The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species F (Figs. 18-19) in the reply filed on 8/10/26 is acknowledged. Claims 5-7,11-15 and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign mentioned in the description: 1152. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “1150” has been used to designate both “ball screws” and “housing channel” (Fig. 18). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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.
While no particular errors were noted during examination, the lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sieke (WO 86/00601).
Sieke shows a refuse vehicle 1 comprising:
a chassis (not separately identified but readily apparent in Figs. 1 and 4);
a body assembly 2 coupled to the chassis and defining a refuse compartment configured to store refuse material; and
a refuse interaction mechanism comprising:
a refuse interaction element 44 configured to selectively apply a packing force onto the refuse material within the refuse compartment, the refuse interaction element being moveable within the refuse compartment between a receiving position (not shown but readily apparent from the description given in at least the first paragraph of page 5), in which the refuse compartment is configured to receive refuse material, and a packing position (Fig. 4), in which the refuse interaction element is configured to exert the packing force on the refuse material stored within the refuse compartment;
an actuator 41 configured to selectively move the refuse interaction element between the receiving position and the packing position; and
an impulse generator 47 configured to selectively apply linear impulse to the refuse interaction element.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 9-10, 16, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brewer (US 3,831,789) in view of Loggins (US 7,918,638), both cited by applicant.
Brewer shows a refuse vehicle 10 comprising:
a chassis (not separately identified but shown in Fig. 7);
a body assembly 12 coupled to the chassis and defining a refuse compartment configured to store refuse material; and
a refuse interaction mechanism comprising:
a refuse interaction element 13 configured to selectively apply a force onto the refuse material within the refuse compartment, the refuse interaction element being moveable within the refuse compartment between a receiving position (Fig. 1 and Fig. 7 solid), in which the refuse compartment is configured to receive refuse material, and a force-exerting position (Fig. 7 phantom, or any other position between the receiving position and this position), in which the refuse interaction element is configured to exert the force on the refuse material stored within the refuse compartment; and
an electrically driven actuator 23 (driven by electric motor M; Fig. 18) configured to selectively move the refuse interaction element between the receiving position and the force-exerting position.
Brewer does not show an impulse generator configured to selectively apply linear impulse to the refuse interaction element, wherein the impulse generator comprises one of a flywheel or a coil spring.
Loggins shows a bulk material dumping vehicle, wherein a scraper mechanism 22 (analogous to refuse interaction element) is used to eject material from a body 10 of the vehicle, and wherein an impulse generator in the form of a coil spring 104 is configured to selectively apply linear impulse to the scraper mechanism (i.e., “the scraper blades will suddenly be released, which jogs the remaining load”; see Figs. 3a-c and col. 6:58 to col. 7:12), to assist in moving material which may be stuck or otherwise difficult to move under normal circumstances.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Brewer with an impulse generator configured to selectively apply linear impulse to the refuse interaction element, wherein the impulse generator comprised one of a flywheel or a coil spring, as shown by Loggins, to assist in moving material which may be stuck or otherwise difficult to move under normal circumstances.
Re claim 3, Brewer further discloses a tailgate 120 moveable between an opened position (Fig. 1) and a closed position (Figs. 7, 10-11), and wherein, when the tailgate is in the opened position and the refuse interaction element is in the force-exerting position, the force exerted by the refuse interaction element is configured to eject the refuse material from the refuse compartment (col. 10:28-34) and, when the tailgate is in the closed position and the refuse interaction element is in the force-exerting position, the force exerted by the refuse interaction element is configured to compact the refuse material within the refuse compartment (col. 7:10-23).
Re claim 4, the refuse interaction element is an actuatable packer.
Insofar as claim 9 is a combination of claims 1 and 3, no further analysis thereof is deemed necessary.
Re claim 16, the force exerted by the refuse interaction element is clearly a “packing force”. As the scope of claim 16 is otherwise wholly encompassed by claim 1, no further analysis thereof is deemed necessary.
Claim 20 is treated in the same manner as analogous claim 3 above.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brewer in view of Loggins, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gollnick (US 3,874,529, cited by applicant).
Although Brewer shows a tailgate moveable between an opened position and a closed position, as noted above, Brewer as modified does not show a moveable rear wall configured to be selectively moved within the refuse compartment, when the tailgate is in the closed position, to provide an additional compaction force onto the refuse material within the refuse compartment, the moveable rear wall further configured to be selectively moved into and move with the tailgate when the tailgate is moved from the closed position into the opened position.
Gollnick, as noted in at least the first Office action in parent application 16/851429, shows a similar refuse vehicle having comprising a tailgate 12 and a moveable rear wall 26, the tailgate moveable between an opened position (not shown but described at col 3:2-7) and a closed position (Figs. 1-7), the moveable rear wall configured to be selectively moved within a refuse compartment 11 (Fig. 4), when the tailgate is in the closed position, to provide an additional compaction force onto the refuse material within the refuse compartment, the moveable rear wall further configured to be selectively moved into and move with the tailgate when the tailgate is moved from the closed position into the opened position (inherent from the description).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the apparatus of Brewer with a moveable rear wall configured to be selectively moved within the refuse compartment, when the tailgate was in the closed position, to provide an additional compaction force onto the refuse material within the refuse compartment, and further configured to be selectively moved into and move with the tailgate when the tailgate was moved from the closed position into the opened position, as taught by Gollnick, for improved loading and packing efficiency.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brewer in view of Loggins, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Kay et al (US 2018/0155124, cited by applicant).
Brewer discloses that the actuator comprises an electrically driven screw mechanism including a central screw rod 23 and at least one threaded block (i.e., screw nut) 16 rigidly coupled to the refuse interaction element 13 and configured to translate rotational motion of the central screw rod into translational motion of the refuse interaction element (col. 3:35-42), and the electrically driven screw mechanism is configured to move the refuse interaction element between the receiving position and the packing position by applying the rotational motion to the central screw rod (col. 4:1-7), but the screw mechanism is a lead screw rather than a ball screw.
Kay shows a similar refuse vehicle 100 wherein a packer panel 160 (refuse interaction element) moves between receiving and packing positions within a refuse compartment 136 of a body 130 in response to an actuator in the form of an electrically driven ball screw mechanism (drive mechanisms 190 may be electric motors; par. [0044]) including a central screw rod 170 and at least one ball screw 180 (note: Kay uses the term “ball nut”; this is analogous to applicant’s “ball screw” 1150 and is believed to be the proper terminology) coupled to the refuse interaction element and configured to translate rotational motion of the central screw rod into translational motion of the refuse interaction element, and the electrically driven ball screw mechanism is configured to move the refuse interaction element between the receiving position and the packing position by applying the rotational motion to the central screw rod (pars. [0019] and [0020]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the apparatus of Brewer with a ball screw mechanism instead of a lead screw mechanism, as shown by Kay, as this would simply be the substitution of one known type of screw drive mechanism for another in the same environment and for the same purpose, the use of which would have required no undue experimentation and produced no unexpected results, especially since the advantages and disadvantages of both types of screw mechanisms are well established and thus choosing the ball screw drive mechanism over a lead screw would be desirable if the advantages of the ball screw (e.g., more efficient, faster, and better suited for high-precision or high-duty-cycle motion) superseded those of the lead screw (e.g., simpler, lower cost, and better suited for self-locking applications) in this particular application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Keenan whose telephone number is (571) 272-6925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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.
/James Keenan/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3652
9/15/26
Prosecution Insights