DETAILED ACTION
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
Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/2/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 9/2/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 12/9/2024 has been fully considered.
Priority
The priority claim to provisional application PRO 63/084176 filed on 9/28/2020 is acknowledged.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 6, Koga teaches the refuse vehicle of claim 1, as set forth in the nonstatutory double patenting rejection below.
However, Koga does not teach wherein the electric energy system further comprises a lock configured to prevent removal of a first battery element from the energy system responsive to an indication that a second battery element has been removed from the energy system. Upon additional searching, no reference with common ownership or inventorship teaches this limitation.
Outside of applications with common ownership or inventorship, no prior art reference or obvious combination of prior art references were found to teach all the limitations of claim 6. Typically, references used external lift devices to switch batteries, not lift devices supported by the refuse vehicle (see for example Ideshio US 20260225565 A1, or Wang US 12649444 B2).
However, some references were found with onboard jacks which are supported by the vehicle when not deployed and lift the vehicle when deployed (see for example Subramanian US 11987306 B2, or Senis FR 2684347 B1). However, these onboard jacks are not supported by the vehicle when deployed, instead they support the vehicle when deployed. Thus these references do not teach “the lift device configured to move at least a portion of the energy system relative to the chassis while remaining supported by the at least one of the chassis or the refuse container.”
Only one reference was found which does not have these deficiencies Zhong CN 115179745 A. However, Zhong was published on 10-14-2022 and is thus not prior art.
Therefore, no prior art reference or obvious combination of prior art references were found to teach all the limitations of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Koga teaches the refuse vehicle of claim 1, as set forth in the nonstatutory double patenting rejection below.
However, Koga does not teach wherein the lift device includes a hooklift system including an arm that is configured to engage the energy system to reposition the energy system relative to the chassis. Upon additional searching, no reference with common ownership or inventorship teaches this limitation.
Outside of applications with common ownership or inventorship, no prior art reference or obvious combination of prior art references were found to teach all the limitations of claim 7. Typically, references used external lift devices to switch batteries, not lift devices supported by the refuse vehicle (see for example Ideshio US 20260225565 A1, or Wang US 12649444 B2).
However, some references were found with onboard jacks which are supported by the vehicle when not deployed and lift the vehicle when deployed (see for example Subramanian US 11987306 B2, or Senis FR 2684347 B1). However, these onboard jacks are not supported by the vehicle when deployed, instead they support the vehicle when deployed. Thus these references do not teach “the lift device configured to move at least a portion of the energy system relative to the chassis while remaining supported by the at least one of the chassis or the refuse container.”
Only one reference was found which does not have these deficiencies Zhong CN 115179745 A. However, Zhong was published on 10-14-2022 and is thus not prior art.
Therefore, no prior art reference or obvious combination of prior art references were found to teach all the limitations of claim 7.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Koga (U.S. Patent No. US 12162373 B2). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Koga teaches a refuse vehicle (“a refuse vehicle”) comprising:
a chassis (“a chassis”);
a refuse container coupled to the chassis (obviously implied by “a refuse vehicle”);
a tractive assembly coupled to the chassis and configured to propel the refuse vehicle (“a tractive assembly coupled to the chassis and configured to propel the refuse vehicle”); and
an electric energy system comprising (“an electric energy system”):
an energy system configured to provide electrical energy to drive the tractive assembly (“an electric energy system configured to provide electrical energy to drive the tractive assembly” and “in a first configuration, a first energy system is removably coupled to the chassis and configured to provide the electrical energy to the electric energy system”), the energy system removably coupled to at least one of the chassis or the refuse container (“in a first configuration, a first energy system is removably coupled to the chassis and configured to provide the electrical energy to the electric energy system”); and
a lift device supported by at least one of the chassis or the refuse container, the lift device configured to move at least a portion of the energy system relative to the chassis while remaining supported by the at least one of the chassis or the refuse container (“a lift device that is at least partially supported by the chassis and that is configured to move an energy system relative to the chassis while remaining coupled to the chassis”).
Regarding claim 2, Koga claim 1 teaches the refuse vehicle of claim 1, as set forth in the nonstatutory double patenting rejection above.
Koga claim 2 which depends on Koga claim 1, teaches wherein the electric energy system is further configured to generate electrical energy to charge the energy system (“wherein the electric energy system is further configured to generate electrical energy to charge at least one of the first energy system or the second energy system”).
Regarding claim 3, Koga teaches the refuse vehicle of claim 1, as set forth in the nonstatutory double patenting rejection above.
Koga claim 5 which depends on Koga claim 1 teaches wherein the lift device is configured to raise the portion of the energy system vertically away from the at least one of the chassis or the refuse container (“wherein the lift device is configured to engage one or more engagement elements of the first energy system to lift the first energy system off of the chassis”).
Regarding claim 4, Koga teaches the refuse vehicle of claim 1, as set forth in the nonstatutory double patenting rejection above.
Koga claim 5 which depends on Koga claim 1 teaches wherein the portion of the energy system is electrically coupled to the electric energy system separately from the remainder of the energy system (“wherein the lift device is configured to engage one or more engagement elements of the first energy system to lift the first energy system off of the chassis”).
Regarding claim 5, Koga teaches the refuse vehicle of claim 1, as set forth in the nonstatutory double patenting rejection above.
Koga claim 5 which depends on Koga claim 1 also teaches wherein the lift device is configured to engage one or more engagement elements of the energy system to lift the energy system off the at least one of the chassis or the refuse container (“wherein the lift device is configured to engage one or more engagement elements of the first energy system to lift the first energy system off of the chassis”).
Regarding claim 8, Koga teaches the refuse vehicle of claim 1, as set forth in the nonstatutory double patenting rejection above.
Koga claim 8 which depends on Koga claim 1 also teaches wherein the energy system is disposed between frame rails of the chassis and slidably engaged with the frame rails, the energy system removable through a front end or a rear end of the chassis (“wherein the first energy system is disposed between frame rails of the chassis and slidably engaged with the frame rails, the first energy system removable through a front end or a rear end of the refuse vehicle”).
Regarding claim 9, Koga teaches the refuse vehicle of claim 1, as set forth in the nonstatutory double patenting rejection above.
Koga claim 9 which depends on Koga claim 1also teaches wherein the energy system comprises: a frame; a plurality of shelves movably coupled to the frame; and a plurality of battery assemblies supported by the plurality of shelves (“wherein the first energy system comprises: a frame; a plurality of shelves movably coupled to the frame; and a plurality of batteries supported by the plurality of shelves”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS KANDAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5628. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, James A Shriver can be reached at (303)297-4337. 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.
/NICHOLAS R. KANDAS/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
/JAMES A SHRIVER II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights