections are persuasive. The claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 5, filed 07/28/2025, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections are persuasive. The previous 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
With respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection argument of “Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to apply the center of gravity arrangement of Rath (i.e. a centerline of the container is laterally offset from a centerline of the chassis) to the vehicle disclosed in Calloway, absent hindsight.”, the examiner disagrees.
Rath teaches a material collection truck that accommodates the container and retrieval equipment within the chassis width in order to “service both houses and multi-residential dwellings” (Col. 1, lines 24-25). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the size limitations needed to operate in certain areas and arrange the intended elements to fit advantageously.
With respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection argument of “Similarly, the weight of the vacuum generator would also affect the center of gravity of the material collection system, and therefore would also affect the size of the container. Therefore, Enefer's material collection system without vacuum generator does not provide any suggestions on how to make a material collection system with vacuum generator a similar weight or similar container size.” is moot because the claims have been amended and the new grounds of rejection do not rely on the reference or combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 5, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calloway et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,035,089 B1), Peek et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0327183 A1), and Velinsky et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0157212 A)
Referring to claim 5: Calloway et al. teaches a method for operating a material collection system (10 Fig. 1), the method comprising: selectively powering (300/330 Col. 13, lines 6-7) a material collection system vacuum generator (“fan vacuum generator ”Col. 6, line 26) using a power source (202 Col. 6, lines 20-26), the vacuum generator comprising a fan (232 “fan vacuum generator ”Col. 6, line 26) to develop an airflow and draw material into a material inlet (material inlet of 252 shown in Fig. 1) of a material collection system conduit (252 Fig. 1), the material collection system conduit being supported by a boom (270 Fig. 1); operating the fan of the vacuum generator (Col. 14, lines 21-42) to draw material into the material inlet of the conduit, the conduit (252 Fig. 1) being connected to a container (220 Fig. 1).
But is silent on the container having a container width of 80 inches to 90 inches; and maintaining a gross vehicle weight of the material collection system less than 26,000 lbs. during the operating the fan.
Peek et al. in an analogous material collection system (1 Fig. 1A; “The plurality of attachments can be selected from the group of … a vacuum attachment,” [0056]) teaches the container having a container width (“standard-width refuse collecting bin may be one having a width of approximately 81 inches” [0003]) of 80 inches to 90 inches.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container width of Calloway et al. with the dimensions as taught by Peek et al. for the purpose of, as it is well known in the art, confining vehicle sizes to conform with the local rules/ regulations for operation on streets/roads without the need to require special permits.
Velinsky et al. teaches maintaining a gross vehicle weight of the material collection system less than 26,000 lbs. (A gross vehicle weight rating of approximately 26,000 pounds or less [0054]) during the operating the fan (vacuum fan operation [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material collection system of Calloway et al. with the weight constrictions as taught by Velinsky et al. for the purpose of, as it is well known in the art, having a weight which is acceptable under the local rules/ regulations for operation on streets/roads.
Referring to claim 10: Calloway et al. as modified teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the selectively powering (Col. 5, lines 4-14) at least one of a transmission (208 “transmission” ; “power source 202 can include chassis engine 204, a throttle 206, a transmission 208, an auxiliary engine 210, a throttle 212…” Col. 5, lines 42-51) and the vacuum generator comprises dividing an output of the power source (202 Col. 6, lines 20-26) into a first variable input to the transmission to control a speed of the transmission and a second variable input to the vacuum generator to control the speed of the fan (the throttle is capable of controlling variable components “In some aspects, throttle 206 can control the power output of chassis engine 204. In an aspect, chassis engine 204 can provide power to drive vacuum generator 232 and/or other material collection system 10 equipment.” Col. 5, lines 52-55).
Referring to claim 13: Calloway et al. as modified teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the material collection system (10 Fig. 1) includes an auxiliary power source (“power source 202 can include an auxiliary engine 2100 that can power vacuum generator 2320” Col. 5, lines 26-28) to power the vacuum generator.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calloway et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,035,089 B1), Peek et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0327183 A1), and Velinsky et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0157212 A), as applied above in claim 5, and in further view of Rath (U.S. Patent No. 4,915,570 A).
Referring to claim 7: Calloway et al. as modified teaches the method of claim 5, but is silent on wherein the material collection system container includes a container centerline dividing the container width into equal portions, the container centerline being positioned on a vertical plane extending from a rear of the container to the front of the container, the container centerline being offset in a width direction from a chassis centerline, the chassis centerline dividing a width of a material collection system chassis into equal portions and extending along a second vertical plane extending from a rear of the material collection system chassis to a front of the material collection system chassis.
Rath et al. in an analogous material collection system (10 and 12 Figs. 1 and 2) and teaches wherein the similar configuration material collection system container (10 Figs. 1 and 2) includes a container centerline (CL-S Fig. 1-A inserted below) dividing the similar configuration container width (W1 Fig. 1-A inserted below) into equal portions (equal portions shown in Fig. 1-A inserted below), the container centerline (CL-S Fig. 1-A) being positioned on a vertical plane (vertical plane’s perimeter of the container comprising of the container centerline CL-S which extends toward the opposite end of the container) extending from a rear of the container to the front of the container, the container centerline (CL-S Fig. 1-A) being offset in a width direction (width direction shown in Fig. 1-A inserted below) from a chassis centerline (CL-C Fig. 1-A inserted below), the chassis centerline (CL-C Fig. 1-A inserted below) dividing a width of a material collection system chassis (W2 Fig. 1-A inserted below) into equal portions (equal portions shown in Fig. 1-A inserted below) and extending along a second vertical plane (vertical plane’s perimeter of the chassis comprising of the chassis centerline CL-C which extends toward the opposite end of the chassis) extending from a rear of the material collection system chassis to a front of the material collection system chassis.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material collection system of Calloway et al. with the offset container as taught by Rath et al. for the purpose of confining the features of the vehicle within the chassis’ perimeter to prevent damage to structures and vehicles when operating in common streets and roads.
PNG
media_image1.png
490
562
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calloway et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,035,089 B1), Peek et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0327183 A1), Velinsky et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0157212 A), and Rath (U.S. Patent No. 4,915,570 A), as applied above in claim 7, and in further view of Blaha et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,333,969 A).
Referring to claim 8: Calloway et al. as modified teaches the method of claim 7, but is silent on wherein the width of the material collection system chassis is less than 102 inches.
Blaha et al. in an analogous material collection system (14 Fig. 1; “vacuum system” Col. 10, lines 14-19) teaches wherein the material collection system includes a material collection system width that is less than 102 inches (“body width of 8 feet” Col. 7, lines 55-60; (8ft=96in)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material collection system of Calloway et al. with the size constrictions as taught by Blaha et al. for the purpose of, as it is well known in the art, confining vehicle sizes to satisfy the present legal requirements for overall vehicle size in every state of the United States (Col. 7, lines 59-60 of Blaha et al.), and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calloway et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,035,089 B1), Peek et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0327183 A1), and Velinsky et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0157212 A), as applied above in claim 5, and in further view of Blaha et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,333,969 A)
Referring to claim 9: Calloway et al. as modified teaches the method of claim 5, but is silent on wherein the material collection system includes a material collection system width that is less than 102 inches.
Blaha et al. in an analogous material collection system (14 Fig. 1; “vacuum system” Col. 10, lines 14-19) teaches wherein the material collection system includes a material collection system width that is less than 102 inches (“body width of 8 feet” Col. 7, lines 55-60; (8ft=96in)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material collection system of Calloway et al. with the size constrictions as taught by Blaha et al. for the purpose of, as it is well known in the art, confining vehicle sizes to satisfy the present legal requirements for overall vehicle size in every state of the United States (Col. 7, lines 59-60 of Blaha et al.), and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calloway et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,035,089 B1), Peek et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0327183 A1), and Velinsky et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0157212 A), as applied above in claim 5, and in further view of EMERSON (WO-0131251-A1).
Referring to claim 11: Calloway et al. as modified teaches the method of claim 5, but is silent on wherein an unloaded weight of the material collection system is 15,000 lbs. to 25,000 lbs.
EMERSON in an analogous material collection system (shown in Fig. 3; “service trucks, and the method by which they clean portable toilets” [004]; “the atmospheric pressure pushes the sewage from the holding tank 22 up through the hose 20 and into the tank 12.” [0014]) wherein an unloaded weight of the material collection system is 15,000 lbs. to 25,000 lbs (“the truck has a weight rating between 14,500 and 18,000 pounds.” [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material collection system of Calloway et al. with the weight constrictions as taught by EMERSON for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, having a vehicle weight which is capable to operate in certain locations.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calloway et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,035,089 B1), Peek et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0327183 A1), Velinsky et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0157212 A), EMERSON (WO-0131251-A1), as applied above in claim 11, and in further view of Blaha et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,333,969 A).
Referring to claim 12: Calloway et al. as modified teaches the method of claim 11, but is silent on wherein the material collection system includes a material collection system width that is less than 102 inches.
Blaha et al. in an analogous material collection system (14 Fig. 1; “vacuum system” Col. 10, lines 14-19) teaches wherein the material collection system includes a material collection system width that is less than 102 inches (“body width of 8 feet” Col. 7, lines 55-60; (8ft=96in)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material collection system of Calloway et al. with the size constrictions as taught by Blaha et al. for the purpose of, as it is well known in the art, confining vehicle sizes to satisfy the present legal requirements for overall vehicle size in every state of the United States (Col. 7, lines 59-60 of Blaha et al.), and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calloway et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,035,089 B1) and Peek et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0327183 A1).
Referring to claim 14: Calloway et al. teaches a method for operating a material collection system (10 Fig. 1), the method comprising: setting a speed (“The vacuum generator, powered by the engine, can run at various speeds and can be specified by an operator.” Col. 3, lines 65-67) of a fan of a vacuum generator (232 “fan vacuum generator ”Col. 6, line 26), the vacuum generator comprising the fan to develop an airflow and draw material into a material inlet (material inlet of 252 shown in Fig. 1) of a conduit (252 Fig. 1), the conduit being connected to a container (220 Fig. 1) setting a first speed (“The control system can control a speed of the vacuum generator to a first speed setting and a second speed setting based on the sensor output signal.” Col. 2, lines 2-5) of a power source (“control system can adjust the vacuum generator power output” Abstract); determining that a throttle is depressed less than a threshold (“In this way, the speed of vacuum generator 232 can be proportional to the amount of material detected and/or collected (i.e., the demand of the conveyance). Once the predetermined threshold is reached, a signal can be sent to adjust the speed of vacuum generator 232 in proportion to the amount of material present at the pickup site.” Col. 12, lines 36-42); and maintaining the power source at the first speed (remains at first speed until adjusted “The speed of vacuum generator 232 can then be adjusted from a first speed to a second speed” Col. 12, lines 60-63).
But is silent on the container specifically having a container width of 80 inches to 90 inches.
Peek et al. in an analogous material collection system (1 Fig. 1A; “The plurality of attachments can be selected from the group of … a vacuum attachment,” [0056]) teaches the container having a container width (“standard-width refuse collecting bin may be one having a width of approximately 81 inches” [0003]) of 80 inches to 90 inches.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container width of Calloway et al. with the dimensions as taught by Peek et al. for the purpose of, as it is well known in the art, confining vehicle sizes to conform with the local rules/ regulations for operation on streets/roads without the need to require special permits.
Referring to claim 15: Calloway et al. as modified teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the first speed of the power source is relationally determined (Col. 14, lines 21-42) based on the speed of the fan.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calloway et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,035,089 B1) and Peek et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0327183 A1), as applied above in claim 14, and in further view of Rath (U.S. Patent No. 4,915,570 A).
Referring to claim 16: Calloway et al. as modified teaches the method of claim 14, but is silent on wherein the container includes a container centerline dividing the container width into equal portions, the container centerline being positioned on a vertical plane extending from a rear of the container to the front of the container, the container centerline being offset in a width direction from a chassis centerline, the chassis centerline dividing a width of a chassis of the material collection system into equal portions and extending along a second vertical plane extending from a rear of the material collection system chassis to a front of the material collection system chassis.
Rath et al. in an analogous material collection system (10 and 12 Figs. 1 and 2) and teaches wherein the similar configuration material collection system container (10 Figs. 1 and 2) includes a container centerline (CL-S Fig. 1-A inserted above) dividing the similar configuration container width (W1 Fig. 1-A inserted above) into equal portions (equal portions shown in Fig. 1-A inserted above), the container centerline (CL-S Fig. 1-A) being positioned on a vertical plane (vertical plane’s perimeter of the container comprising of the container centerline CL-S which extends toward the opposite end of the container) extending from a rear of the container to the front of the container, the container centerline (CL-S Fig. 1-A) being offset in a width direction (width direction shown in Fig. 1-A inserted above) from a chassis centerline (CL-C Fig. 1-A inserted above), the chassis centerline (CL-C Fig. 1-A inserted above) dividing a width of the material collection system chassis (W2 Fig. 1-A inserted above) into equal portions (equal portions shown in Fig. 1-A inserted above) and extending along a second vertical plane (vertical plane’s perimeter of the chassis comprising of the chassis centerline CL-C which extends toward the opposite end of the chassis) extending from a rear of the material collection system chassis to a front of the material collection system chassis.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material collection system of Calloway et al. with the offset container as taught by Rath et al. for the purpose of confining the features of the vehicle within the chassis’ perimeter to prevent damage to structures and vehicles when operating in common streets and roads.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calloway et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,035,089 B1), Peek et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0327183 A1), and Rath (U.S. Patent No. 4,915,570 A), as applied above in claim 16, and in further view of Blaha et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,333,969 A).
Referring to claim 17: Calloway et al. as modified teaches the method of claim 16, but is silent on wherein the width of the chassis is less than 102 inches.
Blaha et al. in an analogous material collection system (14 Fig. 1; “vacuum system” Col. 10, lines 14-19) teaches wherein the material collection system includes a material collection system width that is less than 102 inches (“body width of 8 feet” Col. 7, lines 55-60; (8ft=96in)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material collection system of Calloway et al. with the size constrictions as taught by Blaha et al. for the purpose of, as it is well known in the art, confining vehicle sizes to satisfy the present legal requirements for overall vehicle size in every state of the United States (Col. 7, lines 59-60 of Blaha et al.), and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calloway et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,035,089 B1) and Peek et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0327183 A1), as applied above in claim 14, and in further view of Velinsky et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0157212 A).
Referring to claim 18: Calloway et al. as modified teaches the method of claim 14, but is silent on further comprising maintaining a gross vehicle weight of the material collection system less than 26,000 lbs. during the operating the fan.
Velinsky et al. teaches maintaining a gross vehicle weight of the material collection system less than 26,000 lbs. (A gross vehicle weight rating of approximately 26,000 pounds or less [0054]) during the operating the fan (vacuum fan operation [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material collection system of Calloway et al. with the weight constrictions as taught by Velinsky et al. for the purpose of, as it is well known in the art, having a weight which is acceptable under the local rules/ regulations for operation on streets/roads.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHRISTOPHER SOTO whose telephone number is (571)272-8172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8a.m. - 5 p.m..
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 571-272-4475. 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.
CHRISTOPHER SOTO
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/CHRISTOPHER SOTO/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723