The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3, --the-- should be inserted before “right”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 15-20 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 15, penultimate line, the recitation “the packer plate compacting solid waste materials in the container body in response to being pivoted” (emphasis added) is a positive recitation of performing an action, as would typically be associated with a method claim. However, an apparatus is defined by what it is, not by what it does or how it operates. Functional language, such as capable of, configured for, etc., as used elsewhere throughout the claims, is suggested.
The recitation “the packer plate pivots ...” in claim 19 is similarly indefinite.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 5-7 and 11-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,122,597 in view of Dow (US 2,750,056, cited by applicant).
Patented claim 7 recites all limitations of pending claims 5 and 6 except the limitation “the system (for lifting and tipping a bin) being located in a rear portion of the container body”.
The examiner notes similar bin lifting and tipping systems are typically located in a rear portion of a container body of a refuse collection vehicle.
As an example, Dow ‘056 shows a bin lifting and tipping system located in a rear portion of a container body of a refuse collection vehicle, as seen in Figs. 1-3.
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 waste materials collection and compaction container assembly of patented claim 7 by locating the bin lifting and tipping system in a rear portion of the container body, as shown by Dow, as this would be a well-established, convenient and effective location at which to mount a bin lifting and tipping system on a refuse container of a refuse collection vehicle.
Pending dependent claims 7 and 11-14 are covered by equivalent patented claims 8-12.
The examiner notes either Dow (US 3,069,037) or Colin (US 4,406,573), both cited by applicant, could be substituted for Dow ‘056 in the above rejection.
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.
Claims 15-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Colin (US 4,406,573).
Colin shows a solid waste materials collection and compaction container assembly, comprising:
a container body 2; and
a packer plate 14 having an upper portion and a lower portion, the packer plate being disposed inside the container body and being pivotally connected to the container body, the packer plate being pivotable between a retracted position (any of Figs. 3-5) and a compacting position (Fig. 6) about a packer plate pivot axis 12 extending along the lower portion of the packer plate, the packer plate compacting solid waste materials in the container body in response to being pivoted from the retracted position to the compacting position (col. 3:49-50).
Re claim 16, Colin further shows a follower panel 13 having an upper portion and a lower portion, the lower portion of the follower panel being pivotally connected to the upper portion of the packer plate about a follower panel axis 15, and the follower panel being movable between a retracted position and a compacting position simultaneously with the packer plate (Figs. 3-6).
Re claim 17, when in their respective retracted positions, the packer plate and the follower panel are “substantially” parallel, as broadly claimed (at least in Figs. 4-5).
Re claim 19, the container body has a front wall (not separately identified but shown in Fig. 1), and in response to the packer plate pivoting from the retracted position to the compacting position, the packer plate pivots towards the front wall of the container body (Figs. 4-6).
Claims 5-7, 11, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dow (US 3,069,037).
Dow ‘037 shows a solid waste materials collection and compaction container assembly, comprising: a container body 10 including
a floor 18,
a front wall 20 connected to a front end of the floor and extending upwardly from the floor,
a left side wall 12 connected to the floor and the front wall, the left side wall extending upwardly from a left end of the floor and rearward of the front wall,
a right side wall 14 connected to the floor and the front wall, the right side wall extending upwardly from a right end of the floor and rearward of the front wall,
a rear wall 22 connected to the floor and to the left and right side walls, the rear wall extending upwardly from a rear end of the floor,
a top wall 16 connected to the front wall and to the left and right side walls, the top wall extending over a portion of the floor; and
a system for lifting and tipping a bin 120 containing solid waste materials in the container body, and for compacting the solid waste materials in the container body, the system being located in a rear portion of the container body, the system including:
a frame (not separately identified but the body is clearly supported on a "frame", as broadly recited, as seen in at least Fig. 5) pivotally supporting the container body about a container pivot axis 260, the container body being pivotable about the container pivot axis between a rest position (Figs. 1-4, 6) and a dump position (Fig. 5),
a motor 36 connected to the frame,
a packer plate 160 pivotally connected to the container body and being pivotable between a retracted position (Fig. 7) and a compacting position (Fig. 6) within the container body, the packer plate being configured for compacting the solid waste materials in the container body when pivoted from the retracted position to the compacting position (col. 5:20-25), and
at least one linkage assembly (includes but is not necessarily limited to 40, 44, 48, 115, 122, 126, 128, 130, 132, 134, 140, 142, 144, 148, 150, 152, 154, 156, 158) operatively connected to the motor; and
in response to the motor operating, the at least one linkage assembly being configured for lifting the bin above the container body, tipping the bin for emptying the solid waste materials into the container body, pivoting the packer plate from the retracted position to the compacting position and then from the compacting position to the retracted position, and lowering the bin back down (col. 5:74 to col. 6:39).
Re claims 6-7, Dow ‘037 further discloses a lock (includes but is not limited to 206) movable between an unlocked position and a locked position, wherein, in response to the lock being in the unlocked position, the packer plate is pivotable within the container body between the retracted and compacting positions, and in response to the lock being in the locked position, the packer plate is maintained in the retracted position, and operating the motor in a first direction causes the container body to pivot upwardly about the container pivot axis between the rest position and the dump position, and wherein, in response to the lock being in the locked position, operating the motor in a second direction causes the container body to pivot downwardly about the container pivot axis between the dump position and the rest position (see col. 6:71 to col. 10:39, esp. col. 7:50-57 and col. 8:56 to col. 10:11).
Re claim 11, Dow further discloses the motor located under the container body.
Re claim 13, Dow further discloses a truck comprising: a truck frame 24, a vehicle motor (inherent in any "self-propelled vehicle") connected to the truck frame, at least three wheels 26 operatively connected to the frame (at least indirectly), at least one of the at least three wheels being driven by the vehicle motor (inherent), and the solid waste materials collection and compaction container assembly of claim 5 connected to the truck frame.
Re claim 15, Dow shows a solid waste materials collection and compaction container assembly, comprising:
a container body 10; and
a packer plate 160 having an upper portion (adjacent 129) and a lower portion (adjacent 162), the packer plate being disposed inside the container body and being pivotally connected to the container body, the packer plate being pivotable between a retracted position (Fig. 7) and a compacting position (Fig. 6) about a packer plate pivot axis 162 extending along the lower portion of the packer plate, as broadly claimed (noting that the pivot axis is not precluded from moving linearly along the floor of the container, as shown in Figs. 6-7), the packer plate compacting solid waste materials in the container body in response to being pivoted from the retracted position to the compacting position (col. 5:20-25).
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 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dow ‘037.
Dow '037 shows a spring 66 connected between the frame and the container body (Figs. 10-12), the spring being adapted for (at least assisting in) pivoting the container body about the container pivot axis from the rest position to the dump position (col. 9:23-66), but the spring is not a torsion spring.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Dow ‘037 by substituting a torsion spring in place of the spring 66, as the examiner takes Official Notice that a torsion spring would be a well-known, alternate equivalent means of at least assisting in pivoting a vehicle body between a rest position and a dump position, and would be useful in meeting certain space limitations or other desired characteristics as needed, the selection of such an equivalent being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Re claim 27, Dow further discloses that motor 36 of the system may be an hydraulic motor or a servomotor, but does not explicitly disclose either the system motor or the vehicle motor to be electric motors.
Nevertheless, the use of electric motors for powering the vehicle and the lifting system would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as the examiner again takes Official Notice that the use of electric motors instead of fossil fuel or hydraulic motors would have been a well-known, alternate equivalent means of providing power to the vehicle and the lifting system, respectively, and would be useful in reducing emissions, maintenance requirements, and complexity of such power systems, the selection of which in the apparatus of Dow would have required no undue experimentation and produced no unexpected results.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dow ‘037 in view of Colin.
Dow ‘037 does not show that the top wall, the rear wall and the left and right side walls define a hopper located in the rear portion of the container body.
Colin shows that a top wall, a rear wall and left and right side walls of the container body 2 define a hopper 7 located in the rear portion of the container body.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Dow ‘037 by providing a hopper defined by the top wall, the rear wall and the left and right side walls in the rear portion of the container body, as shown by Colin, to provide a convenient, well known and art recognized place to empty refuse into the container body prior to being compacted therein.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dow ‘056 in view of Colin.
Dow '056 shows a system for lifting and tipping a bin 72 containing solid waste materials in a container body 14, and for compacting the solid waste materials in the container body, the system comprising:
a frame 18,
a motor 30 connected to the frame,
a packer plate 80 having an upper portion and a lower portion, the packer plate being pivotally connectable to the container body (via 76, 78) and being pivotable between a retracted position (Fig. 1) and a compacting position (Fig. 2) within the container body about a lower packer plate pivot axis 76/78 extending along the lower portion of the packer plate (Figs. 1-2), the packer plate being configured for compacting the solid waste materials in the container body when moved from the retracted position to the compacting position (col. 5:24-26); and
at least one linkage assembly (includes but is not necessarily limited to 26, 50, 60, 62, 64, 66, 68, 70, 86) operatively connected to the motor; and
in response to the motor operating, the at least one linkage assembly being configured for lifting the bin above the container body, tipping the bin for emptying the solid waste materials into the container body, pivoting the packer plate from the retracted position to the compacting position and then from the compacting position to the retracted position, and lowering the bin back down (col. 5:1-30).
Dow '056 does not show a follower panel having an upper portion and a lower portion, the lower portion of the follower panel being pivotally connected to the upper portion of the packer plate about a follower panel axis, and the follower panel being movable between a retracted position and a compacting position simultaneously with the packer plate, wherein, when connected to the container body and when in their respective retracted positions, the packer plate and the follower panel being substantially parallel.
As noted above in par. 9 with respect to claims 15-17, Colin shows such features in a similar refuse collection vehicle.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Dow ‘056 by providing a follower panel having an upper portion and a lower portion, the lower portion pivotally connected to the upper portion of the packer plate about a follower panel axis, and the follower panel movable between a retracted position and a compacting position simultaneously with the packer plate, wherein, when connected to the container body and when in their respective retracted positions, the packer plate and the follower panel were substantially parallel, as shown by Colin, to ensure that no waste materials fell behind the packer plate during compacting.
Re claim 4, Dow ’56 further shows that the at least one linkage assembly is a left linkage assembly and a right linkage assembly (Fig. 4).
Claims 2, 3, 8 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 18 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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
8/06/26
Prosecution Insights