DETAILED ACTION
The response dated 9/1/2026 has been entered and is treated below.
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 .
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 10-13 and 15-16 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation “at least partially defines”, and the claim also recites “is entirely defined by” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-13, 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 6,854,949 to Huang.
Regarding claim 1 Huang discloses a refuse vehicle, comprising: a chassis (1); a cab (4) supported on the chassis; and a body assembly supported on the chassis and arranged behind the cab (5), the body assembly including: a body (5); a hopper volume (6); a storage volume (7); a wall (10) arranged between the hopper volume and the storage volume, wherein the wall defines an opening (11) that provides access between the hopper volume and the storage volume wherein the opening is entirely defined be the wall such that the wall surrounds the opening (see figure 4 or 7); and a panel (13 or 24) coupled to the wall so that the panel is movable between an open position where opening is uncovered and a closed position where the opening is covered by the panel (pivoting of transfer head 13 or sliding of door 24), wherein the wall is movably coupled to the body so that, when the panel is in the closed position, the wall and panel form at least part of an ejector that selectively moves to an ejected position where the wall and the panel move toward a rear end of the storage volume (see 21 and col. 4 lines 53-60).
Regarding claim 2 Huang discloses a linear actuator (see figure 7) having a first end coupled to the wall and a second end coupled to the panel (24), the linear actuator being positioned to move the panel between the closed position and the open position (see figure 7).
Regarding claim 11 Huang discloses the panel is configured to pivotably move between the closed position and the open position (see figure 4, 13/15 pivots via 12/14).
Regarding claims 4 and 12 Huang discloses an eject actuator (21) configured to move the wall to the ejected position.
Regarding claims 5, 13 and 18 Huang discloses a side edge of the wall is laterally spaced outwardly relative to a side edge of the panel (see figure 4).
Regarding claim 7 Huang discloses comprising a container handling system (25) configured to lift and dump refuse from a refuse container into the hopper volume, wherein the container handling system is configured to interface with refuse containers disposed to a side of the body assembly such that the refuse vehicle is a side-loading refuse vehicle (col. 5 lines 32-40).
Regarding claims 8, 15 and 19 Huang discloses a pair of rails (22, or corresponding slots in the compartment) extend at least partially along the storage volume or substantially an entire length of the storage volume (col. 5 line 1-5).
Regarding claims 9, 16 and 20 Huang discloses the wall is supported on the pair of rails so that the wall moves along the rails and the wall moves to the ejected position (col. 5 lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 10 Huang discloses a body assembly (5) for a refuse vehicle, comprising: a body that defines a hopper volume (6) and a storage volume (7); and an ejector including: a wall (10) movably coupled to the body and at least partially defining an opening (11), wherein the opening is entirely defined be the wall such that the wall surrounds the opening (see figure 4 or 7); wherein the wall is movable to an ejected position within the storage volume (col. 5 lines 1-8), where the wall is arranged at a rear end of the body; and a panel (24 or 13) coupled to the wall so that the panel moves relative to the wall between a closed position and an open position, the panel blocking the opening in the closed position and unblocking the opening in the open position.
Regarding claims 17 Huang discloses a body assembly for a refuse vehicle, comprising: a body that defines a hopper volume (6) and a storage volume (7); a tailgate (8) pivotally coupled to a rear end of the body; a pair of rails (22) extending along at least a portion of the storage volume; and an ejector including: a wall (10) movably coupled to the body and supported on the pair of rails, wherein the wall defines an opening (11) between the hopper volume and the storage volume, wherein the opening is entirely defined be the wall such that the wall surrounds the opening (see figure 4 or 7); and wherein the wall is movable along the pair of rails, in a direction toward the tailgate, to an ejected position (col. 5 lines 1-8); and a panel (24 or 13) coupled to the wall so that the panel moves relative to the wall between a closed position and an open position, the panel blocking the opening of the wall in the closed position and unblocking the opening of the wall in the open position (see e.g., figure 4).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of US 7,284,943 to Pruteanu.
Regarding the claim Huang discloses all the limitations of the claim except the linear actuator is configured to pivotably move the panel between the closed position and the open position.
Pruteanu teaches a system including the linear actuator is configured to pivotably move the panel between the closed position and the open position (col. 7 lines 19-25) in order to raise and lower the packer assist panel (col. 7 lines 24-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicants’ claims to have modified Huang to include the linear actuator is configured to pivotably move the panel between the closed position and the open position, as taught by Pruteanu, in order to raise and lower the packer assist panel. Furthermore doing so merely entails substituting one known arrangement for another to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/1/2026 with respect to Huang have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued that Huang does not disclose “the opening is entirely defined by the wall such that wall surrounds the opening” as now recited in the independent claims. Examiner disagrees and maintains that both figures 4 and 7 show such an arrangement. The opening (11) is defined by the rear most features of the moving assembly and entirely surrounded thereby. The wall of the storage compartment does not define any portion of the opening. For instance, the figure reproduced in Applicants’ remarks shows that the opening is spaced from the compartment wall by at least the vertical side members of the face and the bottom of the moveable hopper (lower left portion of the image).
Conclusion
Applicants’ 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 MARK C HAGEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5547. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:15-4:45 (PST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 571-272-7097. 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.
/MARK C HAGEMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights