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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application filed on or after March 16, 2013, and are being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 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. This communication is the First Office Action on the Merits.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
For readability, all claim language has been bolded. Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parenthesis. Any further explanations that were deemed necessary the by Examiner are provided at the end of each claim limitation. The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly if there are any questions or concerns regarding the current Office Action.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
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: motive member in claim 1, interpreted as wheels 22, per Applicant published disclosure [0022].
MPEP § 2181, I. A. provides a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f): "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for." Welker Bearing Co., v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096, 89 USPQ2d 1289, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 1354, 80 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at 704, 48 USPQ2d at 1886–87; Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 1214-1215, 48 USPQ2d 1010, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Note that there is no fixed list of generic placeholders that always result in 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation, and likewise there is no fixed list of words that always avoid 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation. Every case will turn on its own unique set of facts.
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.
Claim 9 is 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 applicant regards as the invention.
In regards to claim 9: Applicant claims
9. The refuse vehicle of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to determine the function request, wherein the function request is indicative of a predicted use of the hydraulic power take-off system in a near future time period.
However, a near future time period is subjective and indefinite as claimed. Corrective action or clarification is required.
All other dependent claims of the indefinite claims detailed above, if any, are also indefinite at least by virtue of depending on the indefinite claims detailed above.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-7, 9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Hou (US 20150232269 A1).
In regards to Claim 1, Hou discloses the following:
1. A refuse vehicle (see at least Fig. 1A and [0014] “refuse truck 10 (e.g., garbage truck, waste collection truck, sanitation truck, etc.)”) comprising:
a chassis coupled to a plurality of motive members; (see at least Fig. 1A and [0014] “chassis” and “wheels 18”)
an internal combustion engine coupled to the chassis and configured to power movement of the plurality of motive members; (see at least Fig. 1A and [0014] “Engine 16 provides power to wheels 18”)
a vehicle body coupled to the chassis and defining a refuse compartment for storing refuse therein; (see at least Fig. 1A and [0014] “Body 14” and [0015] “Body 14 includes sidewalls 22 that at least partially define a collection chamber, shown as compartment 20 (e.g., hopper, etc.), according to an exemplary embodiment. As shown in FIGS. 1A-1E, compartment 20 is positioned in the rear of refuse truck 10. Refuse may be deposited in the compartment 20 for transport to a waste disposal site (e.g., a landfill, a recycling facility, etc.).”)
a hydraulic actuator coupled to the vehicle body; (see at least [0016] “hydraulic cylinders 26”, “hydraulic cylinders 28”, [0018] “hydraulic cylinder 37” and [0019] “hydraulic cylinder 44”) and
a hydraulic power take-off system (see at least Fig. 2 and [0023] “[0023] As shown in FIG. 2, power takeoff unit 56 is selectively coupled to a prime mover, shown as first hydraulic pump 64, with a clutch 58. According to an alternative embodiment, power takeoff unit 56 includes clutch 58 (e.g., as a hot shift PTO).”)
comprising:
a hydraulic pump fluidly coupled to the hydraulic actuator; (see at least Fig. 2, item 64 and [0025] “first hydraulic pump 64 and a second hydraulic circuit 66 including a second prime mover, shown as a second hydraulic pump 68”)
and a clutch operably coupled between the hydraulic pump and the internal combustion engine; (see at least Fig. 2, item 58 and [0023]-[0025] “clutch 58”)
and a controller communicably coupled to the clutch (see at least [0039] “Controller 130 is configured to engage and disengage clutch 58 according to a clutch control strategy”)
and configured to control the clutch to selectively couple the internal combustion engine to the hydraulic pump (see at least [0039] “Controller 130 is configured to engage and disengage clutch 58 according to a clutch control strategy”, [0043] “Controller 130 is configured to generate the first command signal and thereafter generate a second command signal to disengage clutch 58”)
based on a function request to actuate the hydraulic actuator. (see at least [0003] “The controller is configured to engage the clutch when the refuse vehicle enters a collection mode”, [0051] “The speed of the engine may fall below the engaging threshold as the vehicle transitions from a transport mode to a collection mode (e.g., as the vehicle slows down to collect refuse). In one embodiment, the engaging threshold is the third threshold (e.g., 900 revolutions per minute).”, see also Fig. 6 step 250 “engage clutch” and 260 “turn on hydraulic functions”)
Examiner Note: The claimed function request is interpreted in view of Applicant Published Disclosure [0018]:
The function request may include a request (e.g., a user input, a user command, etc.) from an operator of the refuse vehicle, such as to actuate at least one of a lift system to empty the contents of a refuse container into the refuse vehicle or to actuate an ejector system configured to compact and/or eject refuse from the refuse vehicle. The function request may also include vehicle operating conditions, such as the operating state of the refuse vehicle (e.g., whether the refuse vehicle is in transit between neighborhoods or between stops along a route, etc.), a location of the refuse vehicle, a location of the operator relative to the refuse vehicle, and/or other vehicle conditions.
Accordingly, a function request includes metes and bounds of operating states that require the refuse vehicle to actuate the hydraulic actuator. Therefore the mode transition of going from a transport mode to a collection mode (e.g., as the vehicle slows down to collect refuse) is within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed function request.
In regards to Claim 2, Hou discloses the following:
2. The refuse vehicle of claim 1, wherein the controller is communicably coupled to the hydraulic pump and is configured to control a displacement of the hydraulic pump based on the function request. (see at least [0040] “controller 130 is configured to generate a first command signal to decrease the stroke of at least one of first hydraulic pump 64 and second hydraulic pump 68.” and “According to still another embodiment, the first command signal is received by one or more components that otherwise decrease the pump stroke of at least one of first hydraulic pump 64 and second hydraulic pump 68.” and [0056] “Control module 308 may trigger a first command signal (e.g., after the engine speed exceeds a first threshold) to decrease the pump stroke of first hydraulic pump 64 and second hydraulic pump 68 and thereafter trigger a second command signal to disengage clutch 58 (e.g., at the same or a greater engine speed).”)
In regards to Claim 3, Hou discloses the following:
3. The refuse vehicle of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to control operation of the clutch between a first mode in which the hydraulic pump is decoupled from the internal combustion engine (see at least [0046] “transportation mode (e.g., to drive down a street at various operating speeds). In one embodiment, controller 130 is configured to reduce the pump stroke and disengage clutch 58, thereby decoupling first hydraulic pump 64 and second hydraulic pump 68 from the engine, as the vehicle enters the transportation mode”)
and a second mode in which the hydraulic pump is rotationally coupled to the internal combustion engine and is powered by the internal combustion engine. (see at least claim 18 “controller is configured to deactivate the hydraulic system and thereafter engage the clutch when the refuse vehicle enters the collection mode”, see also [0003] “The controller is configured to engage the clutch when the refuse vehicle enters a collection mode and deactivate the hydraulic system before disengaging the clutch when the refuse vehicle enters a transport mode.”)
In regards to Claim 4, Hou discloses the following:
4. The refuse vehicle of claim 3, wherein the controller is further configured to control operation of the clutch between the second mode in which the hydraulic pump is rotationally coupled to the internal combustion engine and is powered by the internal combustion engine (see at least claim 18 “controller is configured to deactivate the hydraulic system and thereafter engage the clutch when the refuse vehicle enters the collection mode”, see also [0003] “The controller is configured to engage the clutch when the refuse vehicle enters a collection mode and deactivate the hydraulic system before disengaging the clutch when the refuse vehicle enters a transport mode.”)
and a third mode in which the hydraulic pump is operated to provide hydraulic fluid to the hydraulic actuator. (see at least [0027] “hydraulic flow output 65 of first hydraulic pump 64 and hydraulic flow output 69 of second hydraulic pump 68 are coupled to more or fewer actuators to perform various operations for a refuse vehicle.”)
In regards to Claim 5, Hou discloses the following:
5. The refuse vehicle of claim 1, wherein the hydraulic power take-off system further comprises a valve fluidly coupled to the hydraulic actuator that is configured to control a flow rate of hydraulic fluid to the hydraulic actuator. (see at least Fig. 3 and [0028] “As shown in FIG. 3, actuators 70a-70c are coupled to hydraulic flow output 65 of first hydraulic pump 64 with a first pressure line 72 (e.g., high pressure line), and actuators 80a-80b are coupled to hydraulic flow output 69 of second hydraulic pump 68 with a second pressure line 82 (e.g., high pressure line)… a plurality of main valves are disposed along first pressure line 72 and second pressure line 82. As shown in FIG. 3, hydraulic system 60 includes a first valve block 74 that includes a plurality of main valves, shown as valves 76a-76c, and a second valve block 84 that includes a plurality of main valves, shown as valves 86a-86b. Valves 76a-76c are configured to control the flow of pressurized fluid from first hydraulic pump 64 to actuators 70a-70c, respectively, and valves 86a-86b are configured to control the flow of pressurized fluid from second hydraulic pump 68 to actuators 80a-80b, respectively.”)
In regards to Claim 6, Hou discloses the following:
6. The refuse vehicle of claim 5, wherein the controller is further configured to control the valve, based on the function request, to adjust the flow rate of hydraulic fluid to the hydraulic actuator. (see at least [0039] “controller 130 is coupled to clutch 58, valve 120, and valve 122 [and] to clutch 58 and at least one of valves 76a-76c, valves 86a-86b, valve 92, and valve 94… Controller 130 may also engage and disengaged at least one of valve 120, valve 122, valves 76a-76c, valves 86a-86b, valve 92, and valve 94 according to a valve control strategy.)
In regards to Claim 7, Hou discloses the following:
7. The refuse vehicle of claim 1, wherein the hydraulic power take-off system further comprises a valve and a sensor coupled to the hydraulic actuator, (see at least [0050] “a sensor (e.g., a pressure sensor, a linear position sensor, etc.) may be positioned to monitor whether the hydraulic functions str off.” and ” a pressure sensor is positioned in a pressure line between the hydraulic pump and a main valve or in a load sensing line and provides sensing signals.”) and wherein the controller is communicably coupled to the valve and the sensor, (see at least [0039] “controller 130 is coupled to clutch 58, valve 120, and valve 122 [and] to clutch 58 and at least one of valves 76a-76c, valves 86a-86b, valve 92, and valve 94… Controller 130 may also engage and disengaged at least one of valve 120, valve 122, valves 76a-76c, valves 86a-86b, valve 92, and valve 94 according to a valve control strategy.) the controller further configured to: receive sensor data from the sensor; (see at least [0052] “Controller 130 receives input from one or more sensors 270”) and control operation of the valve to adjust a flow rate of hydraulic fluid to the hydraulic actuator based on the sensor data. (see at least [0056] “Hydraulic system condition module 306 may use data from at least one of pressure sensor 272 and position sensor 276 to evaluate a current condition (e.g., on, off, etc.) of the hydraulic system for the vehicle (e.g., hydraulic system 60).” and “Controller 130 engages and disengages valves of valve system 310 to increase and decrease the stroke of first hydraulic pump 64 and second hydraulic pump 68”)
In regards to Claim 9, as best understood, Hou discloses the following:
9. The refuse vehicle of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to determine the function request, wherein the function request is indicative of a predicted use of the hydraulic power take-off system in a near future time period. (see at least [0003] “The controller is configured to engage the clutch when the refuse vehicle enters a collection mode and deactivate the hydraulic system before disengaging the clutch when the refuse vehicle enters a transport mode”, [0024] “clutch 58 may be engaged such that energy flows along the second flow path when operation of first hydraulic pump 64 is required to perform a particular task.” and [0051] “The speed of the engine may fall below the engaging threshold as the vehicle transitions from a transport mode to a collection mode (e.g., as the vehicle slows down to collect refuse).”)
In regards to Claim 11: Claim 11 is the hydraulic power take-off system for the refuse vehicle of claim 1, and is therefore is rejected the same or similar to claim 1.
In regards to Claim 12, Hou discloses the following:
12. The hydraulic power take-off system of claim 11, wherein the function request is indicative of an anticipated use of an accessory system of the refuse vehicle. (see at least [0003] “The controller is configured to engage the clutch when the refuse vehicle enters a collection mode and deactivate the hydraulic system before disengaging the clutch when the refuse vehicle enters a transport mode”, [0024] “clutch 58 may be engaged such that energy flows along the second flow path when operation of first hydraulic pump 64 is required to perform a particular task.” and [0051] “The speed of the engine may fall below the engaging threshold as the vehicle transitions from a transport mode to a collection mode (e.g., as the vehicle slows down to collect refuse).”)
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 8 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou (US 20150232269 A1) in view of Khan et al. (US 20050110330 A1) herein Khan.
In regards to Claim 8, Hou does not explicitly disclose the following, which is taught by Khan:
8. The refuse vehicle of claim 7, wherein the controller is further configured to control operation of the valve to adjust the flow rate of hydraulic fluid to the hydraulic actuator based on a second function indicative of a desired flow rate of hydraulic fluid to the hydraulic actuator. (see at least [0049] “electrical/electronic control system CS1 controls the speed and direction of movement of a selected valve spool mechanism SM in response to the vehicle's operator actuating a manually operated control device (switches, joystick, etc.)” and [0051] “The speed and direction of movement of the cylinder 7 is controlled by the hydraulic flow supplied to it, which in turn is controlled by the movement of the spool mechanism SP in its control valve as regulated by the operation of the joystick 10.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Khan with the invention of Hou, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing for varying the flow rate from the hydraulic pump of a refuse collection vehicle without changing speed of the pump, to reduce heat generation, and pump leakage which may be enormous as increased pressure and temperatures rise, and to save energy at higher engine revolutions. (Khan, [0006])
In regards to Claim 13, Hou discloses the following:
13. A method for controlling operation of a hydraulic pump onboard a refuse vehicle, (see at least Fig. 1A and [0014] “refuse truck 10” and Fig. 2 and [0023] “hydraulic pump 64”) the method comprising:
receiving a first function request to initiate operation of the hydraulic pump; (see at least [0003] “The controller is configured to engage the clutch when the refuse vehicle enters a collection mode”, [0051] “The speed of the engine may fall below the engaging threshold as the vehicle transitions from a transport mode to a collection mode (e.g., as the vehicle slows down to collect refuse). In one embodiment, the engaging threshold is the third threshold (e.g., 900 revolutions per minute).”, see also Fig. 6 step 250 “engage clutch” and 260 “turn on hydraulic functions”)
controlling, based on the first function request, a clutch to engage the clutch to mechanically couple an internal combustion engine of the refuse vehicle to the hydraulic pump; (see at least [0039] “Controller 130 is configured to engage and disengage clutch 58 according to a clutch control strategy”, [0043] “Controller 130 is configured to generate the first command signal and thereafter generate a second command signal to disengage clutch 58”, see also [0051], cited above)
Hou suggests the following:
receiving a second function request, where the second function request is indicative of desired use of a hydraulic actuator that is fluidly coupled to the hydraulic pump; (see at least [0027] “actuator 70a is positioned to perform a raise or dump operation for a refuse vehicle, actuator 70b is positioned to operate a grabber of a refuse vehicle, actuator 70c is positioned to perform a reach operation of a refuse vehicle, actuator 80a is positioned to move a tailgate of a refuse vehicle, and actuator 80b is positions to move a top door of a refuse vehicle (e.g., a door that closes a refuse collection chamber to prevent debris from escaping during transport). In other embodiments, hydraulic flow output 65 of first hydraulic pump 64 and hydraulic flow output 69 of second hydraulic pump 68 are coupled to more or fewer actuators to perform various operations for a refuse vehicle.”)
Hou teaches a plurality of functions for actuators during collection mode. While clearly suggestive of performing these functions based on some sort of meaningful command/request signal from controller 130, Hou does not explicitly disclose this command, which is better taught by Khan. (see at least [0049] “electrical/electronic control system CS1 controls the speed and direction of movement of a selected valve spool mechanism SM in response to the vehicle's operator actuating a manually operated control device (switches, joystick, etc.)” and [0051] “The speed and direction of movement of the cylinder 7 is controlled by the hydraulic flow supplied to it, which in turn is controlled by the movement of the spool mechanism SP in its control valve as regulated by the operation of the joystick 10.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Khan with the invention of Hou, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing for varying the flow rate from the hydraulic pump of a refuse collection vehicle without changing speed of the pump, to reduce heat generation, and pump leakage which may be enormous as increased pressure and temperatures rise, and to save energy at higher engine revolutions. (Khan, [0006])
Hou discloses the following:
and providing, based on the second function request, hydraulic fluid from the hydraulic pump to the hydraulic actuator. (see at least [0028] “Valves 76a-76c are configured to control the flow of pressurized fluid from first hydraulic pump 64 to actuators 70a-70c, respectively, and valves 86a-86b are configured to control the flow of pressurized fluid from second hydraulic pump 68 to actuators 80a-80b, respectively. According to an exemplary embodiment, pressurized fluid flows from hydraulic flow output 65, along first pressure line 72 to actuators 70a-70c, and back to reservoir 81 via a first return line 78 (e.g., low pressure line). Pressurized fluid also flows from hydraulic flow output 69, along second pressure line 82 to actuators 80a-80b, and back to reservoir 81 via a second return line 88.”)
In regards to Claim 14, Hou discloses the following:
14. The method of claim 13, the method further comprising controlling the clutch to decouple the internal combustion engine to the hydraulic pump in an absence of the first function request. (see at least [0024] “clutch may be selectively disengaged”, [0046] “as the vehicle enters a transportation mode (e.g., to drive down a street at various operating speeds). In one embodiment, controller 130 is configured to reduce the pump stroke and disengage clutch 58” and [0050] “method 140 includes disengaging a clutch (190) after determining that the hydraulic functions are not turned on (170).”)
In regards to Claim 15, Hou discloses the following:
15. The method of claim 13, wherein the first function request is indicative of a location of the refuse vehicle (optional) or a mode of operation of the refuse vehicle. (see at least [0003] “collection mode” and “transport mode”)
In regards to Claim 16, Hou, as modified by Miller, discloses the following:
16. The method of claim 13, further comprising adjusting an operating condition of the hydraulic pump based on at least one of the first function request or the second function request. (see at least [0040] “controller 130 is configured to generate a first command signal to decrease the stroke of at least one of first hydraulic pump 64 and second hydraulic pump 68.” and “According to still another embodiment, the first command signal is received by one or more components that otherwise decrease the pump stroke of at least one of first hydraulic pump 64 and second hydraulic pump 68.” and [0056] “Control module 308 may trigger a first command signal (e.g., after the engine speed exceeds a first threshold) to decrease the pump stroke of first hydraulic pump 64 and second hydraulic pump 68 and thereafter trigger a second command signal to disengage clutch 58 (e.g., at the same or a greater engine speed).”)
In regards to Claim 17, Hou discloses the following:
17. The method of claim 13, the method further comprising determining, from sensor data received from a sensor coupled to the hydraulic pump, a hydraulic pressure. (see at least [0050] “a pressure sensor is positioned in a pressure line between the hydraulic pump and a main valve or in a load sensing line and provides sensing signals. By way of another example, a position sensor (e.g., a linear position sensor) may be coupled to the hydraulic pump and provide sensing signals relating to an orientation of a swash plate.”)
In regards to Claim 18, Hou does not explicitly disclose the following, which is taught by Khan:
18. The method of claim 17, the method further comprising determining a hydraulic pressure threshold based on at least one of the first function request or the second function request; (see at least [0060] “A pressure sensor 18 (FIG. 4) detects a predetermined elevated pressure as the packer 110 gradually increases its pressure as the refuse collects in the refuse storage body 108.” and [0061] “the pressure sensor 18 is set at 2800 psi, and closes when the pressure in the cap side reaches this pressure. The sensor then supplies a signal and the program routine lowers the voltage to the solenoid SOL1 that control the operation of the packer in its extended position, moving the directional control spool mechanism SP1 of the valve 12 to the position pos. 4.”)
Hou, as modified by Miller, discloses the following:
and adjusting, the hydraulic pressure generated by the hydraulic pump until the hydraulic pressure satisfies the hydraulic pressure threshold. (see at least [0031] “Hydraulic system 60 includes a load sensing system configured to monitor the load on the hydraulic system. The load sensing system provides independent feedback of the load on the actuators to first hydraulic pump 64 and second hydraulic pump 68. As shown in FIG. 3, a first load sensing line 96 couples valves 76a-76c and valve 92 to feedback valves (e.g., flow compensator valves, pressure compensator valves, etc.), shown as valves 97 of first hydraulic pump 64…. valves 97 are positioned to control the orientation of the swash plate of first hydraulic pump 64, and valves 99 are positioned to control the orientation of the swash plate of second hydraulic pump 68. By way of example, valves 97 and valves 99 may control the orientation of the swash plate as a function of the pressures within first load sensing line 96 and second load sensing line 98.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Khan with the invention of Hou, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing for varying the flow rate from the hydraulic pump of a refuse collection vehicle without changing speed of the pump, to reduce heat generation, and pump leakage which may be enormous as increased pressure and temperatures rise, and to save energy at higher engine revolutions. (Khan, [0006])
In regards to Claim 19, Hou discloses the following:
19. The method of claim 13, wherein the first function request is indicative of predicted use of the hydraulic actuator. (see at least [0003] “The controller is configured to engage the clutch when the refuse vehicle enters a collection mode and deactivate the hydraulic system before disengaging the clutch when the refuse vehicle enters a transport mode”, [0024] “clutch 58 may be engaged such that energy flows along the second flow path when operation of first hydraulic pump 64 is required to perform a particular task.” and [0051] “The speed of the engine may fall below the engaging threshold as the vehicle transitions from a transport mode to a collection mode (e.g., as the vehicle slows down to collect refuse).”)
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou (US 20150232269 A1) in view of Davis et al. (US 20220118854) herein Davis.
In regards to Claim 10, Hou does not explicitly disclose the following, which is taught by Davis:
10. The refuse vehicle of claim 9, wherein the function request is determined using one or more of GPS data from a network, (see at least [0042] “refuse truck 10 can include a GPS 408 that is positioned within the cab 18 or elsewhere upon the body assembly 14 to monitor a current location of the refuse truck. The GPS 408 communicates with the controller 106 which can, based upon the detected location of the refuse truck 10, modify vehicle performance by activating, deactivating, or optimizing different vehicle subsystems”) route-based data, (see at least [0032] “For example, route-based data or past performance data can be provided to the refuse truck 10 through the network 110 and/or the memory 108 to the controller 106.”) and/or past performance data of the hydraulic power take-off system. (see at least [0032] “past performance data”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Miller with the invention of Hou, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enabling the refuse truck 10 to conserve energy when the vehicle subsystems are not needed. (Davis, [0031])
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou in view of Khan, as applied, and in further view of Davis et al. (US 20220118854) herein Davis.
In regards to Claim 20, Hou does not explicitly teach the following, which is taught by Davis:
20. The method of claim 19, wherein the first function request is determined using one or more of GPS data from a network or route-based data. (see at least [0042] “refuse truck 10 can include a GPS 408 that is positioned within the cab 18 or elsewhere upon the body assembly 14 to monitor a current location of the refuse truck. The GPS 408 communicates with the controller 106 which can, based upon the detected location of the refuse truck 10, modify vehicle performance by activating, deactivating, or optimizing different vehicle subsystems”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Miller with the invention of Hou, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enabling the refuse truck 10 to conserve energy when the vehicle subsystems are not needed. (Davis, [0031])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason Roberson, whose telephone number is (571) 272-7793. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday thru Friday between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM. The examiner may also be reached through e-mail at Jason.Roberson@USPTO.GOV, or via FAX at (571) 273-7793. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patient Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the PAIR system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule either an in-person or a telephone interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
Sincerely,
/JASON R ROBERSON/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
June 22, 2026
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights