DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is the first office action on the merits and is responsive to the papers filed on 12/13/2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Specification
1. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 2/2/2026 has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claims 1, 3, 6-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kappers (US 20220258965 A1).
5. Regarding Claim 1, Kappers teaches a vocational vehicle comprising: a chassis; a cab supported by the chassis (Kappers: [0003]);
A body supported by the chassis and defining a compartment (Kappers: [0003] and [0016]);
A lift assembly coupled to the body so that the lift assembly is configured to move between a lowered position and a raised position along a path (Kappers: [0003], [0015], and [0018]);
A sensor defining a field of view that at least partially includes the path of the lift assembly (Kappers: [0018]);
And a vehicle control system in communication with the lift assembly and the sensor, the vehicle control system including a controller having a processor and at least one memory (Kappers: [0022] and [0023]),
The controller being configured to: detect that the lift assembly is activated to move (Kappers: [0024] and [0025]);
And disable the sensor (Kappers: [0025]).
6. Regarding Claim 3, Kappers remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, teaches the sensor is coupled to an exterior of the cab (Kappers: [0020]).
7. Regarding Claim 6, Kappers remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, teaches the controller is configured to detect that the lift assembly is activated to move based on an output from an angle sensor (Kappers: [0024]).
8. Regarding Claim 7, Kappers remains as applied above in Claim 6, and further, teaches the controller is configured to disable the sensor when the angle sensor indicates that the lift assembly is within a predetermined range along the path (Kappers: [0025]).
9. Regarding Claim 9, Kappers remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, teaches the controller is configured to detect that the lift assembly is activated to move based on a position of a lift arm actuator of the lift assembly (Kappers: [0024] and [0029]).
10. Regarding Claim 10, Kappers remains as applied above in Claim 9, and further, teaches the controller is configured to disable the sensor when the lift arm actuator is within a predetermined range along the path (Kappers: [0025]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
14. Claims 2, 5, 8, 11-12, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kappers (US 20220258965 A1) in view of Binder (DE 102022206053 B3).
15. Regarding Claim 2, Kappers remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Kappers fails to explicitly teach the sensor is a radar sensor.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Binder teaches the sensor is a radar sensor (Binder: [0014]).
Kappers and Binder are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of work vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kappers to incorporate the teachings of Binder to use a radar sensor because it provides the benefit of an alternative sensor type of obstacle detection as explicitly explained in [0014] of Binder.
16. Regarding Claim 5, Kappers remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Kappers fails to explicitly teach the controller is configured to activate the sensor in response to the lift assembly being deactivated so that the lift assembly stops moving.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Binder teaches the controller is configured to activate the sensor in response to the lift assembly being deactivated so that the lift assembly stops moving (Binder: [0006] and [0017]).
Kappers and Binder are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of work vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kappers to incorporate the teachings of Binder to activate the sensor in response to the lift assembly being deactivated because it provides the benefit of determining a risk of a collision between the vehicle and another object while in the typical driving operation. There is a need to activate/deactivate the detection device based on the position of the lifting device to avoid false alarms when the lifting device is in a raised position as explicitly explained in [0017] of Binder.
17. Regarding Claim 8, Kappers remains as applied above in Claim 7.
Kappers fails to explicitly teach the controller is configured to activate the sensor in response to the angle sensor indicating that the lift assembly is outside of the predetermined range along the path.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Binder teaches the controller is configured to activate the sensor in response to the angle sensor indicating that the lift assembly is outside of the predetermined range along the path (Binder: [0007] and [0013]).
Kappers and Binder are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of work vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kappers to incorporate the teachings of Binder to activate the sensor in response to the angle sensor indicating that the lift assembly is outside the predetermined range along the path because it provides the benefit of determining a risk of a collision between the vehicle and another object while in the typical driving operation. There is a need to activate/deactivate the detection device based on the position of the lifting device to avoid false alarms when the lifting device is in a raised position as explicitly explained in [0017] of Binder.
18. Regarding Claim 11, Kappers teaches a refuse vehicle comprising: a chassis; a cab supported by the chassis (Kappers: [0003]);
A body supported by the chassis and defining a refuse compartment (Kappers: [0003] and [0016]);
A lift assembly coupled to the body and including a lift arm actuator that is configured to move the lift assembly between a lowered position and a raised position along a lifting path (Kappers: [0003], [0015], and [0018]);
A… sensor defining a field of view that at least partially includes the lifting path of the lift assembly (Kappers: [0018]);
And a vehicle control system in communication with the lift assembly and the… sensor, the vehicle control system including a controller having a processor and at least one memory (Kappers: [0022] and [0023]),
The controller being configured to: determine that the lift arm actuator is moving the lift assembly along the lifting path (Kappers: [0024] and [0025]);
And disable the… sensor while the lift arm actuator is moving the lift assembly along the lifting path (Kappers: [0025]).
Kappers fails to explicitly teach a radar sensor.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Binder teaches a radar sensor defining a field of view that at least partially includes the lifting path of the lift assembly (Binder: [0014]).
Kappers and Binder are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of work vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kappers to incorporate the teachings of Binder to use a radar sensor because it provides the benefit of an alternative sensor type of obstacle detection as explicitly explained in [0014] of Binder.
19. Regarding Claim 12, Kappers and Binder remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further, Kappers teaches the radar sensor is coupled to an exterior of the cab (Kappers: [0020]).
20. Regarding Claim 14, Kappers and Binder remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further, Binder teaches the controller is configured to activate the radar sensor in response to the lift arm actuator being deactivated so that the lift assembly stops moving (Binder: [0006] and [0017]).
21. Regarding Claim 15, Kappers and Binder remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further, Kappers teaches the controller is configured to detect that the lift arm actuator is moving the lift assembly along the lifting path based on an output from an angle sensor (Kappers: [0024]).
22. Regarding Claim 16, Kappers and Binder remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further, Kappers teaches the controller is configured to detect that the lift arm actuator is moving the lift assembly along the lifting path based on a position of the lift arm actuator (Kappers: [0024] and [0029]).
23. Regarding Claim 17, Kappers teaches a refuse vehicle comprising: a chassis; a cab supported by the chassis (Kappers: [0003]);
A body supported by the chassis and defining a refuse compartment (Kappers: [0003] and [0016]);
A lift assembly coupled to a front portion of the body and including a lift arm actuator that is configured to move the lift assembly between a lowered position and a raised position along a lifting path (Kappers: [0003], [0015], and [0018]);
A… sensor defining a field of view that at least partially includes the lifting path of the lift assembly (Kappers: [0018]);
A position sensor configured to sense a position of the lift assembly (Kappers: [0024]);
And a vehicle control system in communication with the lift assembly, the radar sensor, and the position sensor, the vehicle control system including a controller having a processor and at least one memory (Kappers: [0022] and [0023]),
The controller being configured to: determine, based on the position sensor, that the lift arm actuator is moving the lift assembly along the lifting path (Kappers: [0024] and [0025]);
And disable the radar sensor when the lift assembly is within a predetermined range along the lifting path (Kappers: [0025]).
Kappers fails to explicitly teach a radar sensor.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Binder teaches a radar sensor defining a field of view that at least partially includes the lifting path of the lift assembly (Binder: [0014]).
Kappers and Binder are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of work vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kappers to incorporate the teachings of Binder to use a radar sensor because it provides the benefit of an alternative sensor type of obstacle detection as explicitly explained in [0014] of Binder.
24. Regarding Claim 18, Kappers and Binder remains as applied above in Claim 17, and further, Kappers teaches the radar sensor is coupled to an exterior of the cab (Kappers: [0020]).
25. Regarding Claim 20, Kappers and Binder remains as applied above in Claim 17, and further, Binder teaches the controller is configured to activate the radar sensor in response to the position sensor indicating that the lift assembly is outside of the predetermined range along the lifting path (Binder: [0007] and [0013]).
26. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kappers (US 20220258965 A1), in view of Wright (US 20240319327 A1).
27. Regarding Claim 4, Kappers remains as applied above in Claim 3.
Kappers fails to explicitly teach the sensor is arranged behind a cover.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wright teaches the sensor is arranged behind a cover (Wright: [0003] and [0016]).
Kappers and Wright are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle sensors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kappers to incorporate the teachings of Wright for the sensor to be arranged behind a cover because it provides the benefit of protecting the sensor from road debris as explicitly explained in [0016] of Wright. This provides the additional benefit of increased durability for the sensing system.
28. Claims 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kappers (US 20220258965 A1), in view of Binder (DE 102022206053 B3), and in further view of Wright (US 20240319327 A1).
29. Regarding Claim 13, Kappers and Binder remains as applied above in Claim 12.
Kappers and Binder fail to explicitly teach the radar sensor is arranged behind a cover.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wright teaches the radar sensor is arranged behind a cover (Wright: [0003] and [0016]).
Kappers and Wright are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle sensors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kappers to incorporate the teachings of Wright for the sensor to be arranged behind a cover because it provides the benefit of protecting the sensor from road debris as explicitly explained in [0016] of Wright. This provides the additional benefit of increased durability for the sensing system.
30. Regarding Claim 19, Kappers and Binder remains as applied above in Claim 18.
Kappers and Binder fail to explicitly teach the radar sensor is arranged behind a cover.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wright teaches the radar sensor is arranged behind a cover (Wright: [0003] and [0016]).
Kappers and Wright are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle sensors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kappers to incorporate the teachings of Wright for the sensor to be arranged behind a cover because it provides the benefit of protecting the sensor from road debris as explicitly explained in [0016] of Wright. This provides the additional benefit of increased durability for the sensing system.
Conclusion
31. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663