DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant's Application filed on 12/30/2024 and election and amendment filed on 5/8/2026.
Claim 20 were canceled.
Claims 1-19, 21 are pending for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/16/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-19) in the reply filed on 5/8/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 8-10, 13, 17, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haberlein (US20230150763A1).
Regarding claim 1, Haberlein teaches A system comprising:
a refuse collection vehicle (Haberlein: Fig. 1; Para 37 “As shown in FIG. 1, the refuse vehicle 10 includes a chassis, shown as frame 12; a body assembly, shown as body 14, coupled to the frame 12 (e.g., at a rear end thereof, etc.); and a cab, shown as cab 16, coupled to the frame 12 (e.g., at a front end thereof, etc.)”), comprising:
a chassis(Haberlein: Fig. 1; Para 37 “As shown in FIG. 1, the refuse vehicle 10 includes a chassis, shown as frame 12; a body assembly, shown as body 14, coupled to the frame 12 (e.g., at a rear end thereof, etc.); and a cab, shown as cab 16, coupled to the frame 12 (e.g., at a front end thereof, etc.)”); and
one or more body components(Haberlein: Fig. 1; Para 37 “As shown in FIG. 1, the refuse vehicle 10 includes a chassis, shown as frame 12; a body assembly, shown as body 14, coupled to the frame 12 (e.g., at a rear end thereof, etc.); and a cab, shown as cab 16, coupled to the frame 12 (e.g., at a front end thereof, etc.)”); and
at least one radar sensor coupled to a portion of the refuse collection vehicle(Haberlein: Para 36 “a vocational vehicle (e.g., refuse truck, refuse vehicle, mixer vehicle, fire fighting vehicle, etc.) includes a vehicle control system configured to operate as an advanced driver-assistance system (ADAS). The ADAS system includes one or more sensors positioned in and around the vocational vehicle. In some embodiments, the sensors include a three hundred sixty degree camera system, a three hundred sixty degree radar system, and a forward collision detection system”), the at least one radar sensor configured to detect one or more hazards positioned within a detection distance of the at least one radar sensor (Haberlein: Para 36 “For example, a forward facing radar sensor may detect an object in front of the refuse vehicle).
Regarding claim 4, Haberlein teaches The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more hazards positioned within a detection distance of the at least one radar sensor comprise one or more hazards along a surface on which the refuse collection vehicle is positioned(Haberlein: Para 65 “the radar system 600 includes two radar sensors 610 positioned on the front of the cab 16 and with the radar FOV 620 directed in a generally forward direction (e.g. a centerline of the radar FOV 620 is generally parallel to the x-axis 1002 or a forward direction of travel of the refuse vehicle 10)”).
Regarding claim 5, Haberlein teaches The system of claim 4, wherein the refuse collection vehicle includes a front bumper(Haberlein: Fig. 10); and the at least one radar sensor is coupled to the front bumper(Haberlein: Fig. 10 Element 610; Para 65 “the radar system 600 includes two radar sensors 610 positioned on the front of the cab 16 and with the radar FOV 620 directed in a generally forward direction (e.g. a centerline of the radar FOV 620 is generally parallel to the x-axis 1002 or a forward direction of travel of the refuse vehicle 10)”).
Regarding claim 8, Haberlein teaches The system of claim 1, wherein the refuse collection vehicle further comprises a camera configured to capture image data or video data of the one or more hazards(Haberlein: Fig. 10 Element 510; Para “the ADAS 400 includes one or more sensors, shown as sensors 414. The sensors 414 may be disposed at various locations around the refuse vehicle 10 to identify obstacles and/or obtain other contextual information useful to the controller 402. The sensors 414 include any one and/or a combination of proximity sensors, infrared sensors, electromagnetic sensors, capacitive sensors, photoelectric sensors, inductive sensors, radar sensors, ultrasonic sensors, Hall Effect sensors, fiber optic sensors, Doppler Effect sensors, magnetic sensors, laser sensors (e.g., LIDAR sensors), sonar, and/or the like. In some embodiments, the sensors 414 include an image capture device such as visible light cameras, full-spectrum cameras, image sensors (e.g., charged-coupled device (CCD), complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) sensors, etc.), or any other type of suitable object sensor or imaging device. Data captured by the sensors 414 may include, for example, raw image data from one or more cameras (e.g., visible light cameras) and/or proximity data from one or more sensors (e.g., LIDAR, radar, etc.) that may be used to detect objects”; Para 53 “The 360 composite video feed can be an image of the refuse vehicle 10 from above with the video feeds from one or more cameras, such as cameras 510 and the controller 402 can be configured to stitch together the video feed data from one or more cameras to create the 360-degree composite video feed”).
Regarding claim 9, Haberlein teaches The system of claim 1, wherein the system further comprises a computing device, and the at least one radar sensor is configured to transmit, to the computing device, a signal indicating the one or more hazards(Haberlein: Para 53 “the sensors 414 are radar sensors and the sensor data is proximity data. For example, the sensor data may include proximity data indicating the position, speed, direction of travel, and/or acceleration of one or more objects surrounding the refuse vehicle 10”; Para 64 “the ADAS 400 includes a radar detection system, shown as radar system 600, configured to detect the position, speed, direction of travel, and/or acceleration of one or more objects external to the refuse vehicle 10. The radar system 600 includes radar sensors, shown as radar sensors 610 integrated into the body 14 and/or the cab 16 of the refuse vehicle 10, with field of views, shown as radar FOVs 620. In some embodiments, the radar sensors 610 make up some and/or all of sensors 414 that provide sensor data to the controller 402”).
Regarding claim 10, Haberlein teaches A method of operating a refuse collection vehicle, the method comprising:
detecting, using at least one radar sensor coupled to the refuse collection vehicle, a hazard positioned within a detection distance of the at least one radar sensor(Haberlein: Para 53 “the sensors 414 are radar sensors and the sensor data is proximity data. For example, the sensor data may include proximity data indicating the position, speed, direction of travel, and/or acceleration of one or more objects surrounding the refuse vehicle 10”; Para 64 “the ADAS 400 includes a radar detection system, shown as radar system 600, configured to detect the position, speed, direction of travel, and/or acceleration of one or more objects external to the refuse vehicle 10. The radar system 600 includes radar sensors, shown as radar sensors 610 integrated into the body 14 and/or the cab 16 of the refuse vehicle 10, with field of views, shown as radar FOVs 620. In some embodiments, the radar sensors 610 make up some and/or all of sensors 414 that provide sensor data to the controller 402”);
transmitting, from the at least one radar sensor to a computing device, a signal indicating the hazard detected by the at least one radar sensor(Haberlein: Para 53 “the sensors 414 are radar sensors and the sensor data is proximity data. For example, the sensor data may include proximity data indicating the position, speed, direction of travel, and/or acceleration of one or more objects surrounding the refuse vehicle 10”; Para 64 “the ADAS 400 includes a radar detection system, shown as radar system 600, configured to detect the position, speed, direction of travel, and/or acceleration of one or more objects external to the refuse vehicle 10. The radar system 600 includes radar sensors, shown as radar sensors 610 integrated into the body 14 and/or the cab 16 of the refuse vehicle 10, with field of views, shown as radar FOVs 620. In some embodiments, the radar sensors 610 make up some and/or all of sensors 414 that provide sensor data to the controller 402”); and
in response to receiving the signal, controlling the refuse collection vehicle to prevent damage to the refuse collection vehicle resulting from contact between the hazard and the refuse collection vehicle(Haberlein: Para 83 “the ADAS 400 via the radar system 600 and radar sensors 610 may detect a vehicle in a blind spot of the refuse vehicle 10, and the controller 402 can generate an alert to a driver indicating the presence of the vehicle. In another example, the refuse vehicle 10 may be stopped, and the ADAS 400 senses fast approaching objects from the rear of the refuse vehicle 10”).
As per claim 13, it recites A method of operating a refuse collection vehicle having limitations similar to those of claim 4 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
As per claim 17, it recites A method of operating a refuse collection vehicle having limitations similar to those of claim 8 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 21, Haberlein teaches The system of claim 9, wherein the computing device is configured to: in response to receiving the signal, control the refuse collection vehicle to prevent damage to the refuse collection vehicle resulting from contact between the one or more hazards and the refuse collection vehicle(Haberlein: Para 83 “the ADAS 400 via the radar system 600 and radar sensors 610 may detect a vehicle in a blind spot of the refuse vehicle 10, and the controller 402 can generate an alert to a driver indicating the presence of the vehicle. In another example, the refuse vehicle 10 may be stopped, and the ADAS 400 senses fast approaching objects from the rear of the refuse vehicle 10”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2-3, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haberlein (US20230150763A1) in view of Wildgrube (US20230094582A1).
In regards to claim 2, Haberlein teaches The system of claim 1.
Yet Haberlein do not explicitly teach wherein the one or more hazards positioned within a detection distance of the at least one radar sensor comprise one or more objects overlying the refuse collection vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wildgrube teaches wherein the one or more hazards positioned within a detection distance of the at least one radar sensor comprise one or more objects overlying the refuse collection vehicle(Wildgrube: Para 39 “The object detection sensors 442 may be positioned on the body 14 or on the refuse container 202 such that the range of locations 444 contains an area in which the collection arm assembly 204 or the lift assembly 300 can reach a refuse container. Alternatively, the object detection sensors 442 may be positioned such that the range of locations 444 covers areas that are likely to contain objects that may collide with the refuse vehicle and/or that are minimally visible to an operator located in the cab 16. By way of example, the range of locations 444 may cover a blind spot of the refuse vehicle 10 or may extend behind or above the refuse vehicle 10. The size and shape of the range of locations 444 may correspond to the physical limitations of the object detection sensor 442. Alternatively, the size and shape of the range of locations 444 may be limited to a desired range”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify The system of Haberlein with the feature of wherein the one or more hazards positioned within a detection distance of the at least one radar sensor comprise one or more objects overlying the refuse collection vehicle disclosed by Wildgrube. One would be motivated to do so for the benefit of “limit movement of the lift assembly so that the container stays below a threshold height, and permit movement of the lift assembly when the container is below the threshold height” (Wildgrube: Para 5).
In regards to claim 3, the combination of Haberlein and Wildgrube teaches The system of claim 2, and Wildgrube further teaches wherein: the refuse collection vehicle includes a cab protector(Wildgrube: Fig. 14 and 15); and the at least one radar sensor is coupled to the cab protector(Wildgrube: Fig. 14 and 15; Para 39 “The object detection sensors 442 may be positioned on the body 14 or on the refuse container 202 such that the range of locations 444 contains an area in which the collection arm assembly 204 or the lift assembly 300 can reach a refuse container. Alternatively, the object detection sensors 442 may be positioned such that the range of locations 444 covers areas that are likely to contain objects that may collide with the refuse vehicle and/or that are minimally visible to an operator located in the cab 16. By way of example, the range of locations 444 may cover a blind spot of the refuse vehicle 10 or may extend behind or above the refuse vehicle 10. The size and shape of the range of locations 444 may correspond to the physical limitations of the object detection sensor 442. Alternatively, the size and shape of the range of locations 444 may be limited to a desired range”; i.e. The object detection sensors may be positioned on the body which includes the cab protector). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Haberlein and Wildgrube as in Claim 2 above.
As per claim 11, it recites A method of operating a refuse collection vehicle having limitations similar to those of claim 2 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
In regards to claim 12, Haberlein and Wildgrube teaches The method of claim 11, and Wildgrube further teaches wherein controlling the refuse collection vehicle to prevent damage to the refuse collection vehicle resulting from contact between the hazard and the refuse collection vehicle comprises preventing a lift arm of the refuse collection vehicle from being raised above a threshold height(Wildgrube: Para 5 “The controller is configured to determine that an object is positioned above the container, and in response to determining that the object is position above the container, limit movement of the lift assembly so that the container stays below a threshold height, and permit movement of the lift assembly when the container is below the threshold height”). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Haberlein and Wildgrube as in Claim 2 above.
Claim 6, 14-15, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haberlein (US20230150763A1) in view of Schmidt (US20200156630A1).
In regards to claim 6, Haberlein teaches The system of claim 1.
Yet Haberlein do not explicitly teach wherein the one or more hazards positioned within a detection distance of the at least one radar sensor comprise an object in front of the refuse collection vehicle and that could result in a potential overhead collision with the refuse collection vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Schmidt teaches wherein the one or more hazards positioned within a detection distance of the at least one radar sensor comprise an object in front of the refuse collection vehicle and that could result in a potential overhead collision with the refuse collection vehicle (Schmidt: Fig. 3; Para 37 “The various sensors, such as the one or more vehicle sensors 126 a-b, the load sensor 136 and/or the infrastructure sensors 138 may use various technologies, such as infrared, radar, LIDAR, millimeter wave, or a camera to capture data to determine to heights of the overhead object, road object, vehicle and/or vehicle load, or to determine distances between objects. In some implementations, the various sensors communicate with one another to exchange the height or distance information”; Para 58 “the collision warning system 100 may measure or detect an initial object height, Hobj_1, at an entrance 304 of a tunnel or overpass 302, using the one or more vehicle sensors 126 a or the load sensor 136, as shown in FIG. 3”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify The system of Haberlein with the feature of wherein the one or more hazards positioned within a detection distance of the at least one radar sensor comprise an object in front of the refuse collection vehicle and that could result in a potential overhead collision with the refuse collection vehicle disclosed by Schmidt. One would be motivated to do so for the benefit of “improving detection and warning of overhead objects” (Schmidt: Para 5).
As per claim 14, it recites A method of operating a refuse collection vehicle having limitations similar to those of claim 6 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
In regards to claim 15, the combination of Haberlein and Schmidt teaches The method of claim 14, and Schmidt further teaches wherein detecting the hazard comprises:
detecting, based on data generated by the at least one radar sensor, a clearance height of the object(Schmidt: Fig. 3; Para 58 “the collision warning system 100 may measure or detect an initial object height, Hobj_1, at an entrance 304 of a tunnel or overpass 302, using the one or more vehicle sensors 126 a or the load sensor 136, as shown in FIG. 3”); and
determining that the clearance height of the object is less than an overall height of the refuse collection vehicle(Schmidt: Fig. 3; Para 19 “The vehicle overhead collision detection and warning system (“collision warning system”) detects the height of the vehicle along with the height of any load of the vehicle and determines whether the vehicle and/or vehicle load would collide with an overhead obstacle in the path of the vehicle. The load of the vehicle may be a trailer, cargo or other object being conveyed or transported by the vehicle. Since the collision warning system accounts for both the vehicle height and the height of any load on the vehicle (“load height”), the collision warning system will warn the driver of a collision with an overhead object by either the vehicle or the vehicle load. The collision warning system may also account for other factors, such as road obstacles and/or road inclination, which would affect the clearance height. For example, a speed bump within a tunnel or near a tunnel entrance designed to slow a vehicle, may cause the vehicle to bounce, and thus, the collision warning system may account for the increase in the overall height of the vehicle and/or vehicle load when the vehicle traverses the speed bump. This reduces the likelihood of a collision with the overhead object due to human error, e.g., a driver forgetting about the load on the vehicle and/or the driver miscalculating the vehicle height or load height”). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Haberlein and Schmidt as in Claim 6 above.
In regards to claim 18, Haberlein teaches The method of claim 10 and Schmidt further teaches further comprising generating a map comprising a map element indicating a location of the hazard detected by the radar sensor(Schmidt: Para 48 “The collision warning system 100 may use the navigation unit 132 to obtain navigational map information, which includes the locations of the one or more overhead objects, the current location, the destination location and/or the route of the vehicle 102 a”). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Haberlein and Schmidt as in Claim 6 above.
In regards to claim 19, Haberlein teaches The method of claim 10 and Schmidt further teaches further comprising in response to receiving the signal, generating a visual alert or an audible alert(Schmidt: Para 55 “If the vehicle height and/or the load height is greater than or equal to the threshold height, the collision warning system 100 may control an operation of the vehicle 102 to alert the driver or avoid the overhead object (212)”; Para 76 “The collision warning system 100 may send, provide, notify or otherwise alert or warn the driver of the approaching object. The collision warning system 100 may use an audio and/or visual indicator to alert the driver of the approaching object and/or may display a notification or alert on the user interface 128 to warn the driver of the approaching object”). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Haberlein and Schmidt as in Claim 6 above.
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haberlein (US20230150763A1) and Schmidt (US20200156630A1) in view of Wildgrube564 (US20150159564A1).
In regards to claim 7, the combination of Haberlein and Schmidt teaches The system of claim 6.
Yet the combination of Haberlein and Schmidt do not explicitly teach wherein the refuse collection vehicle comprises one or more fuel tanks coupled to a roof of the refuse collection vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wildgrube564 teaches wherein the refuse collection vehicle comprises one or more fuel tanks coupled to a roof of the refuse collection vehicle (Wildgrube: Fig. 13-14 Element 210; Para 55 “Fuel pod 210 includes a plurality of natural gas fuel tanks, according to an exemplary embodiment, positioned along upper wall 234 of body assembly 230”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify The system of the combination of Haberlein and Schmidt with the feature of wherein the refuse collection vehicle comprises one or more fuel tanks coupled to a roof of the refuse collection vehicle disclosed by Wildgrube564. One would be motivated to do so for the benefit of “allowing use of the exposed area for other purposes (e.g., to provide storage)” (Wildgrube564: Para 57).
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haberlein (US20230150763A1) in view of Wang (US20230184931A1).
In regards to claim 16, Haberlein teaches The method of claim 10.
Yet Haberlein do not explicitly teach wherein detecting, the hazard positioned within the detection distance of the at least one radar sensor comprises:
generating, by the radar sensor, a point cloud; and
processing, by the radar sensor, the point cloud to detect the hazard.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wang teaches wherein detecting, the hazard positioned within the detection distance of the at least one radar sensor comprises:
generating, by the radar sensor, a point cloud (Wang: Para 20 “An autonomous vehicle may include sensors such as cameras, Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR), and/or a radar mounted on the autonomous vehicle to obtain sensor data (e.g., point cloud data from LiDAR and/or point cloud data from radar) of one or more areas surrounding the autonomous vehicle. The sensor data can be obtained and analyzed by one or more computers on-board the autonomous vehicle to determine characteristics of objects (e.g., vehicles or pedestrians) surrounding the autonomous vehicle on the road. The characteristics of the object may include a distance of the object from the autonomous vehicle and/or speed of the object. The computer(s) located in the autonomous vehicle can perform signal processing techniques on sensor data obtained from LiDAR and radar so that the computer(s) can precisely or accurately detect an object and determine its characteristics”); and
processing, by the radar sensor, the point cloud to detect the hazard(Wang: Para 20 “An autonomous vehicle may include sensors such as cameras, Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR), and/or a radar mounted on the autonomous vehicle to obtain sensor data (e.g., point cloud data from LiDAR and/or point cloud data from radar) of one or more areas surrounding the autonomous vehicle. The sensor data can be obtained and analyzed by one or more computers on-board the autonomous vehicle to determine characteristics of objects (e.g., vehicles or pedestrians) surrounding the autonomous vehicle on the road. The characteristics of the object may include a distance of the object from the autonomous vehicle and/or speed of the object. The computer(s) located in the autonomous vehicle can perform signal processing techniques on sensor data obtained from LiDAR and radar so that the computer(s) can precisely or accurately detect an object and determine its characteristics”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify The method of Haberlein with the feature of wherein detecting, the hazard positioned within the detection distance of the at least one radar sensor comprises: generating, by the radar sensor, a point cloud; and processing, by the radar sensor, the point cloud to detect the hazard disclosed by Wang. One would be motivated to do so for the benefit of “determine distances of objects surrounding the autonomous vehicle so that the autonomous vehicle can be safely maneuvered around the objects” (Wang: Para 5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Maroney (US20220234822A1) disclosed a refuse collection vehicle includes a grabber that is operable to engage a refuse container, a lift arm that is operable to lift a refuse container, at least one sensor that is arranged to collect data indicating an angular position of the grabber, at least one sensor that is arranged to collect data indicating a relative positioning of the lift arm, a first controller for adjusting the angular position of the grabber, and a second controller adjusting the relative positioning of the lift arm. The adjustment of the angular position of the grabber is coordinated with the adjustment of the relative positioning of the lift arm.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENYUAN YANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/W.Y./Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
7/23/26
Prosecution Insights