DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. This office action is in response to Amendments and Remarks filed on 05/13/2026 for application number 18/922,057 filed on 10/21/2024, in which claims 1-20 were previously presented for examination.
3. Claim(s) 1, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16 has/have been amended. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-20 is/are currently pending.
Examiner Notes
4. The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure (see MPEP §2163.06). Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) of the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed 05/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
6. Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been addressed in the new rejection outlined below.
7. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8, and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Furthermore, Applicant’s amendments have necessitated new reference Musso et al. (US-20200039167-A1), which upon review was found to also teach a number of other features of the independent claims 8 and 14 and therefore has fully replaced Gillmore et al. (US-20150175353-A1) and this reference is no longer relied upon for the rejection of claims 8, 14 and their dependent claims.
8. Applicant argues dependent claim(s) is/are patentable by the virtue of their dependency on one of the allowable independent claims and the additional features recited in the dependent claims.
9. This argument is unpersuasive as each independent claim and dependent claim has been fully rejected and for the reasons given above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. Claim(s) 1, 3, 7-8, 12, and 14
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerman et al. (US-20130239827-A1) in view of Musso et al. (US-20200039167-A1).
In regard to claim 1
, Zimmerman discloses a refuse vehicle, comprising (Fig. 1, [0008], Fig. 1 depicts a conventional refuse truck):
a chassis (Figs. 1, and [0032], the container 20 is located behind a cab 12 of the refuse truck and mounted on a frame 13 [i.e., a chassis]);
a body supported by the chassis and defining a receptacle configured to store refuse therein (Fig. 1, and [0032-0033], the container 20 [i.e., a body] is located behind a cab 12 of the refuse truck and mounted on a frame 13 [i.e., supported by the chassis]. The container 20 has a refuse compartment 59 [i.e., a receptacle], for containing refuse [i.e., to store refuse]);
a tailgate pivotally coupled to the body and selectively repositionable between an open position and a closed position (Fig. 1, and [0032], the container 20 has a rear door 28 [i.e., a tailgate] which is securely closed when the refuse truck collects refuse and is opened when refuse is unloaded from the container 20 [implies an open position and a closed position]. As portrayed by Fig. 14, the rear door is pivotally coupled to the container 20);
a lock that is configured to releasably secure the tailgate in the closed position, the lock selectively repositionable between a locked position and an unlocked position (Fig. 1, and [0032], the rear door 28 is securely closed [implies a lock and locked position] when the refuse truck collects refuse and is opened [implies unlocked position] when refuse is unloaded from the container 20);
an ejector positioned within the receptacle, wherein the ejector is slidable within the receptacle between a first position that is spaced from the tailgate and a second position proximate the tailgate (Figs. 3, 7-10, and [0038-0042], the compacting system 100, comprising two hydraulic cylinders 90 and a packer panel 130 [i.e., an ejector], compacts refuse within container 20 of a refuse truck. The hydraulic cylinders 90 are activated by an operator and provide forces for pushing and pulling the packer panel 130. Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 depict the system of Fig. 3 when the packer panel 130 is in a compacting position at compacting location 42 [i.e., a first position]. Fig. 9 and Fig. 10 depict the system of Fig. 3 when the packer panel 130 has transitioned to an unloading location 44 [i.e., a second position]. Examiner notes, as portrayed by Fig. 3, the compacting position 42 is spaced from the tailgate and the unloading location 44, or the second position, is near the tailgate); and
Zimmerman does not teach a processor configured to receive a single input that initiates an automated refuse ejection sequence; and
in response to receiving the single input, provide command signals to (a) selectively reconfigure the lock into the unlocked position to unlock the tailgate, (b) transition the tailgate from the closed position to the open position after reconfiguring the lock into the unlocked position, and (c) transition the ejector from the first position to the second position to thereby eject refuse from the receptacle without receiving multiple input commands.
However, Musso teaches a sequencing system which is operatively connected between a pushing device for a compartment and an actuator for closing and latching the shields, which prevents operation of the pushing device to discharge refuse from the compartment unless the shield for that compartment is unlatched. The sequencing system is controlled electronically via a control box including a microcontroller configured to receive inputs from sensors. The refuse 109 is pushed against packing faces 162, 164, 166 on the ejection cylinders 168, 170, 172. The cylinders 168, 170, 172 retract as the compartments 114, 116, 118 fill with packed refuse. The ejection cylinders 168, 170, 172 are extended to push the refuse out the back end of the truck into three different dumping stations for the respective three different kinds of refuse. The control box 223 includes a microcontroller [i.e., a processor] with memory loaded with firmware configured to receive inputs from sensors and actuate hydraulic valves according to a programmed sequence duplicating the coordinated sequence of actions produced by the hydraulic sequence valves. The operator controls discharge of refuse from each compartment by unlatching [i.e., receive a single input that initiates an automated refuse ejection sequence] the shields 302 for the compartment [i.e., (a) selectively reconfigure the lock into the unlocked position to unlock the tailgate, where shield 302 is the tailgate] to be emptied. In Fig. 16, the lower shield segment 304, of the shield 302 corresponding to the right hand refuse compartment 318 is in the open, unlatched position [i.e., (b) transition the tailgate from the closed position to the open position after reconfiguring the lock into the unlocked position, Examiner notes, unlatching or unlocking the shield initiates the sequence and opens the shield segment 304 of the shield 302]. A control system with respect to Figs. 5-15 will detect the unlatched position of the lower shield segment 304 and/or detect a hydraulic pressure in the actuators 308 for the lower shield segment 304 corresponding to the unlatched position, and enable operation of the ejector for the right-hand refuse compartment 318 [i.e., (c) transition the ejector from the first position to the second position to thereby eject refuse from the receptacle] (See at least Figs. 1-20, and [0007 & 0036 & 0056-0058]). Examiner notes, as explained above, for discharging the refuse, the ejection cylinders 168, 170, 172, which are connected to the packing faces 162, 164, 166, are extended to push the refuse out the back end of the truck. That means the packing face moves from the first position to the second position when the cylinder is extended. The combination of the ejection cylinder and its respective packing face form the ejector. Therefore, operation of the ejector, necessarily encompasses transitioning the ejector from the first position to the second position to thereby eject refuse from the receptacle. Furthermore, as mentioned above, the operator initiates the refuse ejection sequence by unlatching the shield which is a single input to the system and no further input is required by the operator. That means, the operation is carried out without receiving multiple input commands.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the refuse truck of Zimmerman, by incorporating the teachings of Musso, with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – refuse vehicles, such that the control box of Musso, including a microcontroller, is used to receive an unlatching input from the operator, and then the ejection sequence of the refuse is initiated.
The motivation to modify is that, as acknowledged by Musso, to provide a reliable, automatic sequencing of operations for discharging refuse from a truck body equipped with shield closures at a rear opening of the compartments (See at least [0006]) which one of ordinary skill would have recognized allows the refuse vehicle to be operated by only one person.
In regard to claim 3
, Zimmerman, as modified by Musso, teaches the refuse vehicle of claim 1, wherein the ejector is a compactor, and wherein the ejector is at least partially defined by a packer extending obliquely to a floor of the receptacle (Figs. 3, 9-10, and [0038 & 0042], the compacting system 100, comprising two hydraulic cylinders 90 and a packer panel 130, compacts refuse [implies compactor] within container 20 of a refuse truck. The hydraulic cylinders 90 are activated by an operator and provide forces for pushing and pulling the packer panel 130. Fig. 9 and Fig. 10 depict the system of Fig. 3 when the packer panel 130 has transitioned to an unloading location 44 [implies ejector]. Examiner notes, as depicted by Fig. 3 (reproduced and annotated below for Applicant’s convenience), the packer extends obliquely to a floor of the receptacle).
PNG
media_image1.png
710
1090
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 - Annotated Fig. 3 of Zimmerman
In regard to claim 7
, Zimmerman, as modified by Musso, teaches the refuse vehicle of claim 1, wherein the receptacle is pivotally coupled to the chassis and is selectively movable between a stowed position and a raised position, and wherein the raised position is angularly offset from the stowed position; and further comprising an actuator coupled to the chassis, wherein the actuator is selectively movable to transition the receptacle between the stowed position and the raised position, wherein the actuator is in communication with the processor (Fig. 14, and [0043], when the operator determines the refuse truck is full or otherwise needs to be unloaded, then the refuse truck travels to a land fill. Upon positioning the refuse truck for unloading, an unloading hydraulic cylinder 160 [i.e., the actuator] rotates the front wall 22 of container 20 upward (the z-direction) until the container floor 24 has sufficient slope [i.e., raised position] for the refuse to slide out of the container. Examiner notes, the stowed position is the normal position of the receptacle which is the position of the receptacle when it is not raised. As portrayed by Fig. 14 (reproduced and annotated below for Applicant’s convenience), the refuse compartment 59 [i.e., receptacle] is raised and the raised position is angularly offset from the stowed position. Furthermore, the unloading hydraulic cylinder 160 [i.e., the actuator] is coupled to frame 13 [i.e., chassis]).
Further, Musso teaches the sequencing system is controlled hydraulically by hydraulic sequence valves in cooperation with hydraulic actuators for each lower shield segment. The sequencing system is controlled electronically via a control box including a microcontroller configured to receive inputs from sensors (Fig. 1-10, and [0042]). Examiner notes, controlling the sequence by the control box, means the actuators are in communication with the control box, which includes a microprocessor.
PNG
media_image2.png
562
910
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 - Annotated Fig. 14 of Zimmerman
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the refuse truck of Zimmerman, as already modified by Musso, by further incorporating the teachings of Musso, with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle systems, such that the actuator is coupled to the processor as a module.
The motivation to modify is the same as acknowledged by Musso in regard to claim 1.
In regard to claim 8
, Zimmerman teaches a refuse vehicle, comprising (Fig. 1, [0008], Fig. 1 depicts a conventional refuse truck):
a chassis (Figs. 1, and [0032], the container 20 is located behind a cab 12 of the refuse truck and mounted on a frame 13 [i.e., a chassis]);
a body supported by the chassis and defining a receptacle configured to store refuse therein (Fig. 1, and [0032-0033], the container 20 [i.e., a body] is located behind a cab 12 of the refuse truck and mounted on a frame 13 [i.e., supported by the chassis]. The container 20 has a refuse compartment 59 [i.e., a receptacle], for containing refuse [i.e., to store refuse]), the receptacle pivotally coupled to the chassis and moveable between a first position and a second position that is angularly offset from the first position (Fig. 14, and [0043], when the operator determines the refuse truck is full or otherwise needs to be unloaded, then the refuse truck travels to a land fill. Upon positioning the refuse truck for unloading, an unloading hydraulic cylinder 160 rotates the front wall 22 of container 20 upward (the z-direction) until the container floor 24 has sufficient slope [i.e., second position] for the refuse to slide out of the container. Examiner notes, the first position is the normal position of the receptacle which is the position of the receptacle when it is not raised. As portrayed by Fig. 14 (reproduced and annotated above for Applicant’s convenience), the refuse compartment 59 [i.e., receptacle] is raised and the second position is angularly offset from the first position);
a tailgate is pivotally coupled to the body and selectively repositionable between an open position and a closed position (Fig. 1, and [0032], the container 20 has a rear door 28 [i.e., a tailgate]. The rear door 28 is securely closed when the refuse truck collects refuse and is opened when refuse is unloaded from the container 20 [implies an open position and a closed position]. As portrayed by Fig. 14 (reproduced above for Applicant’s convenience), the rear door is pivotally coupled to the container 20);
a lock configured to releasably secure the tailgate in the closed position, the lock selectively repositionable between a locked position and an unlocked position (Fig. 1, and [0032], the rear door 28 is securely closed [implies a lock and locked position] when the refuse truck collects refuse and is opened [implies unlocked position] when refuse is unloaded from the container 20);
a second actuator coupled to the chassis, the second actuator configured to transition the receptacle between the first position and the second position (Fig. 14, and [0043], when the operator determines the refuse truck is full or otherwise needs to be unloaded, then the refuse truck travels to a land fill. Upon positioning the refuse truck for unloading, an unloading hydraulic cylinder 160 [i.e., second actuator] rotates the front wall 22 of container 20 upward (the z-direction) until the container floor 24 has sufficient slope [i.e., second position] for the refuse to slide out of the container. Examiner notes, the first position is the normal position of the receptacle which is the position of the receptacle when it is not raised. As portrayed by Fig. 14 (reproduced and annotated above for Applicant’s convenience), the refuse compartment 59 [i.e., receptacle] is raised and the second position is angularly offset from the first position. Furthermore, the unloading hydraulic cylinder 160 [i.e., second actuator] is coupled to frame 13 [i.e., chassis]);
a third actuator coupled to the body and configured to transition an ejector within the body between a third position and a fourth position (Figs. 3, 7-10, and [0038-0042], the compacting system 100, comprising two hydraulic cylinders 90 [i.e., third actuator] and a packer panel 130 [i.e., an ejector], compacts refuse within container 20 of a refuse truck. The hydraulic cylinders 90 are activated by an operator and provide forces for pushing and pulling the packer panel 130. Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 depict the system of Fig. 3 when the packer panel 130 is in a compacting position at compacting location 42 [i.e., a third position]. Fig. 9 and Fig. 10 depict the system of Fig. 3 when the packer panel 130 has transitioned to an unloading location 44 [i.e., a fourth position]); and
(Fig. 14, and [0043], when the operator determines the refuse truck is full or otherwise needs to be unloaded, then the refuse truck travels to a land fill. Upon positioning the refuse truck for unloading, an unloading hydraulic cylinder 160 [i.e., second actuator] rotates the front wall 22 of container 20 upward (the z-direction) until the container floor 24 has sufficient slope [i.e., second position] for the refuse to slide out of the container. Examiner notes, the first position is the normal position of the receptacle which is the position of the receptacle when it is not raised), and .
Zimmerman does not teach a first actuator coupled to the tailgate and the body and configured to transition the tailgate from the closed position to the open position;
a processor configured to receive a single input that initiates an automated refuse ejection sequence; and in response to receiving the single input, provide command signals to (a) selectively reconfigure the lock into the unlocked position to unlock the tailgate, (b) the first actuator to transition the tailgate from the closed position to the open position, after reconfiguring the lock into the unlocked position, and (d) the third actuator to transition the ejector from the third position to the fourth position to thereby eject refuse from the receptacle without receiving multiple input commands.
However, Musso teaches a sequencing system which is operatively connected between a pushing device for a compartment and an actuator for closing and latching the shields, which prevents operation of the pushing device to discharge refuse from the compartment unless the shield for that compartment is unlatched. The sequencing system is controlled electronically via a control box including a microcontroller configured to receive inputs from sensors. The refuse 109 is pushed against packing faces 162, 164, 166 on the ejection cylinders 168, 170, 172. The cylinders 168, 170, 172 retract as the compartments 114, 116, 118 fill with packed refuse. The ejection cylinders 168, 170, 172 are extended to push the refuse out the back end of the truck into three different dumping stations for the respective three different kinds of refuse. The control box 223 includes a microcontroller [i.e., a processor] with memory loaded with firmware configured to receive inputs from sensors and actuate hydraulic valves according to a programmed sequence duplicating the coordinated sequence of actions produced by the hydraulic sequence valves. The operator controls discharge of refuse from each compartment by unlatching [i.e., receive a single input that initiates an automated refuse ejection sequence] the shields 302 for the compartment [i.e., (a) selectively reconfigure the lock into the unlocked position to unlock the tailgate, where shield 302 is the tailgate] to be emptied. In Fig. 16, the lower shield segment 304, of the shield 302 corresponding to the right hand refuse compartment 318 is in the open, unlatched position [i.e., (b) the first actuator to transition the tailgate from the closed position to the open position, after reconfiguring the lock into the unlocked position, Examiner notes, unlatching or unlocking the shield initiates the sequence and opens the shield segment 304 of the shield 302]. A control system with respect to Figs. 5-15 will detect the unlatched position of the lower shield segment 304 and/or detect a hydraulic pressure in the actuators 308 [i.e., a first actuator coupled to the tailgate and the body and configured to transition the tailgate from the closed position to the open position] for the lower shield segment 304 corresponding to the unlatched position, and enable operation of the ejector for the right-hand refuse compartment 318 [i.e., (d) the third actuator to transition the ejector from the third position to the fourth position to thereby eject refuse from the receptacle] (See at least Figs. 1-20, and [0007 & 0036 & 0056-0058]). Examiner notes, as explained above, for discharging the refuse, the ejection cylinders 168, 170, 172, which are connected to the packing faces 162, 164, 166, are extended to push the refuse out the back end of the truck. That means the packing face moves from the third position to the forth position when the cylinder is extended. The combination of the ejection cylinder and its respective packing face form the ejector. Therefore, operation of the ejector, necessarily encompasses transitioning the ejector from the first position to the second position to thereby eject refuse from the receptacle. Furthermore, as mentioned above, the operator initiates the refuse ejection sequence by unlatching the shield which is a single input to the system and no further input is required by the operator. That means, the operation is carried out without receiving multiple input commands.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the refuse truck of Zimmerman, by incorporating the teachings of Musso, with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – refuse vehicles, such that the control box of Musso, including a microcontroller, is used to receive an unlatching input from the operator, and then the ejection sequence of the refuse is initiated and the step of raising the front wall of container upward until the container floor has sufficient slope is added to the sequence and performed before enabling the operation of the ejector.
The motivation to modify is the same as acknowledged by Musso in regard to claim 1.
In regard to claim 12
, Zimmerman, as modified by Musso, teaches the refuse vehicle of claim 8, wherein the processor is configured to provide the command signals to the third actuator to transition the ejector from the third position to the fourth position after the tailgate has transitioned from the closed position to the open position.
Further, Musso teaches the operator controls discharge of refuse from each compartment by unlatching the shields 302 for the compartment to be emptied. In Fig. 16, the lower shield segment 304, of the shield 302 corresponding to the right hand refuse compartment 318 is in the open, unlatched position [i.e., the tailgate has transitioned from the closed position to the open position]. A control system [i.e., the processor] with respect to Figs. 5-15 will detect the unlatched position of the lower shield segment 304 and/or detect a hydraulic pressure in the actuators 308 for the lower shield segment 304 corresponding to the unlatched position, and enable operation of the ejector for the right-hand refuse compartment 318 [i.e., to provide the command signals to the third actuator to transition the ejector from the third position to the fourth position] (See at least Figs. 1-20, and [0058]). Examiner notes, unlatching or unlocking the shield initiates the sequence and opens the shield segment 304 of the shield 302 and when control system detects the open position of the shield, then the ejector is enabled. To activate the actuator, the control system, must necessarily provide a signal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the refuse truck of Zimmerman, as already modified by Musso, by further incorporating the teachings of Musso, with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – refuse vehicles, such that control system enables the ejector only when the shield is unlatched and the shield is in open position.
The motivation to modify is the same as acknowledged by Musso in regard to claim 1.
In regard to claim 14
, Zimmerman teaches a (Fig. 3, and [0038], Fig. 3 depicts an a compacting system 100):
a lock that is configured to releasably secure a tailgate of a refuse vehicle in a closed position, the lock selectively repositionable between a locked position and an unlocked position (Fig. 1, and [0032], the rear door 28 [i.e., a tailgate] is securely closed [implies a lock and locked position] when the refuse truck collects refuse and is opened [implies unlocked position] when refuse is unloaded from the container 20);
a second actuator configured to power movement of a body of a refuse vehicle relative to a chassis of the refuse vehicle between a first position and a second position (Fig. 14, and [0043], when the operator determines the refuse truck is full or otherwise needs to be unloaded, then the refuse truck travels to a land fill. Upon positioning the refuse truck for unloading, an unloading hydraulic cylinder 160 [i.e., second actuator] rotates the front wall 22 of container 20 upward (the z-direction) until the container floor 24 has sufficient slope [i.e., second position] for the refuse to slide out of the container. Examiner notes, the first position is the normal position of the receptacle which is the position of the receptacle when it is not raised. As portrayed by Fig. 14 (reproduced and annotated above for Applicant’s convenience), the refuse compartment 59 [i.e., receptacle] is raised and the second position is angularly offset from the first position. Furthermore, the unloading hydraulic cylinder 160 [i.e., second actuator] is coupled to frame 13 [i.e., chassis]);
a third actuator configured to transition an ejector within the body between a third position and a fourth position (Figs. 3, 7-10, and [0038-0042], the compacting system 100, comprising two hydraulic cylinders 90 [i.e., third actuator] and a packer panel 130 [i.e., an ejector], compacts refuse within container 20 of a refuse truck. The hydraulic cylinders 90 are activated by an operator and provide forces for pushing and pulling the packer panel 130. Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 depict the system of Fig. 3 when the packer panel 130 is in a compacting position at compacting location 42 [i.e., a third position]. Fig. 9 and Fig. 10 depict the system of Fig. 3 when the packer panel 130 has transitioned to an unloading location 44 [i.e., a fourth position]); and
(Fig. 14, and [0043], when the operator determines the refuse truck is full or otherwise needs to be unloaded, then the refuse truck travels to a land fill. Upon positioning the refuse truck for unloading, an unloading hydraulic cylinder 160 [i.e., second actuator] rotates the front wall 22 of container 20 upward (the z-direction) until the container floor 24 has sufficient slope [i.e., second position] for the refuse to slide out of the container. Examiner notes, the first position is the normal position of the receptacle which is the position of the receptacle when it is not raised), and .
Zimmerman does not teach a control system,
a first actuator configured to power movement of the tailgate from the closed position to an open position;
a processor configured to receive a single input that initiates an automated refuse ejection sequence; and
in response to the single input, provide command signals to (a) selectively reconfigure the lock into the unlocked position, (b) the first actuator to transition the tailgate from the closed position to the open position after reconfiguring the lock into the unlocked position, and (d) the third actuator to transition the ejector from the third position to the fourth position without receiving multiple input commands.
However, Musso teaches a sequencing system which is operatively connected between a pushing device for a compartment and an actuator for closing and latching the shields, which prevents operation of the pushing device to discharge refuse from the compartment unless the shield for that compartment is unlatched. The sequencing system is controlled electronically via a control box [i.e., a control system] including a microcontroller configured to receive inputs from sensors. The refuse 109 is pushed against packing faces 162, 164, 166 on the ejection cylinders 168, 170, 172. The cylinders 168, 170, 172 retract as the compartments 114, 116, 118 fill with packed refuse. The ejection cylinders 168, 170, 172 are extended to push the refuse out the back end of the truck into three different dumping stations for the respective three different kinds of refuse. The control box 223 includes a microcontroller [i.e., a processor] with memory loaded with firmware configured to receive inputs from sensors and actuate hydraulic valves according to a programmed sequence duplicating the coordinated sequence of actions produced by the hydraulic sequence valves. The operator controls discharge of refuse from each compartment by unlatching [i.e., receive a single input that initiates an automated refuse ejection sequence] the shields 302 for the compartment [i.e., (a) selectively reconfigure the lock into the unlocked position to unlock the tailgate, where shield 302 is the tailgate] to be emptied. In Fig. 16, the lower shield segment 304, of the shield 302 corresponding to the right hand refuse compartment 318 is in the open, unlatched position [i.e., (b) the first actuator to transition the tailgate from the closed position to the open position, after reconfiguring the lock into the unlocked position, Examiner notes, unlatching or unlocking the shield initiates the sequence and opens the shield segment 304 of the shield 302]. A control system with respect to Figs. 5-15 will detect the unlatched position of the lower shield segment 304 and/or detect a hydraulic pressure in the actuators 308 [i.e., a first actuator coupled to the tailgate and the body and configured to transition the tailgate from the closed position to the open position] for the lower shield segment 304 corresponding to the unlatched position, and enable operation of the ejector for the right-hand refuse compartment 318 [i.e., (d) the third actuator to transition the ejector from the third position to the fourth position to thereby eject refuse from the receptacle] (See at least Figs. 1-20, and [0007 & 0036 & 0056-0058]). Examiner notes, as explained above, for discharging the refuse, the ejection cylinders 168, 170, 172, which are connected to the packing faces 162, 164, 166, are extended to push the refuse out the back end of the truck. That means the packing face moves from the third position to the forth position when the cylinder is extended. The combination of the ejection cylinder and its respective packing face form the ejector. Therefore, operation of the ejector, necessarily encompasses transitioning the ejector from the first position to the second position to thereby eject refuse from the receptacle. Furthermore, as mentioned above, the operator initiates the refuse ejection sequence by unlatching the shield which is a single input to the system and no further input is required by the operator. That means, the operation is carried out without receiving multiple input commands.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the refuse truck of Zimmerman, by incorporating the teachings of Musso, with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – refuse vehicles, such that the control box of Musso, including a microcontroller, is used to receive an unlatching input from the operator, and then the ejection sequence of the refuse is initiated and the step of raising the front wall of container upward until the container floor has sufficient slope is added to the sequence and performed before enabling the operation of the ejector.
The motivation to modify is the same as acknowledged by Musso in regard to claim 1.
12. Claim(s) 2, 13 and 18
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerman et al. (US-20130239827-A1) in view of Musso et al. (US-20200039167-A1) and further in view of Marsolek et al. (US-20190188620-A1).
In regard to claim 2
, Zimmerman, as modified by Musso, teaches the refuse vehicle of claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Zimmerman, as modified by Musso, does not teach wherein the processor is further configured to automatically receive the single input upon the refuse vehicle entering a geographically indicated location.
However, Marsolek teaches the truck controller 136 and/or the controller 116 use information included in one or more signals received from the location sensor 138 to determine the location of the haul truck 104 relative to an earth reference (e.g., GPS), relative to one or more geofences [i.e., a geographically indicated location], relative to another machine such as the paving machine 106, and/or relative to the paving plant 102 or one or more components of the paving plant 102 (Fig. 1, [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the refuse truck of Zimmerman, as already modified by Musso, by incorporating the teachings of Marsolek, with a reasonable expectation of success, as all inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle systems, such that the vehicle receives a signal for unlatching the shield and initiating the sequence when it is determined that the vehicle is near one or more geofences.
The motivation to modify is that, as acknowledged by Marsolek, to manage the worksite accurately ([0002]) which one of ordinary skill would have recognized allows the vehicles and the operators stay safe.
In regard to claim 13
, Zimmerman, as modified by Musso, teaches the refuse vehicle of claim 8.
Claim 13 recites a system having substantially the same features of claim 2 above, therefore claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
In regard to claim 18
, Zimmerman, as modified by Musso, teaches the control system of claim 14.
Claim 18 recites a system having substantially the same features of claim 2 above, therefore claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
13. Claim(s) 4, 9, and 19
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerman et al. (US-20130239827-A1) in view of Musso et al. (US-20200039167-A1) and further in view of Turner et al. (US-20180118160-A1).
In regard to claim 4
, Zimmerman, as modified by Musso, teaches the refuse vehicle of claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Zimmerman, as modified by Musso, is silent on wherein the processor is further configured to receive the single input from a remote device.
However, Turner teaches the vehicle include a security device for an emergency telephone call, a panic pushbutton, side view cameras, a visible alert, a front view camera, an exterior warning loudspeaker, a remote engine starter [i.e., remote device] ([0022]). Examiner notes, a remote engine starter sends a signal that the processor on the vehicle receives.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the refuse truck of Zimmerman, as already modified by Musso, by incorporating the teachings of Turner, with a reasonable expectation of success, as all inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle systems, such that a remote device is used to send signals to the processor.
The motivation to modify is that, to provide an efficient way of operating a complex system remotely which one of ordinary skill would have recognized allows the operator to remotely operate the vehicle.
In regard to claim 9
, Zimmerman, as modified Musso, teaches the refuse vehicle of claim 8.
Claim 9 recites a system having substantially the same features of claim 4 above, therefore claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
In regard to claim 19
, Zimmerman, as modified by Musso, teaches the control system of claim 14.
Claim 19 recites a system having substantially the same features of claim 4 above, therefore claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
14. Claim(s) 5, 10, and 16
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerman et al. (US-20130239827-A1) in view of Musso et al. (US-20200039167-A1) and further in view of Hallek (DE-102017125123-A).
In regard to claim 5
, Zimmerman, as modified by Musso, teaches the refuse vehicle of claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Zimmerman, as modified by Musso, does not teach further comprising a sensor coupled to the body and configured to detect an obstacle, and wherein the processor is further configured to receive a signal from the sensor indicative of the presence of the obstacle, and to cease at least one of reconfiguring the lock, transitioning the tailgate, or transitioning the ejector.
However, Hallek teaches an obstacle detection device for monitoring the opening process of a tailgate which includes a sensor suitable for detecting an obstacle in the rear area of a motor vehicle or in the swing area of a tailgate. The obstacle detection device is coupled to a control unit for automatically controlling the opening movement of the tailgate. Depending on sensor signals from the sensor, the control unit issues control commands that cause an opening movement of the tailgate to be stopped and/or blocked [i.e., cease transitioning the tailgate] ([0011 & 0029 & 0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the refuse truck of Zimmerman, as already modified by Musso, by incorporating the teachings of Hallek, with a reasonable expectation of success, as all inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle systems, such that the obstacle detection device is used to detect obstacles in the swing area of the tailgate and stops opening or closing operation of the tailgate when an obstacle is detected.
The motivation to modify is that to stop the tailgate and prevent damage or injury which one of ordinary skill would have recognized allows the opening/closing operation to be handled in a safe manner.
In regard to claim 10
, Zimmerman, as modified by Musso, teaches the refuse vehicle of claim 8, accordingly the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated.
Zimmerman, as modified by Musso, does not teach further comprising a sensor that is configured to detect an obstacle, wherein the processor is further configured to receive a signal from the sensor indicative of the presence of the obstacle, and, in response to receiving the single input, to cease at least one of reconfiguring the lock or providing command signals to at least one of the first actuator, the second actuator, or the third actuator as part of the automated refuse ejection sequence responsive to the signal satisfying a threshold.
However, Hallek teaches an obstacle detection device for monitoring the opening process of a tailgate which includes a sensor suitable for detecting an obstacle [i.e., a sensor that is configured to detect an obstacle] in the rear area of a motor vehicle or in the swing area of a tailgate. The obstacle detection device is coupled to a control unit for automatically controlling the opening movement of the tailgate. Depending on sensor signals from the sensor [i.e., receive a signal from the sensor indicative of the presence of the obstacle], the control unit issues control commands that cause an opening movement of the tailgate to be stopped [i.e., to cease at least one of reconfiguring the lock] and/or blocked. If the obstacle detection device, with the aid of the sensor, detects that the distance to an obstacle falls below a predetermined limit [i.e., satisfying a threshold], the control unit can issue a control command to stop the opening movement of the tailgate ([0011 & 0029 & 0036-0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the refuse truck of Zimmerman, as already modified Musso, by incorporating the teachings of Hallek, with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle systems, such that the obstacle detection device is used to detect obstacles in the swing area of the tailgate and stops the opening or closing operation of the tailgate by providing a command to the first actuator when an obstacle is detected and the distance to the obstacle falls below a predetermined limit.
The motivation to modify is that to stop the tailgate and prevent damage or injury which one of ordinary skill would have recognized allows the opening/closing operation to be handled in a safe manner.
In regard to claim 16
, Zimmerman, as modified by Musso, teaches the control system of claim 14.
Claim 16 recites a system having substantially the same features of claim 5 above, therefore claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
15. Claim(s) 6. 11, and 15
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerman et al. (US-20130239827-A1) in view of Musso et al. (US-20200039167-A1) and further in view of Steege et al. (US-20170057743-A1).
In regard to claim 6
, Zimmerman, as modified by Musso, teaches the refuse vehicle of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to provide command signals (Figs. 3, 9-10, and [0042], Fig. 9 and Fig. 10 depict the system of Fig. 3 when the packer panel 130 has transitioned to an unloading location 44 [implies ejector is transitioning from the first position to the second position]).
Zimmerman, as modified by Musso, does not teach to drive the refuse vehicle forward.
However, Steege teaches for a tip-to-dump operation for tilting the storage compartment 24 via the lift cylinder 91 for emptying the refuse material contained within the storage compartment, it is necessary to swing or pivot the tailgate assembly 26 at least 135° to its fully opened position so that when the vehicle body 20 is in its raised position, the tailgate assembly 26 will clear the pile of unloaded refuse material as the refuse collection vehicle 10 pulls forward [i.e., to drive the refuse vehicle forward] (Fig. 1, and [0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the refuse truck of Zimmerman, as already modified by Musso, by incorporating the teachings of Steege, with a reasonable expectation of success, as all inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle systems, such that the vehicle is controlled to move forward when the refuse material is being emptied.
The motivation to modify is that, as acknowledged by Steege, to improve the egress of the waste material from within the storage compartment during the ejection or dumping process ([0008]) which one of ordinary skill would have recognized allows the waste material to be emptied without causing a blockage.
In regard to claim 11
, Zimmerman, as modified by Musso, teaches the refuse vehicle of claim 8.
Claim 11 recites a system having substantially the same features of claim 6 above, therefore claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
In regard to claim 15
, Zimmerman, as modified by Musso, teaches the control system of claim 14.
Claim 15 recites a system having substantially the same features of claim 6 above, therefore claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
16. Claim(s) 17
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerman et al. (US-20130239827-A1) in view of Musso et al. (US-20200039167-A1) and further in view of Hallek (DE-102017125123-A) and further in view of Je et al. (KR-20190102640-A).
In regard to claim 17
, Zimmerman, as modified by Musso and Hallek, teaches the control system of claim 16, accordingly the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated.
Zimmerman, as modified by Musso and Hallek, does not teach wherein the processor is further configured to generate a notification responsive to the signal.
However, Je teaches a control unit (180) that output a warning notification in at least one form among visual, auditory, or tactile forms when the current distance between the tailgate (190) and the obstacle is less than or equal to the reference distance. The control unit (180) controls the operation of the tailgate (190) to be stopped when the current distance between the tailgate (190) and the obstacle is less than or equal to the reference distance (Figs. 1-11, and [0120-0121]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the refuse truck of Zimmerman, as already modified by Musso and Hallek, by incorporating the teachings of Je, with a reasonable expectation of success, as all inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle systems, such that the a control system is used to issue a warning notification when the tailgate is blocked by an obstacle.
The motivation to modify is that to inform the operator and prevent damage or injury which one of ordinary skill would have recognized allows the driver to remove the obstacle or pull the car forward such that the operation is handled appropriately.
17. Claim(s) 20
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerman et al. (US-20130239827-A1) in view of Musso et al. (US-20200039167-A1) and further in view of Downing et al. (US-20190177098-A1) and further in view of Patel (US-20150343992-A1).
In regard to claim 20
, Zimmerman, as modified by Musso, teaches the control system of claim 14, accordingly the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated.
Zimmerman, as modified by Musso, does not teach wherein the processor is communicably coupled to the lock, the first actuator, the second actuator, and the third actuator.
However, Downing teaches Fig. 3 is a block diagram of a system 100 for operating a container handler mounted on a vehicle (Fig. 3, and [0034]). Examiner notes, a control unit necessarily has a processor. As portrayed by Fig. 3 (reproduced and annotated below for Applicant’s convenience), the control system 102 is communicably coupled to actuator(s) 116 [i.e., the first actuator, the second actuator, and the third actuator].
PNG
media_image3.png
391
973
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 - Annotated Fig. 3 of Downing
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the refuse truck of Zimmerman, as already modified by Musso, by incorporating the teachings of Downing, with a reasonable expectation of success, as all inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle systems, such that the actuators are communicably coupled to the control unit.
The motivation to modify is that to send signal to the actuators which one of ordinary skill would have recognized allows to control and automate the operation of the actuators.
Zimmerman, as modified by Musso and Downing, does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is communicably coupled to the lock.
However, Patel teaches the processor 24 is operationally coupled to the vehicle locking assembly 16 [i.e., lock] wherein the vehicle locking assembly 16 is lockable by the processor 24 (Fig. 1, and [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the refuse truck of Zimmerman, as already modified by Musso and Downing, by incorporating the teachings of Patel, with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle systems, such that the lock system is communicably coupled to the processor.
The motivation to modify is that to monitor and to lock and unlock the locking system which one of ordinary skill would have recognized allows the vehicle to stay safe.
Conclusion
18. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Davis et al. (US-20170121108-A1) teaches a refuse vehicle.
Gillmore et al. (US-20150175353-A1) teaches an actuator that is coupled to the body and positioned to move the tailgate.
19. Applicant's 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.
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Preston J Miller whose telephone number is (703)756-1582. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
20. 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.
21. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571) 272-6011. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
22. 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.
/P.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/MATTHIAS S WEISFELD/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights