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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/19/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 10 have been amended. Claims 4-6 have been canceled. Claims 21-23 have been added. Claims 1-3, and 7-23 have been examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 6-8, filed 12/19/2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are 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.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page8, filed 12/19/2025, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections and specifically in regards to “Calloway and Rath, on the other hand, do not disclose a hydraulic boom.” is not persuasive. Calloway teaches “Control of the power source and/or equipment such as the boom” in Col. 4 lines 41-42 and “power source 202 can include chassis engine 204, a throttle 206, a transmission 208, an auxiliary engine 210, a throttle 212, a drive shaft 214, power takeoff(s) 216, and/or a hydraulic system 218” Col. 5, lines 42-46.
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 10-18 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 10 recites: “equal to the first width” and lack antecedent basis since it has not been introduced in claim 10. Claim 15 recites: “the container has a first width”. As claimed, it is unclear if both recited “first width” are referring to the same feature. For examination purposes, the first width introduced in claim 15 has been construed as the same as the first width of claim 10.
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 1-3, 8, 9, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarrant (U.S. Patent No. 5,226,757 A), Calloway et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,035,089 B1), Dinneen (U.S. Patent No. 4,840,531 A), and "XtremeVac 2013".
Referring to Claim 1: Tarrant teaches a material collection system (1 Fig. 1), comprising:
a container (6 comprising 82 Figs. 1, 4-7) forming a first width (W1 Fig. 1-A inserted below), the container comprising a nose extension (82 Figs. 1, 4-7) disposed at a front end (shown at front end of the container in Figs. 1, 2, 4-7) of the container, the nose extension (82 Figs. 1, 4-7) defining an opening (opening of 82 which leads into 6 and mates with 80 of 66 shown in Figs. 5 and 7) into the container (6 comprising 82 Figs. 1, 4-7);
a conduit (64 Figs. 1, 2, and 4) comprising a material inlet (inlet of 64 shown in Fig. 1) and having a second width (W2 Fig. 1-A inserted below), the conduit (64 Figs. 1, 2, and 4) being movable (being movable via lift mechanism 74 Fig. 2) from a stowed position (retracted via 74) to an operating position (extended via 74);
a vacuum generator (66 Figs. 1, 4, 6, and 7) disposed below (shown below in Figs. 1, 6, and 7) the nose extension (82 Figs. 1, 4-7) and connected to the opening (opening of 82 which leads into 6 and mates with 80 of 66 shown in Figs. 5 and 7) of the container; and
a chassis (chassis of 1 shown in Figs. 1, 4, and 1-A inserted below) having a chassis width (W3 Fig. 1-A inserted below).
But is silent on comprising a fan to develop an airflow and draw material into the material inlet;
a transmission to control a drive of the material collection system;
a power source to power the vacuum generator and the transmission;
the chassis width being at least the sum of the first width and the second width;
and having a nose extension width equal to the first width
a conduit extending along a length of the container toward a rear end of the container in a stowed position, the conduit
"XtremeVac 2013" teaches similar configuration nose extension (NE-2 Fig. 4-A inserted below) with a nose extension width (NE-2W Fig. 4-A inserted below) equal to the similar configuration first width (FW-2 Fig. 4-A inserted below).
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 Tarrant with the
nose extension configuration as taught by "XtremeVac 2013" for the purpose of maximizing the available space, and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)
PNG
media_image1.png
614
1097
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Calloway et al. in an analogous material collection system (10) teaches a fan (232 “fan vacuum generator ”Col. 6, line 26) to develop an airflow and draw material into the material inlet;
a transmission (transmission 208 of 202; Col. 5, lines 42-47) to control a drive of the material collection system (218);
a power source (202) to power the vacuum generator (232 Col. 5, lines 11-13) and the transmission (208);
a conduit (252 Fig. 1) extending along a length (when accommodated on 272 shown in Fig. 1) of the similar configuration container (220 Fig. 1) toward a rear end (rear end of 220 opposite to 104) of the container in a stowed position (when 252 is accommodated on 272 shown in Fig. 1).
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 Tarrant with the fan, transmission, power source, and conduit configuration as taught by Calloway et al. for the purpose of, as it is well known in the art, powering the auxiliary devices of a material collection system.
PNG
media_image2.png
648
606
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Dinneen, in an analogous material collection system (10 and 14 Figs. 1 and 2) teaches a similar configuration chassis width (D-W3 Fig. 3-A inserted below) being at least the sum of the similar configuration first width (D-W1 Fig. 3-A inserted below) and the similar configuration second width (D-W2 Fig. 3-A inserted below).
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 Tarrant with the width arrangement assembly as taught by Dinneen for the purpose of accommodating the structures to fit within a limited space.
PNG
media_image3.png
270
322
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Referring to Claim 2: Tarrant as modified teaches the material collection system of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the chassis width is less than approximately 102 inches.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a chassis width of less than 102 inches, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is less than approximately 102 inches which achieves the recognized result of supporting the collection system and meeting the local laws for driving on the road and highway, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Referring to Claim 3: Tarrant as modified teaches the material collection system of claim 1, but is silent on wherein a vertical centerline of the container is offset from a vertical centerline of the chassis.
Dinneen in an analogous material collection system (10 and 14 Figs. 1 and 2) teaches a vertical centerline (D-CL-S Fig. 3-A inserted above) of the similar configuration container (52 Fig. 6) is offset (Shown in Fig. 3-A inserted above) from a vertical centerline (D-CL-C Fig. 3-A inserted above) of the similar configuration chassis (chassis of 48 Fig. 6).
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 Tarrant with the offset container as taught by Dinneen for the purpose of confining the features of the vehicle within the chassis’s perimeter to prevent damage to structures and vehicles when operating in common streets and roads.
Referring to Claim 8: Tarrant as modified teaches the material collection system of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the first width is approximately 80 inches to approximately 90 inches.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a first width is specifically approximately 80 inches to approximately 90 inches, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter of a first width is approximately 80 inches to approximately 90 inches which achieves the recognized result of the container having adequate storage capability while maintaining an efficient and safe distribution of weight on the intended chassis, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Referring to Claim 9: Tarrant as modified teaches the material collection system of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the second width is approximately 30 inches to approximately 40 inches.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have second width is approximately 30 inches to approximately 40 inches, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter of the second width is approximately 30 inches to approximately 40 inches achieves the recognized result of having sufficient storage/ stowed position streamline in the second width while having an adequate container storage capability while maintaining an efficient and safe distribution of weight on the intended chassis, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Referring to Claim 21: Tarrant as modified teaches the material collection system of claim 1, but is silent on further comprising a hydraulic boom to support the conduit and control movement of the conduit from the stowed position to the operating position.
Calloway et al. in an analogous material collection system (10) teaches a hydraulic boom (270 Fig. 1) to support the similar configuration conduit (252 Fig. 1) and control movement of the conduit from the stowed position to the operating position (“In some aspects, boom 270 can be moved from a lower position (e.g., a position substantially parallel to chassis 102), as shown in FIG. 5, to a higher position (e.g., a position at an angle relative to chassis 102)” Col. 8, lines 46-49).
It also 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 Tarrant with the hydraulic boom as taught by Calloway et al. for the purpose of having the ability of moving the conduit as needed and therefore increasing the efficiency of the operation.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarrant (U.S. Patent No. 5,226,757 A), Calloway et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,035,089 B1), Dinneen (U.S. Patent No. 4,840,531 A), and "XtremeVac 2013", as applied above in claim 3, and in further view of Watje et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,793,351 B2).
Referring to Claim 7: Tarrant as modified teaches the material collection system of claim 3, but is silent on wherein the conduit does not extend beyond the chassis in the stowed position.
Watje et al. in an analogous material collection system teaches wherein the similar configuration conduit (40 Fig. 3) does not extend beyond the similar configuration chassis (chassis 10 Figs. 1 and 3) in the stowed position (“storage position” Abstract) “may be sized and shaped into a wide variety of different sizes and configurations so as to be compatible with the size and shape of the overall refuse collection vehicle body 10, or to conform with any other space limitations associated therewith” Col. 8, lines 11-23).
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 Tarrant with the non-extending storage position as taught by Watje et al. for the purpose of confining the features of the vehicle within the chassis’s perimeter to prevent damage to structures and vehicles when operating in common streets and roads.
Claims 10, 11, and 13-20, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarrant (U.S. Patent No. 5,226,757 A), Calloway et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,035,089 B1), Rath et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,915,570 A) and "XtremeVac 2013".
Referring to Claim 10: Tarrant teaches a material collection system, comprising: a chassis (chassis of 1 shown in Figs. 1, 4, and 1-A inserted above) having a street side, a curb side, a front, and a rear (shown in Fig. 1-A inserted above);
a container (6 comprising 82 Figs. 1, 4-7) disposed on the chassis (chassis of 1 shown in Figs. 1, 4, and 1-A inserted above), the container comprising a nose extension (82 Figs. 1, 4-7) disposed at a front end (shown in Fig. 1-A inserted above) of the container, the nose extension defining an inlet (opening of 82 which leads into 6 and mates with 80 of 66 shown in Figs. 5 and 7) into the container (6 comprising 82 Figs. 1, 4-7);
a conduit (64 Figs. 1, 2, and 4) comprising a material inlet (inlet of 64 shown in Fig. 1), the conduit movable (being movable via lift mechanism 74 Fig. 2) from a stowed position (retracted via 74) to an operating position (extended via 74); and
a vacuum generator (66 Figs. 1, 4, 6, and 7) disposed below (shown below in Figs. 1, 6, and 7) the nose extension (82 Figs. 1, 4-7) and connected to the opening (opening of 82 which leads into 6 and mates with 80 of 66 shown in Figs. 5 and 7) of the container.
But is silent on comprising a fan to develop an airflow and draw material into the material inlet, wherein a vertical centerline of the container is laterally offset from a vertical centerline of the chassis toward the street side;
and having a nose extension width equal to the first width;
a hydraulic boom to support the conduit, the hydraulic boom being substantially parallel to a length of the chassis when the conduit is in the stowed position.
"XtremeVac 2013" teaches similar configuration nose extension (NE-2 Fig. 4-A inserted above) with a nose extension width (NE-2W Fig. 4-A inserted above) equal to the similar configuration first width (FW-2 Fig. 4-A inserted above).
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 Tarrant with the
nose extension configuration as taught by "XtremeVac 2013" for the purpose of maximizing the available space, and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)
Calloway et al. in an analogous material collection system (10) comprising a fan (232 “fan vacuum generator ”Col. 6, line 26) to develop an airflow and draw material into the material inlet;
a hydraulic boom (270 Fig. 1) to support the similar configuration conduit (252 Fig. 1), the hydraulic boom being substantially parallel to a length of the chassis when the conduit is in the stowed position (“In the storage position 40, boom 270 can be substantially parallel to chassis 102.” Col. 8, lines 35-37).
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 Tarrant with the fan configuration as taught by Calloway et al. for the purpose of, as it is well known in the art, using a fan to generate airflow.
It also 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 Tarrant with the hydraulic boom as taught by Calloway et al. for the purpose of having the ability of moving the conduit as needed and therefore increasing the efficiency of the operation.
Rath et al. in an analogous material collection system (10 and 12 Figs. 1 and 2) teaches wherein a vertical centerline (CL-S Fig. 2-A inserted below) of the similar configuration container (10 Figs. 1 and 2) is laterally offset (Shown in Fig. 2-A inserted below) from a vertical centerline (CL-C Fig. 2-A inserted below) of the similar configuration chassis (12 Figs. 1 and 2) toward the street side (Shown in Fig. 2-A inserted below).
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 Tarrant with the offset container as taught by Rath et al. for the purpose of confining the features of the vehicle within the chassis’s perimeter to prevent damage to structures and vehicles when operating in common streets and roads.
PNG
media_image4.png
490
562
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Referring to Claim 11: Tarrant as modified teaches the material collection system of claim 10, wherein the conduit (64 Figs. 1, 2, and 4 of Tarrant) is stowed on the curb side
Referring to Claim 13: Tarrant as modified teaches the material collection system of claim 10, but is silent on wherein the vertical centerline of the container is laterally offset from the vertical centerline of the chassis toward the street side by approximately 2 inches to approximately 8 inches.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an offset of 2 to 8 inches, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is offset of 2 to 8 inches which achieves the recognized result of offsetting the centerline of the container from the centerline of the chassis while maintaining an efficient and safe weight distribution, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Referring to Claim 14: Tarrant as modified teaches the material collection system of claim 10, but is silent on wherein the vertical centerline of the container is laterally offset from the vertical centerline of the chassis toward the street side by approximately 5 inches.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an offset of approximately 5 inches, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is offset of approximately 5 inches which achieves the recognized result of offsetting the centerline of the container from the centerline of the chassis while maintaining an efficient and safe weight distribution, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Referring to Claim 15: Tarrant as modified teaches the material collection system of claim 10, wherein the container (6 comprising 82 Figs. 1, 4-7 of Tarrant) has a first width (W1 Fig. 1-A inserted above of Tarrant), the conduit (64 Figs. 1, 2, and 4 of Tarrant) has a second width (W2 Fig. 1-A inserted above of Tarrant), and the chassis (chassis of 1 shown in Figs. 1, 4, and 1-A inserted above of Tarrant) has an overall width (W3 Fig. 1-A inserted above of Tarrant) comprising the first width and the second width (W1 and W2 Fig. 1-A inserted above of Tarrant).
Referring to Claim 16: Tarrant as modified teaches the material collection system of claim 15, but is silent on wherein the first width is approximately 80 inches to approximately 90 inches.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a first width is specifically approximately 80 inches to approximately 90 inches, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter of a first width is approximately 80 inches to approximately 90 inches which achieves the recognized result of the container having adequate storage capability while maintaining an efficient and safe distribution of weight on the intended chassis, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Referring to Claim 17: Tarrant as modified teaches the material collection system of claim 16, but is silent on wherein the second width is approximately 30 inches to approximately 40 inches.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have second width is approximately 30 inches to approximately 40 inches, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter of the second width is approximately 30 inches to approximately 40 inches achieves the recognized result of having sufficient storage/ stowed position streamline in the second width while having an adequate container storage capability while maintaining an efficient and safe distribution of weight on the intended chassis, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Referring to Claim 18: Tarrant as modified teaches the material collection system of claim 15, but is silent on wherein the overall width is less than approximately 102 inches.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a chassis width of less than 102 inches, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is less than approximately 102 inches which achieves the recognized result of supporting the collection system and meeting the local laws for driving on the road and highway, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Referring to Claim 19: Tarrant as modified teaches the material collection system of claim 1, wherein the nose extension (82 Figs. 1, 4-7 of Tarrant) increases the storage capacity (82 increases the overall volume of the container of Tarrant) of the container (6 comprising 82 Figs. 1, 4-7 of Tarrant).
Referring to Claim 20: Tarrant as modified teaches the material collection system of claim 1, wherein a bottom end (bottom end of 25 of 82 Fig. 5 of Tarrant) of the nose extension (82 Figs. 1, 4-7 of Tarrant) is inclined at an angle (angle of 25 of 82 Fig. 5 of Tarrant) with respect to a horizontal plane (horizontal plane which is parallel to the street surface).
Referring to Claim 22: Tarrant as modified teaches the material collection system of claim 21, the hydraulic boom (270 Fig. 1) including a hydraulic actuator (actuator which controls all the movements of the boom; Col. 3 lines 57-59) to control a position of the material inlet in a longitudinal direction, a lateral direction, and a vertical direction (“In this example, an operator can move the boom, and therefore the conduit, around the longitudinal, lateral, and/or vertical axes using the control system.” Col. 3 lines 57-59).
Referring to Claim 23: Tarrant as modified teaches the material collection system of claim 21, wherein the hydraulic boom (270 Fig. 1) is substantially parallel to a length of the chassis when the conduit is in the stowed position (“In the storage position 40, boom 270 can be substantially parallel to chassis 102.” Col. 8, lines 35-37).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarrant (U.S. Patent No. 5,226,757 A), Calloway et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,035,089 B1), Rath et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,915,570 A), and "XtremeVac 2013", as applied above in claim 11, and in further view of Watje et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,793,351 B2).
Referring to Claim 12: Tarrant as modified teaches the material collection system of claim 11, but is silent on wherein the conduit does not extend beyond the curb side when in the stowed position.
Watje et al. in an analogous material collection system teaches wherein the similar configuration conduit (40 Fig. 3) does not extend beyond the curb side when in the stowed position (“storage position” Abstract) “may be sized and shaped into a wide variety of different sizes and configurations so as to be compatible with the size and shape of the overall refuse collection vehicle body 10, or to conform with any other space limitations associated therewith” Col. 8, lines 11-23).
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 Tarrant with the non-extending storage position as taught by Watje et al. for the purpose of confining the features of the vehicle within the chassis’s perimeter to prevent damage to structures and vehicles when operating in common streets and roads.
Conclusion
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