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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/28/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: There is a typographical error in the claim limitations, in what appears to be the form of a missing word. Line 2 of the claim recites “a lift assembly camera configured to positioned,” which appears to be intended to instead recite “a lift assembly camera configured to be positioned.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0234505), hereinafter referred to as Smith.
In regard to claim 12, Smith teaches a refuse vehicle (Smith paragraph 38 noting vehicle 102 is a refuse collection vehicle that operates to collect and transport refuse (e.g., garbage and/or recycling). The refuse collection vehicle 102 can also be described as a garbage collection vehicle, or garbage truck) comprising:
a chassis; a body coupled to the chassis (Smith paragraph 39 noting body components 104 of the vehicle 102 can include various components that are appropriate for the particular type of vehicle 102; Smith Fig. 2A showing a refuse vehicle with a body on a chassis), the body having a refuse compartment with a hopper area (Smith paragraph 39 noting body components 104 may also include other types of components that operate to bring garbage into a hopper (or other storage area) of a truck; and Smith Fig. 2A showing hopper 210 on the refuse compartment of the refuse vehicle; and Smith paragraph 53 noting lifting a refuse container 230 and emptying its contents into the hopper 210);
a lift assembly configured to lift a refuse container to dump contents thereof into the hopper area (Smith paragraph 53 noting lifting a refuse container 230 and emptying its contents into the hopper 210; and Smith Fig. 2A showing refuse container 230 being lifted by the lift arm 204);
a display interface (Smith paragraph 60 noting images and/or video captured by camera(s) 234, 236 are provided to a graphical display system 220 and are displayed to the operator 150 using the graphical display system 220; and Smith Fig. 1 showing cameras and sensor data being processed by a computing device to create image data to display on a graphical display system);
a lift assembly camera positioned to capture a first view of a lift area proximate the lift assembly (Smith Fig. 2A showing camera 234 located on the side of the vehicle body, proximate to the lift assembly 204; and Smith paragraphs 70-71 noting the camera 234 images to the side of the vehicle to monitor the refuse container as it is lifted by the lift arm, and sensors can be used to monitor the angle of the lift arm during a dump cycle, and sends video to the display from camera 234 to monitor the refuse container being serviced and monitor the grabber 206 at the end of the lift arm 204);
a hopper camera positioned to capture a second view of the hopper area (Smith paragraph 72 noting camera 236 located on the top of the vehicle 202 to provide to the graphical display system 220, in real-time, images and/or video captured by the camera 236, including images and/or video of refuse being dumped from the refuse container 230 into the hopper 210); and
a controller (Smith paragraph 71 noting onboard computing device 232) configured to:
detect at least one of a refuse container proximate the refuse vehicle (Smith paragraph 76 noting the video data generated by the first camera 234 is received in response to detecting that the grabber 206 of the vehicle 202 is positioned proximate a refuse container 230) or operation of the lift assembly (Smith paragraph 69 noting the image or video data that is to be displayed by the graphical display system 220 is determined based on the detection of one or more events, such as the vehicle 202 conducting a dump cycle. The onboard computing device 232 may execute processes that perform an analysis of the data received from the body sensors 212, 214, 216 to detect the presence of a triggering condition, such as initiation of a dump cycle, the lift arm 204 being in a particular position in its dump cycle);
control the display interface to display the first view (Smith Fig. 2A showing camera 234 located on the side of the vehicle body, proximate to the lift assembly 204; and Smith paragraphs 70-71 noting the camera 234 images to the side of the vehicle to monitor the refuse container as it is lifted by the lift arm, and sensors can be used to monitor the angle of the lift arm during a dump cycle, and sends video to the display from camera 234 to monitor the refuse container being serviced and monitor the grabber 206 at the end of the lift arm 204);
determine that the lift assembly has lifted the refuse container to a position threshold (Smith paragraphs 78-80 noting video data is displayed in real time to the graphical display system 220, and the onboard computing device 232 determines whether a lift arm is above an angle threshold. When the lift arm is below the threshold, the images from camera 234 are shown, and when the angle is above the threshold, the video data from the second camera 236 is shown on the display); and
control the display interface to transition from displaying the first view to displaying at least the second view in response to the position threshold being reached (Smith paragraphs 78-80 noting video data is displayed in real time to the graphical display system 220, and the onboard computing device 232 determines whether a lift arm is above an angle threshold. When the lift arm is below the threshold, the images from camera 234 are shown, and when the angle is above the threshold, the video data from the second camera 236 is shown on the display).
In regard to claim 19, Smith teaches a refuse vehicle (Smith paragraph 38 noting vehicle 102 is a refuse collection vehicle that operates to collect and transport refuse (e.g., garbage and/or recycling). The refuse collection vehicle 102 can also be described as a garbage collection vehicle, or garbage truck) system (Smith paragraph 2 noting methods of operating a refuse collection vehicle and monitoring refuse collection performed by the refuse collection vehicle) comprising:
a lift assembly camera configured to positioned to capture a first view of a lift area proximate a lift assembly of a refuse vehicle (Smith Fig. 2A showing camera 234 located on the side of the vehicle body, proximate to the lift assembly 204; and Smith paragraphs 70-71 noting the camera 234 images to the side of the vehicle to monitor the refuse container as it is lifted by the lift arm, and sensors can be used to monitor the angle of the lift arm during a dump cycle, and sends video to the display from camera 234 to monitor the refuse container being serviced and monitor the grabber 206 at the end of the lift arm 204);
a hopper camera configured to be positioned to capture a second view of a hopper area of the refuse vehicle (Smith paragraph 72 noting camera 236 located on the top of the vehicle 202 to provide to the graphical display system 220, in real-time, images and/or video captured by the camera 236, including images and/or video of refuse being dumped from the refuse container 230 into the hopper 210); and
a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Smith paragraphs 85-87 noting storage devices and computer-readable media) having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors (Smith paragraph 84 noting processor(s) 810 may be configured to process instructions for execution within the system 800. The processor(s) 810 may include single-threaded processor(s), multi-threaded processor(s), or both. The processor(s) 810 may be configured to process instructions stored in the memory 820 or on the storage device(s) 830) to:
detect at least one of a refuse container proximate the refuse vehicle (Smith paragraph 76 noting the video data generated by the first camera 234 is received in response to detecting that the grabber 206 of the vehicle 202 is positioned proximate a refuse container 230) or operation of the lift assembly (Smith paragraph 69 noting the image or video data that is to be displayed by the graphical display system 220 is determined based on the detection of one or more events, such as the vehicle 202 conducting a dump cycle. The onboard computing device 232 may execute processes that perform an analysis of the data received from the body sensors 212, 214, 216 to detect the presence of a triggering condition, such as initiation of a dump cycle, the lift arm 204 being in a particular position in its dump cycle);
control a display interface of the refuse vehicle to display the first view (Smith Fig. 2A showing camera 234 located on the side of the vehicle body, proximate to the lift assembly 204; and Smith paragraphs 70-71 noting the camera 234 images to the side of the vehicle to monitor the refuse container as it is lifted by the lift arm, and sensors can be used to monitor the angle of the lift arm during a dump cycle, and sends video to the display from camera 234 to monitor the refuse container being serviced and monitor the grabber 206 at the end of the lift arm 204);
determine that the lift assembly has lifted the refuse container to a position threshold (Smith paragraphs 78-80 noting video data is displayed in real time to the graphical display system 220, and the onboard computing device 232 determines whether a lift arm is above an angle threshold. When the lift arm is below the threshold, the images from camera 234 are shown, and when the angle is above the threshold, the video data from the second camera 236 is shown on the display); and
control the display interface to transition from displaying the first view to displaying at least the second view in response to the position threshold being reached (Smith paragraphs 78-80 noting video data is displayed in real time to the graphical display system 220, and the onboard computing device 232 determines whether a lift arm is above an angle threshold. When the lift arm is below the threshold, the images from camera 234 are shown, and when the angle is above the threshold, the video data from the second camera 236 is shown on the display).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 13-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0234505), hereinafter referred to as Smith, in view of Eggers et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2004/0233124), hereinafter referred to as Eggers.
In regard to claim 1, Smith teaches a refuse vehicle (Smith paragraph 38 noting vehicle 102 is a refuse collection vehicle that operates to collect and transport refuse (e.g., garbage and/or recycling). The refuse collection vehicle 102 can also be described as a garbage collection vehicle, or garbage truck) comprising:
a chassis; a body coupled to the chassis (Smith paragraph 39 noting body components 104 of the vehicle 102 can include various components that are appropriate for the particular type of vehicle 102; Smith Fig. 2A showing a refuse vehicle with a body on a chassis), the body defining a refuse compartment (Smith paragraph 39 noting body components 104 may also include other types of components that operate to bring garbage into a hopper (or other storage area) of a truck; and Smith Fig. 2A showing hopper 210 on the refuse compartment of the refuse vehicle; and Smith paragraph 53 noting lifting a refuse container 230 and emptying its contents into the hopper 210);
a lift assembly configured to lift a refuse container to dump contents thereof into the refuse compartment (Smith paragraph 53 noting lifting a refuse container 230 and emptying its contents into the hopper 210; and Smith Fig. 2A showing refuse container 230 being lifted by the lift arm 204);
a display interface (Smith paragraph 60 noting images and/or video captured by camera(s) 234, 236 are provided to a graphical display system 220 and are displayed to the operator 150 using the graphical display system 220; and Smith Fig. 1 showing cameras and sensor data being processed by a computing device to create image data to display on a graphical display system);
a plurality of cameras positioned to capture a plurality of different views from the refuse vehicle (Smith Fig. 2A showing camera 234 located on the side of the vehicle body, proximate to the lift assembly 204; and Smith paragraphs 70-71 noting the camera 234 images to the side of the vehicle to monitor the refuse container as it is lifted by the lift arm, and sensors can be used to monitor the angle of the lift arm during a dump cycle, and sends video to the display from camera 234 to monitor the refuse container being serviced and monitor the grabber 206 at the end of the lift arm 204; Smith paragraph 72 noting camera 236 located on the top of the vehicle 202 to provide to the graphical display system 220, in real-time, images and/or video captured by the camera 236, including images and/or video of refuse being dumped from the refuse container 230 into the hopper 210); and
a controller (Smith paragraph 71 noting onboard computing device 232) configured to:
display, on the display interface, at least one of the plurality of different views (Smith Fig. 2A showing camera 234 located on the side of the vehicle body, proximate to the lift assembly 204; and Smith paragraphs 70-71 noting the camera 234 images to the side of the vehicle to monitor the refuse container as it is lifted by the lift arm, and sensors can be used to monitor the angle of the lift arm during a dump cycle, and sends video to the display from camera 234 to monitor the refuse container being serviced and monitor the grabber 206 at the end of the lift arm 204; Smith paragraphs 78-80 noting video data is displayed in real time to the graphical display system 220, and the onboard computing device 232 determines whether a lift arm is above an angle threshold. When the lift arm is below the threshold, the images from camera 234 are shown, and when the angle is above the threshold, the video data from the second camera 236 is shown on the display).
However, Smith does not expressly disclose assign priority values to the plurality of different views; compare the priority values; and display at least one view based on the comparison of the priority values.
In the same field of endeavor, Eggers teaches assign priority values to the plurality of different views; compare the priority values; and display at least one view based on the comparison of the priority values (Eggers abstract noting a process for displaying multiple image data on a single vehicle display based on prioritization parameters of the image data; Eggers paragraph 11 noting image data assigned the highest priority could nearly fill the vehicle display while other image data takes up a comparatively small surface area of the vehicle display. It’s possible that multiple image data can be displayed simultaneously in different screen segments, e.g. two sets of image data having the same priority could be displayed half and half on the screen. Of course, here also a subdivision into further partial screens is conceivable, each of which partial screens could each have the same size or have different sizes. The number and size of the partial displays is herein principally undertaken on the basis of the image prioritization; and Eggers paragraph 12 noting respective image data can automatically be assigned to a position within a partial screen on the vehicle display, as determined by their priority).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Smith with the teachings of Eggers, because both disclosures relate to vehicles that are equipped with image providing assist systems, and display information on a display to an operator of the vehicle to better utilize vehicle systems. The teachings of Smith include changing the display view from one camera to another and back based on parameters such as a threshold height of the lift arm of the refuse collection system, to provide the most useful video feed to the driver at any given time in the trash collection process. The teachings of Eggers include providing prioritization parameters to different image feeds, and displaying either one or multiple in different sizes on the display based on the prioritization parameters. These teachings would benefit the teachings of Smith, both in providing the ability to see multiple video feeds on the display screen simultaneously, and having those video feeds displayed in different portions, sizes, or the entirety of the display based on prioritization parameters as needed during the system’s operation. This would provide added flexibility in how the camera feeds are displayed, and also allow for both the lift arm and hopper cameras to be seen on the display at the same time, if desired. As such, modified to incorporate the teachings of Eggers, the teachings of Smith include all of the limitations presented in claim 1.
In regard to claim 13, Smith teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above. In addition, Smith teaches wherein the controller is configured to control the display interface to display the second view in response to the position threshold being reached (Smith paragraphs 78-80 noting video data is displayed in real time to the graphical display system 220, and the onboard computing device 232 determines whether a lift arm is above an angle threshold. When the lift arm is below the threshold, the images from camera 234 are shown, and when the angle is above the threshold, the video data from the second camera 236 is shown on the display).
However, Smith does not expressly disclose displaying the first and the second view.
In the same field of endeavor, Eggers teaches displaying two sets of image data on the display simultaneously (Eggers abstract noting a process for displaying multiple image data on a single vehicle display based on prioritization parameters of the image data; Eggers paragraph 11 noting image data assigned the highest priority could nearly fill the vehicle display while other image data takes up a comparatively small surface area of the vehicle display. It’s possible that multiple image data can be displayed simultaneously in different screen segments, e.g. two sets of image data having the same priority could be displayed half and half on the screen. Of course, here also a subdivision into further partial screens is conceivable, each of which partial screens could each have the same size or have different sizes. The number and size of the partial displays is herein principally undertaken on the basis of the image prioritization; and Eggers paragraph 12 noting respective image data can automatically be assigned to a position within a partial screen on the vehicle display, as determined by their priority).
It would have been obvious, to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Smith with the teachings of Eggers for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 1. As such, it would have been obvious that a system that assigns prioritization parameters to different sets of image data, and switches the display size of each of those sets of image data on the display to be capable of either displaying one, the other, or both equally on halves of the screen, or in different size ratios based on priority, when applied to the display screen of Smith, could assign higher priority to the second view when the threshold is reached, which would display that camera feed larger on the screen, but still be capable of displaying the first view in a smaller, lower priority manner, and thus would be displaying both the first and second views. As such, modified to incorporate the teachings of Eggers, and that which would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the teachings of Smith include all of the limitations of claim 13.
In regard to claim 14, Smith and Eggers teach all of the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above. In addition, Eggers teaches wherein the second view is larger than the first view (Eggers abstract noting a process for displaying multiple image data on a single vehicle display based on prioritization parameters of the image data; Eggers paragraph 11 noting image data assigned the highest priority could nearly fill the vehicle display while other image data takes up a comparatively small surface area of the vehicle display. It’s possible that multiple image data can be displayed simultaneously in different screen segments, e.g. two sets of image data having the same priority could be displayed half and half on the screen. Of course, here also a subdivision into further partial screens is conceivable, each of which partial screens could each have the same size or have different sizes. The number and size of the partial displays is herein principally undertaken on the basis of the image prioritization; and Eggers paragraph 12 noting respective image data can automatically be assigned to a position within a partial screen on the vehicle display, as determined by their priority).
It would have been obvious, to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Smith with the teachings of Eggers for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 1. As such, it would have been obvious that a system that assigns prioritization parameters to different sets of image data, and switches the display size of each of those sets of image data on the display to be capable of either displaying one, the other, or both equally on halves of the screen, or in different size ratios based on priority, when applied to the display screen of Smith, could assign higher priority to the second view when the threshold is reached, which would display that camera feed larger on the screen, but still be capable of displaying the first view in a smaller, lower priority manner, and thus would be displaying both the first and second views. As such, modified to incorporate the teachings of Eggers, and that which would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the teachings of Smith include all of the limitations of claim 14.
In regard to claim 20, Smith teaches all of the limitations of claim 19 as discussed above. In addition, Smith teaches wherein the controller is configured to control the display interface to display the second view in response to the position threshold being reached.
However, Smith does not expressly disclose displaying the first and the second view; and wherein the second view is larger than the first view.
In the same field of endeavor, Eggers teaches displaying two sets of image data on the display simultaneously; and wherein the second view is larger than the first view (Eggers abstract noting a process for displaying multiple image data on a single vehicle display based on prioritization parameters of the image data; Eggers paragraph 11 noting image data assigned the highest priority could nearly fill the vehicle display while other image data takes up a comparatively small surface area of the vehicle display. It’s possible that multiple image data can be displayed simultaneously in different screen segments, e.g. two sets of image data having the same priority could be displayed half and half on the screen. Of course, here also a subdivision into further partial screens is conceivable, each of which partial screens could each have the same size or have different sizes. The number and size of the partial displays is herein principally undertaken on the basis of the image prioritization; and Eggers paragraph 12 noting respective image data can automatically be assigned to a position within a partial screen on the vehicle display, as determined by their priority).
It would have been obvious, to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Smith with the teachings of Eggers for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 1. As such, it would have been obvious that a system that assigns prioritization parameters to different sets of image data, and switches the display size of each of those sets of image data on the display to be capable of either displaying one, the other, or both equally on halves of the screen, or in different size ratios based on priority, when applied to the display screen of Smith, could assign higher priority to the second view when the threshold is reached, which would display that camera feed larger on the screen, but still be capable of displaying the first view in a smaller, lower priority manner, and thus would be displaying both the first and second views. As such, modified to incorporate the teachings of Eggers, and that which would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the teachings of Smith include all of the limitations of claim 20.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0234505), hereinafter referred to as Smith, in view of Davis et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0118854), hereinafter referred to as Davis.
In regard to claim 15, Smith teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above. However, Smith does not expressly disclose further comprising a backup camera positioned to capture a third view of a reverse area rearward of the refuse vehicle.
In the same field of endeavor, Davis teaches further comprising a backup camera positioned to capture a third view of a reverse area rearward of the refuse vehicle (Davis paragraph 58 noting when the refuse truck 10 begins traveling in reverse, the primary display can present the live images provided by the back-up camera, which can allow the driver to better position the vehicle and avoid otherwise awkward body positioning to drive the vehicle rearward).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Smith with the teachings of Davis, because similar to Smith, Davis describes a refuse vehicle with a camera system that can monitor the lift arm and hopper areas of the vehicle, and provide these feeds to displays that the driver uses to help monitor operation of the refuse vehicle. The teachings of Davis also include additional cameras such as the back-up camera, and further ability to display different feeds onto the display during different operations of the vehicle for aiding the driver in various operations. As such, modified to incorporate the teachings of Davis, the teachings of Smith include all of the limitations presented in claim 15.
In regard to claim 16, Smith and Davis teach all of the limitations of claim 15 as discussed above. In addition, Smith teaches wherein the controller is configured to: detect that the refuse vehicle is performing a reverse operation (Smith paragraph 69 noting the image or video data that is to be displayed by the graphical display system 220 is determined based on the detection of one or more events, such as the vehicle 202 conducting a dump cycle, the vehicle 202 being switched into a reverse gear).
However, Smith does not expressly disclose control the display interface to display at least the third view.
In the same field of endeavor, Eggers teaches control the display interface to display at least the third view (Davis paragraph 58 noting when the refuse truck 10 begins traveling in reverse, the primary display can present the live images provided by the back-up camera, which can allow the driver to better position the vehicle and avoid otherwise awkward body positioning to drive the vehicle rearward).
It would have been obvious, to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Smith with the teachings of Davis for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 15.
Claims 2-11 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0234505), hereinafter referred to as Smith, in view of Eggers et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2004/0233124), hereinafter referred to as Eggers, in further view of Davis et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0118854), hereinafter referred to as Davis.
In regard to claim 2, Smith and Eggers teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, Smith teaches wherein the plurality of cameras include a lift assembly camera positioned to capture a second view of a second area proximate the lift assembly, and a hopper camera positioned to capture a third view of a hopper area of the refuse compartment.
However, Smith does not expressly disclose a backup camera positioned to capture a first view of a first area rearward of the refuse vehicle.
In the same field of endeavor, Davis teaches a backup camera positioned to capture a first view of a first area rearward of the refuse vehicle (Davis paragraph 58 noting when the refuse truck 10 begins traveling in reverse, the primary display can present the live images provided by the back-up camera, which can allow the driver to better position the vehicle and avoid otherwise awkward body positioning to drive the vehicle rearward).
It would have been obvious, to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Smith with the teachings of Eggers for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 1. Additionally, it would have been obvious to combine these teachings with the teachings of Davis, because similar to Smith, Davis describes a refuse vehicle with a camera system that can monitor the lift arm and hopper areas of the vehicle, and provide these feeds to displays that the driver uses to help monitor operation of the refuse vehicle. The teachings of Davis also include additional cameras such as the back-up camera, and further ability to display different feeds onto the display during different operations of the vehicle for aiding the driver in various operations. As such, modified to incorporate the teachings of Davis, the teachings of Smith and Eggers include all of the limitations presented in claim 2.
In regard to claim 3, Smith, Eggers, and Davis teach all of the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above. In addition, Smith teaches wherein the controller (Smith onboard computing device 232 ) is configured to:
display one of the first view, the second view, or the third view on the display interface at a first point in time (Smith Fig. 2A showing camera 234 located on the side of the vehicle body, proximate to the lift assembly 204; and Smith paragraphs 70-71 noting the camera 234 images to the side of the vehicle to monitor the refuse container as it is lifted by the lift arm, and sensors can be used to monitor the angle of the lift arm during a dump cycle, and sends video to the display from camera 234 to monitor the refuse container being serviced and monitor the grabber 206 at the end of the lift arm 204; Smith paragraphs 78-80 noting video data is displayed in real time to the graphical display system 220, and the onboard computing device 232 determines whether a lift arm is above an angle threshold. When the lift arm is below the threshold, the images from camera 234 are shown, and when the angle is above the threshold, the video data from the second camera 236 is shown on the display).
However, Smith does not expressly disclose display two of the first view, the second view, or the third view simultaneously on the display interface at a second point in time.
In the same field of endeavor, Eggers teaches displaying two sets of image data on the display simultaneously (Eggers abstract noting a process for displaying multiple image data on a single vehicle display based on prioritization parameters of the image data; Eggers paragraph 11 noting image data assigned the highest priority could nearly fill the vehicle display while other image data takes up a comparatively small surface area of the vehicle display. It’s possible that multiple image data can be displayed simultaneously in different screen segments, e.g. two sets of image data having the same priority could be displayed half and half on the screen. Of course, here also a subdivision into further partial screens is conceivable, each of which partial screens could each have the same size or have different sizes. The number and size of the partial displays is herein principally undertaken on the basis of the image prioritization; and Eggers paragraph 12 noting respective image data can automatically be assigned to a position within a partial screen on the vehicle display, as determined by their priority).
It would have been obvious, to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Smith with the teachings of Eggers and Davis for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 2. As such, it would have been obvious that a system that assigns prioritization parameters to different sets of image data, and switches the display size of each of those sets of image data on the display to be capable of either displaying one, the other, or both equally on halves of the screen, or in different size ratios based on priority, when applied to the display screen of Smith, could assign higher priority to the second view when the threshold is reached, which would display that camera feed larger on the screen, but still be capable of displaying the first view in a smaller, lower priority manner, and thus would be displaying both the first and second views. As such, modified to incorporate the teachings of Eggers, Davis, and that which would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the teachings of Smith include all of the limitations of claim 3.
In regard to claim 4, Smith, Eggers, and Davis teach all of the limitations of claim 3 as discussed above. In addition, Eggers teaches wherein the two of the first view, the second view, or the third view at the second point in time are different sizes on the display interface based on the priority values (Eggers abstract noting a process for displaying multiple image data on a single vehicle display based on prioritization parameters of the image data; Eggers paragraph 11 noting image data assigned the highest priority could nearly fill the vehicle display while other image data takes up a comparatively small surface area of the vehicle display. It’s possible that multiple image data can be displayed simultaneously in different screen segments, e.g. two sets of image data having the same priority could be displayed half and half on the screen. Of course, here also a subdivision into further partial screens is conceivable, each of which partial screens could each have the same size or have different sizes. The number and size of the partial displays is herein principally undertaken on the basis of the image prioritization; and Eggers paragraph 12 noting respective image data can automatically be assigned to a position within a partial screen on the vehicle display, as determined by their priority).
It would have been obvious, to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Smith with the teachings of Eggers and Davis for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 2. As such, it would have been obvious that a system that assigns prioritization parameters to different sets of image data, and switches the display size of each of those sets of image data on the display to be capable of either displaying one, the other, or both equally on halves of the screen, or in different size ratios based on priority, when applied to the display screen of Smith, could assign higher priority to the second view when the threshold is reached, which would display that camera feed larger on the screen, but still be capable of displaying the first view in a smaller, lower priority manner, and thus would be displaying both the first and second views. As such, modified to incorporate the teachings of Eggers, Davis, and that which would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the teachings of Smith include all of the limitations of claim 4.
In regard to claim 5, Smith, Eggers, and Davis teach all of the limitations of claim 4 as discussed above. In addition, Eggers teaches wherein the controller is configured to determine the priority values based on a vehicle event or operation (Eggers paragraph 9 noting that the image data displayed on the display is subjected to prioritization based on operating parameters; and Eggers paragraphs 3 and 6 noting that image data processing and depiction upon the display can be based on events or scenarios such as detecting objects with sensors, etc.).
It would have been obvious, to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Smith with the teachings of Eggers and Davis for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 2.
In regard to claim 6, Smith, Eggers, and Davis teach all of the limitations of claim 5 as discussed above. In addition, Smith teaches wherein the vehicle event or operation includes at least one of detection of a refuse container proximate the refuse vehicle (Smith paragraph 76 noting the video data generated by the first camera 234 is received in response to detecting that the grabber 206 of the vehicle 202 is positioned proximate a refuse container 230) or operation of the lift assembly (Smith paragraph 69 noting the image or video data that is to be displayed by the graphical display system 220 is determined based on the detection of one or more events, such as the vehicle 202 conducting a dump cycle. The onboard computing device 232 may execute processes that perform an analysis of the data received from the body sensors 212, 214, 216 to detect the presence of a triggering condition, such as initiation of a dump cycle, the lift arm 204 being in a particular position in its dump cycle), and
wherein the controller is configured to prioritize the second view in response to the at least one of detection of the refuse container proximate the refuse vehicle or the operation of the lift assembly (Smith Fig. 2A showing camera 234 located on the side of the vehicle body, proximate to the lift assembly 204; and Smith paragraphs 70-71 noting the camera 234 images to the side of the vehicle to monitor the refuse container as it is lifted by the lift arm, and sensors can be used to monitor the angle of the lift arm during a dump cycle, and sends video to the display from camera 234 to monitor the refuse container being serviced and monitor the grabber 206 at the end of the lift arm 204; and Smith paragraphs 78-80 noting video data is displayed in real time to the graphical display system 220, and the onboard computing device 232 determines whether a lift arm is above an angle threshold. When the lift arm is below the threshold, the images from camera 234 are shown, and when the angle is above the threshold, the video data from the second camera 236 is shown on the display).
However, Smith does not expressly disclose assign a higher priority value to the second view than the first view and the third view.
In the same field of endeavor, Eggers teaches assigning priority values to video data feeds based on vehicle operations (Eggers paragraph 9 noting that the image data displayed on the display is subjected to prioritization based on operating parameters; and Eggers paragraphs 3 and 6 noting that image data processing and depiction upon the display can be based on events or scenarios such as detecting objects with sensors, etc.).
It would have been obvious, to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Smith with the teachings of Eggers and Davis for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 2.
In regard to claim 7, Smith, Eggers, and Davis teach all of the limitations of claim 6 as discussed above. In addition, Smith teaches wherein the vehicle event or operation includes detecting the refuse container proximate the refuse vehicle (Smith paragraph 76 noting the video data generated by the first camera 234 is received in response to detecting that the grabber 206 of the vehicle 202 is positioned proximate a refuse container 230).
It would have been obvious, to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Smith with the teachings of Eggers and Davis for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 2.
In regard to claim 8, Smith, Eggers, and Davis teach all of the limitations of claim 6 as discussed above. In addition, Smith teaches wherein the operation of the lift assembly includes engaging with the refuse container (Smith paragraph 76 noting the video data generated by the first camera 234 is received in response to detecting that the grabber 206 of the vehicle 202 is positioned proximate a refuse container 230; and Smith paragraph 54 noting container detection sensors 214, 216 detect whether a can is fully engaged by the grabber mechanism 206; and Smith paragraph 69 noting in some implementations, the images and/or video are provided to the graphical display system 220 at least in part based on data received from one or more body sensors 212, 214, 216) and lifting the refuse container towards the hopper area (Smith paragraph 78 noting onboard computing device 232 can determine whether the lift arm 204 of the vehicle 202 is above a threshold angle relative to the surface on which the vehicle 202 is positioned (e.g., the road surface). In some implementations, the threshold angle corresponds to an angle of the lift arm 204 at which contents of the refuse container 230 engaged by the grabber 206 are being dumped into the hopper 210 (e.g., as depicted in FIG. 2C); and Smith paragraph 80 noting as can be seen in FIG. 7, the video stream generated by the second camera 236 depicts the top of the vehicle 202, including the hopper 210 of the vehicle 202 and any refuse being dumped from the refuse container 230 into the vehicle 202) , and wherein the controller is configured (Smith paragraph 69 noting the computing device can send a signal to one or more cameras 234, 236 to provide images and/or video captured by the camera to the graphical display system 220 via the onboard computing device 232) to:
determine that the lift assembly has lifted the refuse container to a position threshold (Smith paragraphs 78-80 noting video data is displayed in real time to the graphical display system 220, and the onboard computing device 232 determines whether a lift arm is above an angle threshold. When the lift arm is below the threshold, the images from camera 234 are shown, and when the angle is above the threshold, the video data from the second camera 236 is shown on the display).
However, Smith does not expressly disclose assign a higher priority value to the third view than the second view in response to the lift assembly reaching the position threshold.
In the same field of endeavor, Eggers teaches Eggers teaches assigning priority values to video data feeds based on vehicle operations (Eggers paragraph 9 noting that the image data displayed on the display is subjected to prioritization based on operating parameters; and Eggers paragraphs 3 and 6 noting that image data processing and depiction upon the display can be based on events or scenarios such as detecting objects with sensors, etc.).
It would have been obvious, to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Smith with the teachings of Eggers and Davis for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 2.
In regard to claim 9, Smith, Eggers, and Davis teach all of the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above. In addition, Smith teaches wherein the controller is configured to transition from only displaying the second view to displaying at least the third view in response to the position threshold being reached (Smith paragraphs 78-80 noting video data is displayed in real time to the graphical display system 220, and the onboard computing device 232 determines whether a lift arm is above an angle threshold. When the lift arm is below the threshold, the images from camera 234 are shown, and when the angle is above the threshold, the video data from the second camera 236 is shown on the display).
It would have been obvious, to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Smith with the teachings of Eggers and Davis for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 2.
In regard to claim 10, Smith, Eggers, and Davis teach all of the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above. In addition, Smith teaches wherein the controller is configured to display the third view in response to the position threshold being reached.
However, Smith does not expressly disclose display the second view and the third view; the third view being larger than the second view.
In the same field of endeavor, Eggers teaches displaying two sets of image data on the display simultaneously; and wherein the third view is larger than the second view (Eggers abstract noting a process for displaying multiple image data on a single vehicle display based on prioritization parameters of the image data; Eggers paragraph 11 noting image data assigned the highest priority could nearly fill the vehicle display while other image data takes up a comparatively small surface area of the vehicle display. It’s possible that multiple image data can be displayed simultaneously in different screen segments, e.g. two sets of image data having the same priority could be displayed half and half on the screen. Of course, here also a subdivision into further partial screens is conceivable, each of which partial screens could each have the same size or have different sizes. The number and size of the partial displays is herein principally undertaken on the basis of the image prioritization; and Eggers paragraph 12 noting respective image data can automatically be assigned to a position within a partial screen on the vehicle display, as determined by their priority).
It would have been obvious, to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Smith with the teachings of Eggers and Davis for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 2. As such, it would have been obvious that a system that assigns prioritization parameters to different sets of image data, and switches the display size of each of those sets of image data on the display to be capable of either displaying one, the other, or both equally on halves of the screen, or in different size ratios based on priority, when applied to the display screen of Smith, could assign higher priority to the third view when the threshold is reached, which would display that camera feed larger on the screen, but still be capable of displaying the second view in a smaller, lower priority manner, and thus would be displaying both the second and third views. As such, modified to incorporate the teachings of Eggers, Davis, and that which would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the teachings of Smith include all of the limitations of claim 10.
In regard to claim 11, Smith, Eggers, and Davis teach all of the limitations of claim 5 as discussed above. In addition, Davis teaches wherein the vehicle event or operation includes a reverse operation of the refuse vehicle, and wherein the controller is configured to prioritize the first view in response to the reverse operation of the refuse vehicle (Davis paragraph 58 noting when the refuse truck 10 begins traveling in reverse, the primary display can present the live images provided by the back-up camera, which can allow the driver to better position the vehicle and avoid otherwise awkward body positioning to drive the vehicle rearward).
However, Davis does not expressly disclose assign a higher priority value to the first view than the second view and the third view.
In the same field of endeavor, Eggers teaches assigning priority values to video data feeds based on vehicle operations (Eggers paragraph 9 noting that the image data displayed on the display is subjected to prioritization based on operating parameters; and Eggers paragraphs 3 and 6 noting that image data processing and depiction upon the display can be based on events or scenarios such as detecting objects with sensors, etc.).
It would have been obvious, to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Smith with the teachings of Eggers and Davis for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 2.
In regard to claim 17, Smith and Davis teach all of the limitations of claim 16 as discussed above. In addition, Davis teaches wherein the controller is configured to display the third view in response the reverse operation (Davis paragraph 58 noting when the refuse truck 10 begins traveling in reverse, the primary display can present the live images provided by the back-up camera, which can allow the driver to better position the vehicle and avoid otherwise awkward body positioning to drive the vehicle rearward).
However, Davis does not expressly disclose display the first view and the third view.
In the same field of endeavor, Eggers teaches displaying two sets of image data on the display simultaneously (Eggers abstract noting a process for displaying multiple image data on a single vehicle display based on prioritization parameters of the image data; Eggers paragraph 11 noting image data assigned the highest priority could nearly fill the vehicle display while other image data takes up a comparatively small surface area of the vehicle display. It’s possible that multiple image data can be displayed simultaneously in different screen segments, e.g. two sets of image data having the same priority could be displayed half and half on the screen. Of course, here also a subdivision into further partial screens is conceivable, each of which partial screens could each have the same size or have different sizes. The number and size of the partial displays is herein principally undertaken on the basis of the image prioritization; and Eggers paragraph 12 noting respective image data can automatically be assigned to a position within a partial screen on the vehicle display, as determined by their priority).
It would have been obvious, to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Smith with the teachings of Eggers and Davis for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 2. As such, it would have been obvious that a system that assigns prioritization parameters to different sets of image data, and switches the display size of each of those sets of image data on the display to be capable of either displaying one, the other, or both equally on halves of the screen, or in different size ratios based on priority, when applied to the display screen of Smith, could assign higher priority to the second view when the threshold is reached, which would display that camera feed larger on the screen, but still be capable of displaying the first view in a smaller, lower priority manner, and thus would be displaying both the first and second views. As such, modified to incorporate the teachings of Eggers, Davis, and that which would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the teachings of Smith include all of the limitations of claim 17.
In regard to claim 18, Smith, Eggers, and Davis teach all of the limitations of claim 17 as discussed above. In addition, Eggers teaches wherein the third view is larger than the first view (Eggers abstract noting a process for displaying multiple image data on a single vehicle display based on prioritization parameters of the image data; Eggers paragraph 11 noting image data assigned the highest priority could nearly fill the vehicle display while other image data takes up a comparatively small surface area of the vehicle display. It’s possible that multiple image data can be displayed simultaneously in different screen segments, e.g. two sets of image data having the same priority could be displayed half and half on the screen. Of course, here also a subdivision into further partial screens is conceivable, each of which partial screens could each have the same size or have different sizes. The number and size of the partial displays is herein principally undertaken on the basis of the image prioritization; and Eggers paragraph 12 noting respective image data can automatically be assigned to a position within a partial screen on the vehicle display, as determined by their priority).
It would have been obvious, to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Smith with the teachings of Eggers and Davis for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 2. As such, it would have been obvious that a system that assigns prioritization parameters to different sets of image data, and switches the display size of each of those sets of image data on the display to be capable of either displaying one, the other, or both equally on halves of the screen, or in different size ratios based on priority, when applied to the display screen of Smith, could assign higher priority to the second view when the threshold is reached, which would display that camera feed larger on the screen, but still be capable of displaying the first view in a smaller, lower priority manner, and thus would be displaying both the first and second views. As such, modified to incorporate the teachings of Eggers, Davis, and that which would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the teachings of Smith include all of the limitations of claim 18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wildgrube et al. – U.S. Publication No. 2021/0271884
A refuse vehicle includes a body defining a refuse compartment, a refuse collection arm configured to engage and lift a refuse container, an object detection system configured to provide object detection data relating to locations of objects relative to the refuse vehicle, and a controller. The controller is configured to use the object detection data to determine if the refuse container is present within an aligned zone relative to the refuse vehicle.
Maroney et al. – U.S. Publication No. 2020/0247609
A refuse collection vehicle that can have one or more cameras mounted on the vehicle arranged to capture a container before, after, and/or during the operations of body components to empty the container into the hopper of the vehicle. Whenever lift arm is raised above the threshold angle, the images and/or video being provided to the graphical display for display on graphical display are automatically switched from image(s)/video provided by the side view camera to image(s)/video provided by the top view camera.
Elbrink – U.S. Publication No. 2003/0031543
A refuse collection vehicle, comprising a cab, a chassis with loading container for refuse, a side loading device for picking up refuse containers and emptying them, a press device for compressing and image means for taking an image of the working area of the side loading device. The image-taking means are connected to image-display means in the cab.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER B EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)272-2738. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Sathyanarayanan Perungavoor can be reached at (571)272-7455. 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.
/TYLER B. EDWARDS/
Examiner
Art Unit 2488
/SATH V PERUNGAVOOR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights