DETAILED ACTION
This is a first action on the merits in response to Applicant’s submissions filed on 5/4/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 6-20 are withdrawn.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 5/4/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/4/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 12/22/2025 has been reviewed and considered.
The listing of references in paragraphs 43 and 54 of the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show details regarding blocks 104, 106 and 108, contained in figure 4, as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains subject matter that does not appear to be supported by the written description. For example, receiving an indication of a first object location and a second vehicle location, mapping the locations, determining a path between the locations, and transmitting the path does not appear to be disclosed in the specification or drawings. Further, although a communication hub is disclosed in paragraph 56 for facilitating communication between components of the system and one or more vehicles, there does not appear to be disclosure of transmitting a vehicle path through the communication hub. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 56, lines 5-6, the meaning of the phrase “in place of the vehicle 810, the system 601 includes an electronic device” is unclear. Paragraph 75 discloses vehicle 810 is a vehicle towed with a hitch, and it is unclear how or why the follower vehicle is replaced by an electronic device.
In paragraph 58, the acronym VPN should be defined.
In paragraph 59, the acronym VR should be defined.
In paragraph 60, lines 7-8, “the processor may include … hardware processor” should read “the processor may include … hardware processors”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraph 61, line 8, “caused the processor to perform” should read “cause the processor to perform”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraph 62, line 12, there should be a period between the words “park These”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraph 67, lines 4-5, “determine to which transfer station 600 operator would like to use” should read “determine which transfer station 600 operator would like to use”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraph 78, line 1, “for an automated queueing” should read “for automated queueing”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraph 80, line 1, “FIG.s 7-9” should read “FIGs. 7-9”. This appears to be a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality: the claim should be limited to a single colon, because using multiple colons in a single sentence is grammatically incorrect which makes it confusing to determine the hierarchical relationships between each limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claim 1, line 2, “a vehicle measuring device”.
In claim 1, line 5, “a vehicle-coupling mechanism to couple”.
In claim 1, line 6, “a vehicle-directing mechanism to direct”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, line 2, the limitation “a vehicle measuring device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Paragraph 22 discloses exemplary aspects wherein the measuring device is an external scale. Paragraphs 79 and 83 further disclose the measuring device may be a scale. Paragraph 21 discloses exemplary aspects wherein the measuring device is positioned onboard the vehicle, however, the structure of the onboard measuring device is not disclosed. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the measuring device is a scale.
Regarding claim 1, line 5, the limitation “a vehicle-coupling mechanism” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Paragraph 7 discloses exemplary aspects wherein the vehicle-directing mechanism is a refuse vehicle and the vehicle-coupling mechanism is a hitch and tow bar. Paragraph 75 further discloses an embodiment wherein a refuse vehicle may be equipped with a vehicle-coupling mechanism that may be a hitch and tow bar mechanism, a ball and hitch, a frame hitch, or a hitch and bar. Paragraphs 7 and 77 disclose embodiments wherein a tug vehicle is configured to couple to a hitch or tractive element of a vehicle, however, there does not appear to be disclosure of the mechanism the tug includes for coupling. Paragraph 78 discloses embodiments wherein a track may include one or more vehicle-coupling mechanisms that may couple to one or more tractive elements of a vehicle or a hitch of the vehicle. Although the vehicle-coupling mechanism 914, in this embodiment, is illustrated as a box beneath track 912, insufficient detail is provided to understand how the mechanism couples to the vehicle. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the vehicle-coupling mechanism is a hitch and tow bar, a ball and hitch, a frame hitch, a hitch and bar, a belt, or a moving platform.
Regarding claim 1, line 6, the limitation “a vehicle-directing mechanism” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Paragraphs 5-7 disclose exemplary aspects wherein the vehicle-directing mechanism may be a conveyor, tug vehicle, or refuse vehicle. Paragraph 78 further discloses an embodiment wherein a track may include a vehicle-directing mechanism that may be a conveyor. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the vehicle-directing mechanism is a conveyor, tug vehicle, or refuse vehicle.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-5 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. (US 11,977,831) in view of Prax, II et al. (US 11,932,120), hereinafter Patel and Prax, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Patel discloses a system comprising: a vehicle measuring device (Patel; col. 3, ll. 56-59: the collection station 20 can also include a fullness or capacity monitor 60 for determining the weight and/or amount of waste that has been collected and/or is being stored); a transfer zone (Patel; col. 3; ll. 64-66: collection station 20 or “hub” would preferably be positioned at a centralized location in the neighborhood); and a vehicle transport device (Patel; col. 4, ll. 21-24: autonomous collection vehicles 30 can be land-based vehicles that travel on the roads, streets and/or designated pathways in the residential neighborhood), the vehicle transport device comprising: a vehicle-coupling mechanism to couple to at least one vehicle (Patel; col. 4, ll. 24-29: The land-based vehicles can include a trailer 52 (for, e.g., empty return or swap out) (see FIG. 4A), a hopper or mini hopper 54 (see FIG. 4B), a train of consecutive hoppers 54a, 54b, 54c (e.g., tug and pull) (see FIG. 4C), or any other orientation that is beneficial for carrying collected waste.); a vehicle-directing mechanism to direct the at least one vehicle coupled to the vehicle-coupling mechanism along a predefined path (Patel; col. 4, ll. 50-55: programmed data can be utilized to develop “static” or “dynamic” routing for the autonomous collection vehicles 30. In the context of “static” routing, the autonomous collection vehicles 30 can travel along a fixed, predefined path and have a set collection schedule and practice) including the vehicle measuring device and the transfer zone (Patel; col. 8, ll. 7-14: autonomous collection vehicles 30 each capable of traveling on a respective travel path between the collection station 20 and the residences in the neighborhood to collect waste/items and/or waste/item containers at the residences and deliver the waste/items and/or waste/item containers to the collection station 20, wherein the plurality of autonomous collection vehicles 30 are configured for static … routing along the respective travel paths); one or more processors (Patel; col. 6, ll. 56-57: autonomous collection vehicle 30 can include an onboard computer 150); and a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions (Patel; col. 10, ll. 6-10: the subject matter disclosed herein may be a computer program product on a computer-usable storage medium having computer readable program code on the medium. Any suitable computer readable medium may be utilized including hard disks) that when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to: to direct the at least one vehicle along the predefined path (Patel; col. 4, ll. 50-54: the programmed data can be utilized to develop “static” or “dynamic” routing for the autonomous collection vehicles 30. In the context of “static” routing, the autonomous collection vehicles 30 can travel along a fixed, predefined path).
Patel does not explicitly disclose the one or more processors receive an indication of the at least one vehicle being coupled to the vehicle-coupling mechanism; and responsive to receiving the indication of the at least one vehicle being coupled to the vehicle-coupling mechanism, adjusting one or more operating parameters of the vehicle-directing mechanism.
Prax, in the same field of endeavor (vehicle towing controls), discloses one or more processors receive an indication of the at least one vehicle being coupled to the vehicle-coupling mechanism (Prax; fig. 6: step 610); and responsive to receiving the indication of the at least one vehicle being coupled to the vehicle-coupling mechanism, adjusting one or more operating parameters of the vehicle-directing mechanism (Prax; fig. 6: step 612).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have detected when the trailer(s) are hitched to the vehicle, then entered a towing mode with adjusted vehicle control attributes, as disclosed by Prax, in the onboard computer of Patel, with the motivation of configuring the vehicle to increase the range of the vehicle when the vehicle is driven with the trailer (Prax; col. 15, ll. 7-17).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Patel, as modified, discloses the predefined path leads the at least one vehicle between at least two of the vehicle measuring device, the transfer zone (Patel; col. 8, ll. 7-14: autonomous collection vehicles 30 each capable of traveling on a respective travel path between the collection station 20 and the residences in the neighborhood to collect waste/items and/or waste/item containers at the residences and deliver the waste/items and/or waste/item containers to the collection station 20, wherein the plurality of autonomous collection vehicles 30 are configured for static … routing along the respective travel paths), and a queue (Patel; col. 5; ll. 10-11: a first route sequence might be: (i) 30A collects from residences 1, 2, 3).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Patel, as modified, discloses the vehicle-directing mechanism is a tug vehicle (Patel; col. 4, ll. 21-24: autonomous collection vehicles 30 can be land-based vehicles that travel on the roads, streets and/or designated pathways in the residential neighborhood) configured to couple to a hitch or a tractive element of the at least one vehicle (Prax; col. 4, ll. 13-16: vehicle 100 may include a receiver 122 mounted to the frame 108. The receiver 122 may be configured to receive a trailer hitch or otherwise facilitate coupling of a trailer to the vehicle 100).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Patel, as modified, discloses the vehicle-directing mechanism is a refuse vehicle (Patel; col. 4, ll. 21-24: autonomous collection vehicles 30 can be land-based vehicles that travel on the roads, streets and/or designated pathways in the residential neighborhood) and the vehicle-coupling mechanism is a hitch (Prax; col. 4, ll. 13-16: vehicle 100 may include a receiver 122 mounted to the frame 108. The receiver 122 may be configured to receive a trailer hitch or otherwise facilitate coupling of a trailer to the vehicle 100) and tow bar (Patel; figs. 4A-4C: trailers and hoppers are towed via a bar).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel in view of Prax as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Edelhoff et al. (US 4,728,241), hereinafter Edelhoff.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Patel, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above.
Patel, as modified, does not explicitly disclose the vehicle-directing mechanism is a conveyor on which at least a portion of the at least one vehicle is supported.
Edelhoff, in the same field of endeavor (garbage truck unloading), discloses a vehicle-directing mechanism is a conveyor on which at least a portion of at least one vehicle is supported (Edelhoff; col. 3, ll. 55-58: a conveyor 1, by which filled containers 3 are received from garbage trucks 2 and conveyed to a delivery end, where the containers are delivered to forwarding trucks 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the swapping out of trailers/hoppers at the collection station of Patel, as modified, to be performed using a conveyer, as disclosed by Edelhoff, with the motivation of removing loads from the garbage truck in very short time so that the garbage truck is then ready for continued operation (Edelhoff; col. 2, ll. 10-13)
Supplemental References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kawase (JP 2553085) discloses a conveyor system that transfers the contents of a queue of wheeled garbage containers to a collection facility.
Liu et al. (CN 111056193) disclose a garbage transfer station that uses autonomous vehicles to transfer filled garbage carriages between incoming garbage trucks and a landfill.
Zhang et al. (CN 112429445) disclose a method for managing a garbage transfer station wherein incoming garbage trucks are automatically weighed and guided to optimal unloading bins.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-3:00PM ET.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/JOSEPH THOMPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights