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 .
Response to Amendment
1. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
2. Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-11, and 17 are currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Any claim not specifically mentioned, including Claims 2-10, 12-16, and 18-20, have been included based on their dependencies.
4. The limitation in Claim 1 with new matter recites: “determine, based on data received from the second sensor, at least one of (i) a type of object detected or (ii) a velocity of the object detected.” The Applicant has only broadly pointed out where the amended claim is supported, and there does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation determining a type of the object detected in the application filed. The amendment narrows the data received the second sensor to include a type of the object detected. The specification only detects an object and associates each object with a respective velocity. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that detecting an object is not detecting the type of object. As such, there is no indication in the specification that the invention had possession of determining a type of object detected.
5. Claims 11 and 17 have the same limitations as Claim 1 except for their dependencies and are rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kappers (US 20220258965 A1) in view of O’Donnell (US 20230168351 A1).
10. 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 first sensor defining a field of view that at least partially includes the path of the lift assembly; a second sensor configured to detect an object (Kappers: [0018] and [0036]);
And a vehicle control system in communication with the lift assembly, a first sensor, and the second 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 first sensor (Kappers: [0025]).
Kappers fails to explicitly teach to determine, based on data received from the second sensor, at least one of (i) a type of object detected or (ii) a velocity of the object detected.
However, in the same field of endeavor, O’Donnell teaches a first sensor defining a field of view that at least partially includes the path of the lift assembly; a second sensor configured to detect an object (O’Donnell: [0039]);
And determine, based on data received from the second sensor, at least one of (i) a type of object detected or (ii) a velocity of the object detected (O’Donnell: [0039]).
Kappers and O’Donnell are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of 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 O’Donnell to detect a velocity of the object detected because it provides the benefit of reducing power usage by deactivating particular sensors based on the certain operations and to generate control signals based on the sensor data as explicitly explained in [0022] and [0071] of O’Donnell.
11. Regarding Claim 2, Kappers and O’Donnell remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, O’Donnell teaches the first sensor is a radar sensor (O’Donnell: [0039]).
12. Regarding Claim 3, Kappers and O’Donnell remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Kappers teaches the first sensor is coupled to an exterior of the cab (Kappers: [0020]).
13. Regarding Claim 6, Kappers and O’Donnell remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Kappers 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]).
14. Regarding Claim 7, Kappers and O’Donnell remains as applied above in Claim 6, and further, Kappers teaches the controller is configured to disable the first sensor when the angle sensor indicates that the lift assembly is within a predetermined range along the path (Kappers: [0025]).
15. Regarding Claim 9, Kappers and O’Donnell remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Kappers 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]).
16. Regarding Claim 10, Kappers and O’Donnell remains as applied above in Claim 9, and further, Kappers teaches the controller is configured to disable the first sensor when the lift arm actuator is within a predetermined range along the path (Kappers: [0025]).
17. 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; and a second sensor configured to detect an object (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 and determine, based on data received from the second sensor, at least one of (i) a type of object detected or (ii) a velocity of the object detected.
However, in the same field of endeavor, O’Donnell teaches a radar sensor defining a field of view that at least partially includes the lifting path of the lift assembly; and a second sensor configured to detect an object (O’Donnell: [0039]);
And determine, based on data received from the second sensor, at least one of (i) a type of object detected or (ii) a velocity of the object detected (O’Donnell: [0039]).
Kappers and O’Donnell are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of 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 O’Donnell to detect a velocity of the object detected because it provides the benefit of reducing power usage by deactivating particular sensors based on the certain operations and to generate control signals based on the sensor data as explicitly explained in [0022] and [0071] of O’Donnell.
18. Regarding Claim 12, Kappers and O’Donnell remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further, Kappers teaches the radar sensor is coupled to an exterior of the cab (Kappers: [0020]).
19. Regarding Claim 15, Kappers and O’Donnell 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]).
20. Regarding Claim 16, Kappers and O’Donnell 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]).
21. 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; an object detection sensor configured to detect an object (Kappers: [0024]);
And a vehicle control system in communication with the lift assembly, the radar sensor, and the position sensor, and the object detection 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 and determine, based on data received from the object detection sensor, at least one of (i) a type of object detected or (ii) a velocity of the object detected.
However, in the same field of endeavor, O’Donnell teaches A radar sensor defining a field of view that at least partially includes the lifting path of the lift assembly; and a second sensor configured to detect an object (O’Donnell: [0039]);
And determine, based on data received from the second sensor, at least one of (i) a type of object detected or (ii) a velocity of the object detected (O’Donnell: [0039]).
Kappers and O’Donnell are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of 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 O’Donnell to detect a velocity of the object detected because it provides the benefit of reducing power usage by deactivating particular sensors based on the certain operations and to generate control signals based on the sensor data as explicitly explained in [0022] and [0071] of O’Donnell.
22. Regarding Claim 18, Kappers and O’Donnell remains as applied above in Claim 17, and further, Kappers teaches the radar sensor is coupled to an exterior of the cab (Kappers: [0020]).
23. Claims 4, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kappers (US 20220258965 A1), in view of O’Donnell (US 20230168351 A1), and in further view of Wright (US 20240319327 A1).
24. Regarding Claim 4, Kappers and O’Donnell remains as applied above in Claim 3.
Kappers and O’Donnell fail 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, O’Donnell, 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 and O’Donnell 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.
25. Regarding Claim 13, Kappers and O’Donnell remains as applied above in Claim 12.
Kappers and O’Donnell 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, O’Donnell, 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 and O’Donnell 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.
26. Regarding Claim 19, Kappers and O’Donnell remains as applied above in Claim 18.
Kappers and O’Donnell 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, O’Donnell, 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 and O’Donnell 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.
27. Claims 5, 8, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kappers (US 20220258965 A1), in view of O’Donnell (US 20230168351 A1), and in further view of in view of Binder (DE 102022206053 B3; already of record).
28. Regarding Claim 5, Kappers and O’Donnell remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Kappers and O’Donnell fail to explicitly teach the controller is configured to activate the first 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 first sensor in response to the lift assembly being deactivated so that the lift assembly stops moving (Binder: [0006] and [0017]).
Kappers, O’Donnell, 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 and O’Donnell 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.
29. Regarding Claim 8, Kappers and O’Donnell remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Kappers and O’Donnell fail to explicitly teach the controller is configured to activate the first 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 first 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, O’Donnell, 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 and O’Donnell 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.
30. Regarding Claim 14, Kappers and O’Donnell remains as applied above in Claim 11.
Kappers and O’Donnell fail to explicitly teach the controller is configured to activate the radar 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 radar sensor in response to the lift assembly being deactivated so that the lift assembly stops moving (Binder: [0006] and [0017]).
Kappers, O’Donnell, 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 and O’Donnell 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.
31. Regarding Claim 20, Kappers and O’Donnell remains as applied above in Claim 17.
Kappers and O’Donnell fail to explicitly teach the controller is configured to activate the radar 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 radar 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, O’Donnell, 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 and O’Donnell 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.
Response to Arguments
32. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-20 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. O’Donnell (US 20230168351 A1) has been applied to teach the amended subject matter of determining a velocity of the object detected based on the data received from the second sensor in the rejection above as cited in at least paragraphs [0039].
33. Kappers (US 20220258965 A1), in view of O’Donnell (US 20230168351 A1), and in further view of in view of Binder (DE 102022206053 B3; already of record) teaches all aspects of the invention. The rejection is modified according to the newly amended language but still maintained with the current prior art of record.
34. Claims 1-20 remain rejected under their respective grounds and rational as cited above, and as stated in the prior office action which is incorporated herein. Also, although not specifically argued, all remaining claims remain rejected under their respective grounds, rationales, and applicable prior art for these reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action which is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
35. 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.
36. 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
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights