The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 16 and 17 (which are the only figures showing the third embodiment of the invention) appear to be inconsistent with each other. Specifically, Fig. 16 shows a vertical support 236 which, as described in par. [0051], can be aligned with track 238 when the telescopic arm 230/232 is in a retracted position so that grasping mechanism 234 can move along the aligned support and track to lift and dump a container, as in Fig. 17. However, not only does Fig. 17 not show the support 236 at all, much less aligned with track 238, but it does not appear that, given the relationship among these elements and the telescopic arm assembly 230/232, it would be capable of being aligned with the track. 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the track configured to align with the vertical post when ... in a retracted position (claims 13 and 20, emphasis added; see par. 2 above) must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 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 2-21 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 2, line 17, the recitation “the actuator” lacks proper antecedent basis (i.e., “at least one actuator” has previously been recited).
In each of claims 7, 8, 15 and 16, the recitation “the sensor” lacks proper antecedent basis (i.e., “at least one sensor” has previously been recited).
Claim 13, line 9, it is not clear what is meant by “comprising constrained”.
Claim 20, lines 12, 14 and 16, the recitations “the vertical post” lack antecedent basis;
line 19, it is unclear if the recitation “a retracted position” is intended to refer to the same retracted position previously recited in line 17 or another retracted position;
and line 20, the recitation “the actuator” lacks proper antecedent basis (i.e., “at least one actuator” has previously been recited).
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim 13 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Hachenberg ‘206 (DE 102006032206).
Hachenberg ‘206 shows a refuse collection vehicle 7 defining a forward direction of travel and a rearward direction of travel on a ground surface, the refuse collection vehicle comprising:
a chassis (not explicitly identified but readily apparent in the drawings);
a hopper 16 positioned on the chassis; and
an arm 8/9/10 configured to grasp a container 4 from only one side of the refuse collection vehicle and to dump contents of the container into the hopper, the arm comprising:
a grabber 12 movable between a lowered position and a dump position (Figs. 3, 4, 9, 14);
a vertical post 8 configured to support the grabber in the lowered position;
a telescopic reach 9 [comprising] constrained to movement along a plane in a transverse direction relative to the forward and rearward directions of travel, the telescopic reach comprising a proximal portion coupled to the chassis at a location beneath the hopper (Figs. 9, 10, 14) and a distal portion to which the vertical post is attached (Figs. 2, 10), wherein the telescopic reach is configured to telescopically extend and retract the grabber in the lowered position on the vertical post relative to both the hopper and the chassis; and
a track 6 configured to (i) align with the vertical post when the telescopic reach is in a retracted position; and (ii) guide the grabber upward relative to the hopper toward the dump position as the grabber grasps the container (Figs. 3, 4, 9, 14).
Claims 2-6 and 10 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Hachenberg ‘940 (DE 102008013940).
Hachenberg ‘940 shows in at least the Figs. 5-13 embodiment a refuse collection vehicle 1 defining a forward direction of travel and a rearward direction of travel on a ground surface, the refuse collection vehicle comprising:
a chassis (not explicitly identified but readily apparent in the drawings);
a hopper 7 supported on the chassis; and
an arm 20/21/22 configured to grasp a container from a location above or below a grade of the ground surface on only one side of the refuse collection vehicle and to dump contents of the container into the hopper, the arm comprising:
a grabber 29;
a telescopic reach 21 constrained to movement along a plane in a transverse direction relative to the forward and rearward directions of travel, the telescopic reach residing beneath the hopper and configured to telescopically extend and retract the grabber relative to both the hopper and a chassis of the refuse collection vehicle (e.g., Figs. 13, 21);
a track 22 and/or 25 configured to guide the grabber upward relative to the hopper toward a dump position as the grabber grasps the container and when the telescopic reach is in a retracted position (Figs. 7-10); and
at least one actuator 28 coupled to a distal end of the telescopic reach, the at least one actuator configured to rotate the grabber relative to the grade of the ground surface about an axis 30 parallel to the forward and rearward directions of travel.
Re claim 3, the actuator comprises a rotary actuator.
Re claim 4, the actuator comprises a hydraulic actuator (note: the English translation of Hachenberg ‘940 provided with this Office action discloses that the rotary actuator for pivoting the grabber can be hydraulically instead of electrically powered).
Re claim 5, the actuator is configured to shake the container when the grabber is in the dump position, as also disclosed in the above-noted English translation.
Re claim 6, the grabber 29 comprises a pair of movable fingers configured to converge and grasp the container (Figs. 5-9).
Re claim 10, the grabber is secured to the distal end of the telescopic reach via the actuator.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim 7 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hachenberg ‘940 in view of Stragier (US 6,250,008, cited by applicant).
Hachenberg ‘940 discloses, as noted in the English translation, at least one sensor and a controller, but does not explicitly disclose that the controller is configured to determine, based on data received from the at least one sensor, the position of the pair of movable fingers relative to the container.
Stragier shows an arm 22 for a similar refuse collection vehicle comprised of a pair of movable fingers 28/29 configured to converge to grasp a container 14 when in a grasping position (Figs. 1, 2, 5, 6e/g/h). Stragier further discloses the pair of moveable fingers operatively connected to a sensor 32 and/or 33, and a control system which is configured to determine, based on data received from the sensor, the position of the pair of movable fingers relative to the container (col. 3:35 to col. 4:3).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the apparatus of Hachenberg ‘940 by configuring the controller to determine, based on data received from the at least one sensor, the position of the pair of movable fingers relative to the container, as shown by Stragier, to ensure appropriate sensing of and/or contact with the container when approached and grabbed by the arm, thus improving the container pick-up and grab operation.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hachenberg ‘940 in view of Jensen (US 5,209,312, cited by applicant).
Hachenberg ‘940 also does not explicitly disclose that the controller is configured to determine, based on data received from the at least one sensor, a weight of the container, wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one of a pressure sensor, a positioning sensor, or a load cell.
Jensen shows an arm 4 for a similar refuse collection vehicle comprised of a pair of movable fingers 5 configured to converge to grasp a container 6 when in a grasping position (Figs. 1-2). Jensen further discloses at least one sensor 19 and a controller , the controller configured to determine, based on data received from the sensor, a weight of the container, wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one of a pressure sensor, a positioning sensor, or a load cell (col. 4:19-26).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the apparatus of Hachenberg ‘940 by configuring the controller to determine, based on data received from the at least one sensor, a weight of the container, wherein the at least one sensor comprised at least one of a pressure sensor, a positioning sensor, or a load cell, as shown by Jensen, so that customers could be accurately and efficiently billed based on the weight of their refuse collected.
Claim 11 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hachenberg ‘940 in view of Elbrink (US 2003/0031543, cited by applicant).
Hachenberg ‘940 discloses in the English translation a camera configured to provide a view of the container when contents are dumped from the container into the hopper, but does not explicitly disclose that the camera is mounted onto a top edge of the hopper.
Elbrink shows a refuse collection vehicle having a pivoting side arm 8 for grabbing and dumping containers 9 into a collection area (i.e., hopper) of a refuse stowage unit 4 of the vehicle, wherein a camera 12 is mounted onto a top edge of the collection area/hopper facing the refuse stowage unit of the refuse collection vehicle, the camera configured to provide a view of the container when the refuse is dumped from the container into the collection area/hopper (pars. [0014] and [0019]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the apparatus of Hachenberg ‘940 by mounting the camera onto a top edge of the hopper, as shown by Elbrink, so that an operator could safely and conveniently ensure that the refuse was properly emptied from the container.
Claim 12 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hachenberg ‘940 in view of Elbrink, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Schulte-Hinsken (US 5,215,423, cited by applicant).
Hachenberg ‘940 as modified does not disclose a light source mounted on the top edge of the hopper and adjacent to the camera, although the examiner notes that it is generally well known to provide a camera with a light source (either integral or separate) associated therewith to illuminate an area or object of interest.
Schulte-Hinsken discloses a refuse collection vehicle wherein a camera 8 as well as a light source 7 are provided adjacent to one another.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have further modified the apparatus of Hachenberg ‘940 by additionally providing a light source mounted on a top edge of the hopper adjacent to the camera, as suggested by Schulte-Hinsken, to illuminate the area being monitored by the camera.
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hachenberg ‘206 in view of Hachenberg ‘940.
Hachenberg ‘206 does not disclose that the grabber comprises a pair of movable fingers configured to converge and grasp the container.
As noted above, Hachenberg ‘940 discloses a grabber with this feature in the Figs. 5-13 embodiment, and discloses in Fig. 23 that this type of grabber can be utilized interchangeably with the grabber shown in the Figs. 14-22 embodiment, which is the type used in Hachenberg ‘206.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the apparatus of Hachenberg ‘206 by configuring the grabber such that it comprised a pair of movable fingers configured to converge and grasp the container, as Hachenberg ’940 explicitly discloses the substitution of such a grabber with the Hachenberg ‘206 grabber to handle different types of containers.
Re claim 20, Hachenberg ‘206 does not disclose at least one actuator coupled to a distal end of the telescopic reach, the at least one actuator configured to rotate the grabber relative to the grade of the ground surface about an axis parallel to the forward and rearward directions of travel.
As noted above in par. 9 with respect to claim 2, Hachenberg ‘940 shows an actuator 28 coupled to a distal end of the telescopic reach to rotate the grabber relative to the grade of the ground surface about an axis 30 parallel to the forward and rearward directions of travel.
It also would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the apparatus of Hachenberg ‘206 by providing at least one actuator coupled to a distal end of the telescopic reach and configured to rotate the grabber relative to the grade of the ground surface about an axis parallel to the forward and rearward directions of travel, as shown by Hachenberg ‘940, to enable the grabber to conform to misaligned containers as well as move to a stowed transport position in which the grabber was within the envelope of the vehicle.
Claims 15 and 21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hachenberg ‘206 in view of Hachenberg ‘940, as applied to claims 14 and 20 above, and further in view of Stragier.
In a manner similar to that noted above in par. 12 regarding Hachenberg ‘940, Hachenberg ‘206 also discloses, in the English translation thereof provided with this Office action, at least one sensor and a controller, but does not explicitly disclose that the controller is configured to determine, based on data received from the at least one sensor, the position of the pair of movable fingers relative to the container.
As also noted above in par. 12 with respect to analogous claim 7, Stragier shows such a feature. Therefore, this rejection utilizes the same obviousness rationale as set forth in that paragraph.
Claims 16, 17 and 21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hachenberg ‘206 in view of Hachenberg ‘940, as applied to claims 14 and 20 above, and further in view of Jensen.
Hachenberg ‘206 also does not explicitly disclose that the controller is configured to determine, based on data received from the at least one sensor, a weight of the container, wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one of a pressure sensor, a positioning sensor, or a load cell.
As noted above in par. 13 with respect to analogous claims 8 and 9, Jensen shows such a feature. Therefore this rejection utilizes the same obviousness rationale set forth above in that paragraph.
Claim 18 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hachenberg ‘206 in view of Elbrink.
In the provided English translation thereof, Hachenberg ‘206 also discloses a camera configured to provide a view of the container when contents are dumped from the container into the hopper, but does not explicitly disclose that the camera is mounted onto a top edge of the hopper.
As such, this rejection utilizes the same obviousness rationale set forth above in par. 14 with respect to claim 11.
Claim 19 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hachenberg ‘206 in view of Elbrink, as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Schulte-Hinsken.
This rejection utilizes the same obviousness rationale set forth above in par. 15 with respect to claim 12.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Antonicelli shows a track-mounted container tipper on a refuse vehicle.
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
8/03/26
Prosecution Insights