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
The amendment filed on 07/27/2026 has been entered. Claims 21-40 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 101 rejection(s) set forth in the previous office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections for claims 21-40 have been considered but are moot because the arguments are directed towards amended claim language, addressed on new grounds of rejection below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim(s) 21-40 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12351109 in view of Elbrink (US 20030031543) (hereinafter Elbrink) and Mullins et al. (US 20160054791) (hereinafter Mullins).
Regarding claim 21,
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12351109 Claim 1
A refuse collection vehicle comprising:
A refuse collection vehicle comprising:
a grabber that is operable to engage a refuse container;
a grabber that is operable to engage a refuse container;
a lift arm coupled to the grabber and operable to raise and lower the grabber;
a lift arm coupled to the grabber and operable to raise and lower the grabber;
a camera that is arranged to generate image data of a scene external to the refuse collection vehicle;
a camera that is arranged to generate image data of a scene external to the refuse collection vehicle;
a sensor configured to generate one or more signals indicating a first operational state of the grabber and a second operational state of the grabber;
a sensor configured to detect an operational state of the grabber;
at least one processor communicably coupled to the sensor; and
a display system configured to:
a display system configured to:
display, based on the at least one processor detecting the first operational state of the grabber, at least a portion of the image data generated by the camera within an area in a forward line of sight of an operator of the refuse collection vehicle; and
display at least a portion of the image data generated by the camera within a forward line of sight of an operator of the refuse collection vehicle;
stop displaying, based on the at least one processor detecting the second operational state of the grabber, any and all image data within the area.
stop displaying, based on the operational state of the grabber, the at least a portion of the image data, to stop displaying, based on the operational state of the grabber, the at least a portion of the image data, the display system is configured to stop displaying the at least a portion of the image data in response to the sensor detecting that the grabber has released the refuse container.
Although claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12351109 does not specify all image data, a control unit processor, first and second operational state, first and second signal, and dump cycle, Elbrink paragraphs 13-19 teaches a control unit processor, first and second operational state, first and second signal, and dump cycle. And Mullins paragraph 32 teaches stopping display of all data when a lever arm is in a detected non-use position. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention disclosed by claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12351109 with the stopping displaying all image data, control unit processor, first and second operational state, first and second signal, and dump cycle of Elbrink in order to have a refuse collection vehicle with that is able to differentiate between different states with a processor during a dump cycle and terminate all image data when reaching a state where display is no longer needed.
Claim(s) 22-29 is/are rejected for their dependence on claim(s) 21.
Regarding claim 30,
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12351109 Claim 10
A method of operating a refuse collection vehicle to collect refuse from a refuse container, the method comprising:
A method of operating a refuse collection vehicle to collect refuse from a refuse container, the method comprising:
receiving image data from a camera coupled to the refuse collection vehicle and arranged to generate image data of a scene external to the refuse collection vehicle;
receiving image data from a camera coupled to the refuse collection vehicle and arranged to generate video data of a scene external to the refuse collection vehicle;
receiving a first signal from a sensor indicating a first operational state of a grabber of the refuse collection vehicle, the grabber being operable to engage the refuse container;
receiving a signal from a sensor indicating an operational state of a grabber of the refuse collection vehicle, the grabber being operable to engage a refuse container,
controlling, based on the first signal indicating the first operational state of the grabber, a display system of the refuse collection vehicle to display at least a portion of the image data received from the camera within an area in a forward line of sight of an operator of the refuse collection vehicle;
controlling a display system of the refuse collection vehicle to display at least a portion of the image data received from the camera within a forward line of sight of an operator of the refuse collection vehicle;
receiving a second signal from the sensor indicating a second operational state of the grabber; and
wherein the receiving a signal from the sensor comprises receiving a signal indicating that the grabber has released the refuse container;
causing, based on the second signal indicating the second operational state of the grabber, the display system to stop displaying any and all image data within the area.
causing, based on the operational state of the grabber indicated by the signal from the sensor, the display system to stop displaying the at least a portion of the image data, wherein the causing the display system to stop displaying the at least a portion of the image data comprises causing the display system to stop displaying the at least a portion of the image data in response to receiving the signal indicating that the grabber has released the refuse container.
Although claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12351109 does not specify all image data, a control unit processor, first and second operational state, first and second signal, and dump cycle, Elbrink paragraphs 13-19 teaches a control unit processor, first and second operational state, first and second signal, and dump cycle. And Mullins paragraph 32 teaches stopping display of all data when a lever arm is in a detected non-use position. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention disclosed by claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12351109 with the stopping displaying all image data, control unit processor, first and second operational state, first and second signal, and dump cycle of Elbrink in order to have a refuse collection vehicle with that is able to differentiate between different states with a processor during a dump cycle and terminate all image data when reaching a state where display is no longer needed.
Claim(s) 31-38 is/are rejected for their dependence on claim(s) 30.
Regarding claim 39,
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12351109 Claim 10
A method of operating a refuse collection vehicle to collect refuse from a refuse container, the method comprising:
A method of operating a refuse collection vehicle to collect refuse from a refuse container, the method comprising:
receiving image data from a camera coupled to the refuse collection vehicle and arranged to generate image data of a scene external to the refuse collection vehicle;
receiving image data from a camera coupled to the refuse collection vehicle and arranged to generate video data of a scene external to the refuse collection vehicle;
receiving a first signal from a sensor indicating a first operational state of the refuse collection vehicle, wherein the first operational state is the refuse collection vehicle initiating a dump cycle;
receiving a signal from a sensor indicating an operational state of a grabber of the refuse collection vehicle, the grabber being operable to engage a refuse container,
controlling, based on the first signal indicating the first operational state of the refuse collection vehicle, a display system of the refuse collection vehicle to display at least a portion of the image data received from the camera within an area in a forward line of sight of an operator of the refuse collection vehicle;
controlling a display system of the refuse collection vehicle to display at least a portion of the image data received from the camera within a forward line of sight of an operator of the refuse collection vehicle;
receiving a second signal from the sensor indicating a second operational state of the refuse collection vehicle, wherein the second operational state is the refuse collection vehicle completing the dump cycle; and
wherein the receiving a signal from the sensor comprises receiving a signal indicating that the grabber has released the refuse container;
causing, based on the second signal indicating the second operational state of the refuse collection vehicle, the display system to stop displaying any and all image data within the area.
causing, based on the operational state of the grabber indicated by the signal from the sensor, the display system to stop displaying the at least a portion of the image data, wherein the causing the display system to stop displaying the at least a portion of the image data comprises causing the display system to stop displaying the at least a portion of the image data in response to receiving the signal indicating that the grabber has released the refuse container.
Although claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12351109 does not specify all image data, a control unit processor, first and second operational state, first and second signal, and dump cycle, Elbrink paragraphs 13-19 teaches a control unit processor, first and second operational state, first and second signal, and dump cycle. And Mullins paragraph 32 teaches stopping display of all data when a lever arm is in a detected non-use position. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention disclosed by claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12351109 with the stopping displaying all image data, control unit processor, first and second operational state, first and second signal, and dump cycle of Elbrink in order to have a refuse collection vehicle with that is able to differentiate between different states with a processor during a dump cycle and terminate all image data when reaching a state where display is no longer needed.
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected for their dependence on claim(s) 39.
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 taught 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.
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 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.
Claim(s) 21-23, 25-27, 30-31, 33-34, and 38-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elbrink (US 20030031543) (hereinafter Elbrink) in view of Bao et al. (US 20180088323) (hereinafter Bao), further in view of Mullins et al. (US 20160054791) (hereinafter Mullins).
Regarding claim 21, Elbrink teaches A refuse collection vehicle comprising:
a grabber that is operable to engage a refuse container; a lift arm coupled to the grabber and operable to raise and lower the grabber; a camera that is arranged to generate image data of a scene external to the refuse collection vehicle; a sensor configured to generate one or more signals indicating a first operational state of the grabber and a second operational state of the grabber; at least one processor communicably coupled to the sensor (see Elbrink figure 1 and paragraphs 13-19 regarding lift comb to, broadly, grab refuse container, lift comb having extending arm to lift the lift comb grabbing portion, first camera that images side of collection vehicle transmitted to operator display and second camera that images hopper of collection vehicle- obviously interpretable as video, as a television camera would obviously display real time images, and switching from the side camera view to the hopper camera view and back when detection means determines that the refuse container is "in the tilting position," and "as soon as the lift comb and lifting frame of the side loading device start to move sideways again in order to put the empty container back down." This is a first and second state. Transitively, that necessarily means that the detection means is triggered to indicate that the refuse container is in the tilting position or not when the lift angle of the arm causes the refuse container to be in the tilting position or not. Therefore, to one of ordinary skill, the sensor obviously also can be interpreted to detect the lift angle of the lift arm being above or below the threshold angle that causes the refuse container to be in the tilting position- the tilting position is an operational state of the grabber arm); and
However, Elbrink does not explicitly teach a display system as needed for the limitations of claim 21.
Bao, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a display system configured to: display, based on the at least one processor detecting the first operational state of the grabber, at least a portion of the image data generated by the camera within an area in a forward line of sight of an operator of the refuse collection vehicle (see Bao paragraphs 5-6 regarding vehicle semi-transparent display on the windshield forward view of operator- in combination with Elbrink, this display may output the video camera data of Elbrink); and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teaching of Elbrink to include the teaching of Bao so that in combination with Elbrink, this display may output the video camera data of Elbrink.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to enhance the display in a moving vehicle (see Bao paragraphs 5-6).
However, Elbrink and Bao do not explicitly teach stopping display of any and all image data as needed for the limitations of claim 21.
Mullins, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches stop displaying, based on the at least one processor detecting the second operational state of the grabber, any and all image data within the area (see Mullins paragraph 32 regarding displaying an image when an arm is raised, and terminating display when an arm is lowered in a manner that is obviously understood to mean that the display is no longer necessary- in combination with Elbrink, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to analogize the detected position of an arm indicating that display is no longer needed to the detected position of a grabber indicating that display is no longer needed so that when the grabber of Elbrink reaches the second state, any and all image data is no longer displayed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teaching of Elbrink and Bao to include the teaching of Mullins so that in combination with Elbrink, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to analogize the detected position of an arm indicating that display is no longer needed to the detected position of a grabber indicating that display is no longer needed so that when the grabber of Elbrink reaches the second state, any and all image data is no longer displayed.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to preserve energy and prevent user distraction by stopping display when it is no longer needed (see Mullins paragraph 32).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Elbrink, Bao, and Mullins teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 21, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Elbrink, Bao, and Mullins teaches wherein the at least a portion of the image data comprises video data (see Bao paragraphs 39 regarding explicit video transmission of outside environment onto display system- in combination with Elbrink, the television images may be explicitly video).
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to enhance the display in a moving vehicle (see Bao paragraphs 5-6).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Elbrink, Bao, and Mullins teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 21, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Elbrink, Bao, and Mullins teaches wherein the at least a portion of the image data is generated by the camera while the refuse collection vehicle is performing a dump cycle, and wherein the at least a portion of the image data is displayed in real time (see Elbrink paragraph 13-14 regarding imaging and displaying the lift comb during the dump cycle of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Elbrink, Bao, and Mullins teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 21, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Elbrink, Bao, and Mullins teaches wherein the second operational state of the grabber comprises at least one of the grabber releasing the refuse container or the grabber being in a stowed position (see Elbrink figure 1 and paragraphs 13-19 regarding switching from the side camera view to the hopper camera view and back when detection means determines that the refuse container is "in the tilting position," and "as soon as the lift comb and lifting frame of the side loading device start to move sideways again in order to put the empty container back down." This is a first and second state with the second state being broadly interpreted as a range that is a stowed before usage position).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Elbrink, Bao, and Mullins teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 21, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Elbrink, Bao, and Mullins teaches wherein the sensor is a mechanical sensor configured to detect one or more physical parameters associated with the grabber (see Elbrink paragraph 13-15 regarding switching from the side camera view to the hopper camera view and back when detection means determines that the refuse container is "in the tilting position," and "as soon as the lift comb and lifting frame of the side loading device start to move sideways again in order to put the empty container back down." Transitively, that necessarily means that the detection means is triggered to indicate that the refuse container is in the tilting position or not when the lift angle of the arm causes the refuse container to be in the tilting position or not. Therefore, to one of ordinary skill, the sensor obviously also can be interpreted to detect the lift angle of the lift arm being above or below the threshold angle that causes the refuse container to be in the tilting position. Sensing of a mechanical-physical parameter occurs, therefore, the sensor is obviously a mechanical sensor).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Elbrink, Bao, and Mullins teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 26, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Elbrink, Bao, and Mullins teaches wherein the mechanical sensor is at least one of a position sensor, a mechanical plunger, a contact sensor, or a limit switch (see Elbrink paragraph 13-15 regarding switching from the side camera view to the hopper camera view and back when detection means determines that the refuse container is "in the tilting position," and "as soon as the lift comb and lifting frame of the side loading device start to move sideways again in order to put the empty container back down." Transitively, that necessarily means that the detection means is triggered to indicate that the refuse container is in the tilting position or not when the lift angle of the arm causes the refuse container to be in the tilting position or not. Therefore, to one of ordinary skill, the sensor obviously also can be interpreted to detect the lift angle of the lift arm being above or below the threshold angle that causes the refuse container to be in the tilting position. Sensing of a mechanical-physical parameter occurs, therefore, the sensor is obviously a mechanical sensor that senses position).
Regarding claim 30, Elbrink teaches A method of operating a refuse collection vehicle to collect refuse from a refuse container, the method comprising:
receiving image data from a camera coupled to the refuse collection vehicle and arranged to generate image data of a scene external to the refuse collection vehicle; receiving a first signal from a sensor indicating a first operational state of a grabber of the refuse collection vehicle, the grabber being operable to engage the refuse container (see Elbrink figure 1 and paragraphs 13-19 regarding lift comb to, broadly, grab refuse container, lift comb having extending arm to lift the lift comb grabbing portion, first camera that images side of collection vehicle transmitted to operator display and second camera that images hopper of collection vehicle- obviously interpretable as video, as a television camera would obviously display real time images, and switching from the side camera view to the hopper camera view and back when detection means determines that the refuse container is "in the tilting position," and "as soon as the lift comb and lifting frame of the side loading device start to move sideways again in order to put the empty container back down." This is a first and second state. Transitively, that necessarily means that the detection means is triggered to indicate that the refuse container is in the tilting position or not when the lift angle of the arm causes the refuse container to be in the tilting position or not. Therefore, to one of ordinary skill, the sensor obviously also can be interpreted to detect the lift angle of the lift arm being above or below the threshold angle that causes the refuse container to be in the tilting position- the tilting position is an operational state of the grabber arm);
receiving a second signal from the sensor indicating a second operational state of the grabber (see Elbrink figure 1 and paragraphs 13-19 regarding switching from the side camera view to the hopper camera view and back when detection means determines that the refuse container is "in the tilting position," and "as soon as the lift comb and lifting frame of the side loading device start to move sideways again in order to put the empty container back down." This is a first and second state. Transitively, that necessarily means that the detection means is triggered to indicate that the refuse container is in the tilting position or not when the lift angle of the arm causes the refuse container to be in the tilting position or not. Therefore, to one of ordinary skill, the sensor obviously also can be interpreted to detect the lift angle of the lift arm being above or below the threshold angle that causes the refuse container to be in the tilting position- the switching of the video streams is a form of stopping a display of at least a portion of the image data based on the operational state of the grabber); and
However, Elbrink does not explicitly teach a display system as needed for the limitations of claim 30.
Bao, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches controlling, based on the first signal indicating the first operational state of the grabber, a display system of the refuse collection vehicle to display at least a portion of the image data received from the camera within an area in a forward line of sight of an operator of the refuse collection vehicle (see Bao paragraphs 5-6 regarding vehicle semi-transparent display on the windshield forward view of operator- in combination with Elbrink, this display may output the video camera data of Elbrink);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teaching of Elbrink to include the teaching of Bao so that in combination with Elbrink, this display may output the video camera data of Elbrink.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to enhance the display in a moving vehicle (see Bao paragraphs 5-6).
However, Elbrink and Bao do not explicitly teach stopping display of any and all image data as needed for the limitations of claim 30.
Mullins, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches causing, based on the second signal indicating the second operational state of the grabber, the display system to stop displaying any and all image data within the area (see Mullins paragraph 32 regarding displaying an image when an arm is raised, and terminating display when an arm is lowered in a manner that is obviously understood to mean that the display is no longer necessary- in combination with Elbrink, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to analogize the detected position of an arm indicating that display is no longer needed to the detected position of a grabber indicating that display is no longer needed so that when the grabber of Elbrink reaches the second state, any and all image data is no longer displayed) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teaching of Elbrink and Bao to include the teaching of Mullins so that in combination with Elbrink, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to analogize the detected position of an arm indicating that display is no longer needed to the detected position of a grabber indicating that display is no longer needed so that when the grabber of Elbrink reaches the second state, any and all image data is no longer displayed.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to preserve energy and prevent user distraction by stopping display when it is no longer needed (see Mullins paragraph 32).
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Elbrink, Bao, and Mullins teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 30, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Elbrink, Bao, and Mullins teaches wherein the at least a portion of the image data comprises video data (see Bao paragraphs 39 regarding explicit video transmission of outside environment onto display system- in combination with Elbrink, the television images may be explicitly video).
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to enhance the display in a moving vehicle (see Bao paragraphs 5-6).
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Elbrink, Bao, and Mullins teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 30, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Elbrink, Bao, and Mullins teaches wherein the second operational state of the grabber comprises at least one of the grabber releasing the refuse container or the grabber being in a stowed position (see Elbrink figure 1 and paragraphs 13-19 regarding switching from the side camera view to the hopper camera view and back when detection means determines that the refuse container is "in the tilting position," and "as soon as the lift comb and lifting frame of the side loading device start to move sideways again in order to put the empty container back down." This is a first and second state with the second state being broadly interpreted as a range that is a stowed before usage position).
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Elbrink, Bao, and Mullins teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 30, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Elbrink, Bao, and Mullins teaches wherein: the camera is a first camera configured to generate first image data of a side of the refuse collection vehicle, the first image data depicting the grabber of the refuse collection vehicle engaging the refuse container; and controlling the display system to display the at least a portion of the image data comprises controlling the display system to display the first image data depicting the grabber of the refuse collection vehicle engaging the refuse container (see Elbrink paragraph 13-14 regarding switching from the side camera view which views the grabber engaging the refuse container to the hopper camera view and back when detection means determines that the refuse container is "in the tilting position," and "as soon as the lift comb and lifting frame of the side loading device start to move sideways again in order to put the empty container back down." Transitively, that necessarily means that the detection means is triggered to indicate that the refuse container is in the tilting position or not when the lift angle of the arm causes the refuse container to be in the tilting position or not. Therefore, to one of ordinary skill, the sensor obviously also can be interpreted to detect the lift angle of the lift arm being above or below the threshold angle that causes the refuse container to be in the tilting position).
Regarding claim 38, the combination of Elbrink, Bao, and Mullins teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 30, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Elbrink, Bao, and Mullins teaches wherein: the display system comprises a semi-transparent display device attached to a windshield of the refuse collection vehicle; and controlling the display system of the refuse collection vehicle to display at least a portion of the image data received from the camera within the area comprises causing at least a portion of the semi-transparent display device to display the at least a portion of the image data (see Bao paragraphs 5-6 regarding vehicle semi-transparent display on the windshield forward view of operator- in combination with Elbrink, this display may output the video camera data of Elbrink).
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to enhance the display in a moving vehicle (see Bao paragraphs 5-6).
Regarding claim 39, Elbrink teaches A method of operating a refuse collection vehicle to collect refuse from a refuse container, the method comprising:
receiving image data from a camera coupled to the refuse collection vehicle and arranged to generate image data of a scene external to the refuse collection vehicle; receiving a first signal from a sensor indicating a first operational state of the refuse collection vehicle, wherein the first operational state is the refuse collection vehicle initiating a dump cycle (see Elbrink figure 1 and paragraphs 13-19 regarding lift comb to, broadly, grab refuse container, lift comb having extending arm to lift the lift comb grabbing portion, first camera that images side of collection vehicle transmitted to operator display and second camera that images hopper of collection vehicle- obviously interpretable as video, as a television camera would obviously display real time images, and switching from the side camera view to the hopper camera view and back when detection means determines that the refuse container is "in the tilting position," and "as soon as the lift comb and lifting frame of the side loading device start to move sideways again in order to put the empty container back down." This is a first and second state. Transitively, that necessarily means that the detection means is triggered to indicate that the refuse container is in the tilting position or not when the lift angle of the arm causes the refuse container to be in the tilting position or not. Therefore, to one of ordinary skill, the sensor obviously also can be interpreted to detect the lift angle of the lift arm being above or below the threshold angle that causes the refuse container to be in the tilting position- the tilting position is an operational state of the grabber arm);
receiving a second signal from the sensor indicating a second operational state of the refuse collection vehicle, wherein the second operational state is the refuse collection vehicle completing the dump cycle (see Elbrink figure 1 and paragraphs 13-19 regarding switching from the side camera view to the hopper camera view and back when detection means determines that the refuse container is "in the tilting position," and "as soon as the lift comb and lifting frame of the side loading device start to move sideways again in order to put the empty container back down." This is a first and second state. Transitively, that necessarily means that the detection means is triggered to indicate that the refuse container is in the tilting position or not when the lift angle of the arm causes the refuse container to be in the tilting position or not. Therefore, to one of ordinary skill, the sensor obviously also can be interpreted to detect the lift angle of the lift arm being above or below the threshold angle that causes the refuse container to be in the tilting position- the switching of the video streams is a form of stopping a display of at least a portion of the image data based on the operational state of the grabber); and
However, Elbrink does not explicitly teach a display system as needed for the limitations of claim 39.
Bao, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches controlling, based on the first signal indicating the first operational state of the refuse collection vehicle, a display system of the refuse collection vehicle to display at least a portion of the image data received from the camera within an area in a forward line of sight of an operator of the refuse collection vehicle (see Bao paragraphs 5-6 regarding vehicle semi-transparent display on the windshield forward view of operator- in combination with Elbrink, this display may output the video camera data of Elbrink);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teaching of Elbrink to include the teaching of Bao so that in combination with Elbrink, this display may output the video camera data of Elbrink.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to enhance the display in a moving vehicle (see Bao paragraphs 5-6).
However, Elbrink and Bao do not explicitly teach stopping display of any and all image data as needed for the limitations of claim 39.
Mullins, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches causing, based on the second signal indicating the second operational state of the refuse collection vehicle, the display system to stop displaying any and all image data within the area (see Mullins paragraph 32 regarding displaying an image when an arm is raised, and terminating display when an arm is lowered in a manner that is obviously understood to mean that the display is no longer necessary- in combination with Elbrink, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to analogize the detected position of an arm indicating that display is no longer needed to the detected position of a grabber indicating that display is no longer needed so that when the grabber of Elbrink reaches the second state, any and all image data is no longer displayed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teaching of Elbrink and Bao to include the teaching of Mullins so that in combination with Elbrink, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to analogize the detected position of an arm indicating that display is no longer needed to the detected position of a grabber indicating that display is no longer needed so that when the grabber of Elbrink reaches the second state, any and all image data is no longer displayed.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to preserve energy and prevent user distraction by stopping display when it is no longer needed (see Mullins paragraph 32).
Regarding claim 40, the combination of Elbrink, Bao, and Mullins teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 39, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Elbrink, Bao, and Mullins teaches wherein the at least a portion of the image data comprises video data (see Bao paragraphs 39 regarding explicit video transmission of outside environment onto display system- in combination with Elbrink, the television images may be explicitly video).
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to enhance the display in a moving vehicle (see Bao paragraphs 5-6).
Claim(s) 28-29 and 35-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elbrink (US 20030031543) (hereinafter Elbrink) in view of Bao et al. (US 20180088323) (hereinafter Bao), further in view of Rodoni (US 20180247351) (hereinafter Rodoni).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Elbrink, Bao, and Mullins teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 21, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Elbrink, Bao, and Mullins teaches wherein: the camera is a first camera configured to generate first image data of a side of the refuse collection vehicle; and the refuse collection vehicle further comprises: a second camera configured to generate second image data of a hopper of the refuse collection vehicle (see Elbrink paragraph 13-14 regarding switching from the side camera view to the hopper camera view and back when detection means determines that the refuse container is "in the tilting position," and "as soon as the lift comb and lifting frame of the side loading device start to move sideways again in order to put the empty container back down." Transitively, that necessarily means that the detection means is triggered to indicate that the refuse container is in the tilting position or not when the lift angle of the arm causes the refuse container to be in the tilting position or not. Therefore, to one of ordinary skill, the sensor obviously also can be interpreted to detect the lift angle of the lift arm being above or below the threshold angle that causes the refuse container to be in the tilting position); and
However, the combination of Elbrink, Bao, and Mullins does not explicitly teach a second sensor as needed for the limitations of claim 28.
Rodoni, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a second sensor configured to generate one or more signals indicating a lift angle of the lift arm of the refuse collection vehicle, the second sensor being communicably coupled to the at least one processor (see Rodoni paragraph 21 regarding lift arm angle sensor- in combination with Elbrink, the detection of lift arm angle may include the sensor of Rodoni).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the combination of Elbrink, Bao, and Mullins to include the teaching of Rodoni so that in combination with Elbrink, the detection of lift arm angle may include the sensor of Rodoni.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to enhance the detection of a lift angle method (see Rodoni paragraph 21).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Elbrink, Bao, Mullins, and Rodoni teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 28, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Elbrink, Bao, and Rodoni teaches wherein the display system is configured to: in response to the at least one processor detecting, based on the one or more signals generated by the second sensor, that the lift arm of the refuse collection vehicle is below a threshold angle, displaying at least a portion of the first image data within the forward line of sight of the operator; and in response to the at least one processor detecting, based on the one or more signals generated by the second sensor, that the lift arm of the refuse collection vehicle is above the threshold angle, displaying at least a portion of the second image data within the forward line of sight of the operator (see Elbrink paragraph 13-14 regarding switching from the side camera view to the hopper camera view and back when detection means determines that the refuse container is "in the tilting position," and "as soon as the lift comb and lifting frame of the side loading device start to move sideways again in order to put the empty container back down." Transitively, that necessarily means that the detection means is triggered to indicate that the refuse container is in the tilting position or not when the lift angle of the arm causes the refuse container to be in the tilting position or not. Therefore, to one of ordinary skill, the sensor obviously also can be interpreted to detect the lift angle of the lift arm being above or below the threshold angle that causes the refuse container to be in the tilting position- in combination with the second sensor of Rodoni in addition to the primary sensor, the detection of lift arm angle may be performed by the sensor both of Elbrink and Rodoni).
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Elbrink, Bao, and Mullins teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 34, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Elbrink, Bao, and Mullins teaches in response to receiving the first signal from the second sensor, causing the display system to display second image data generated by a second camera arranged to generate image data of a hopper of the refuse collection vehicle, wherein the second image data depicts contents of the refuse container being dumped into the hopper of the refuse collection vehicle (see Elbrink paragraph 13-14 regarding switching from the side camera view to the hopper camera view and back when detection means determines that the refuse container is "in the tilting position," and "as soon as the lift comb and lifting frame of the side loading device start to move sideways again in order to put the empty container back down." Transitively, that necessarily means that the detection means is triggered to indicate that the refuse container is in the tilting position or not when the lift angle of the arm causes the refuse container to be in the tilting position or not. Therefore, to one of ordinary skill, the sensor obviously also can be interpreted to detect the lift angle of the lift arm being above or below the threshold angle that causes the refuse container to be in the tilting position).
However, the combination of Elbrink, Bao, and Mullins does not explicitly teach a second sensor as needed for the limitations of claim 35.
Rodoni, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches further comprising: receiving a first signal from a second sensor indicating that an angle of a lift arm of the refuse collection vehicle is above a threshold angle (see Rodoni paragraph 21 regarding lift arm angle sensor- in combination with Elbrink, the detection of lift arm angle may include the sensor of Rodoni); and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the combination of Elbrink, Bao, and Mullins to include the teaching of Rodoni so that in combination with Elbrink, the detection of lift arm angle may include the sensor of Rodoni.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to enhance the detection of a lift angle method (see Rodoni paragraph 21).
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Elbrink, Bao, Mullins, and Rodoni teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 35, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Elbrink, Bao, and Rodoni teaches further comprising: receiving a second signal from the second sensor, the second signal indicating that the angle of the lift arm of the refuse collection vehicle is below the threshold angle; and in response to receiving the second signal from the second sensor, causing the display system to display third image data generated by the first camera, wherein the third image data depicts the refuse container being lowered by the lift arm and released by the grabber (see Elbrink paragraph 13-14 regarding switching from the side camera view to the hopper camera view and back when detection means determines that the refuse container is "in the tilting position," and "as soon as the lift comb and lifting frame of the side loading device start to move sideways again in order to put the empty container back down." Transitively, that necessarily means that the detection means is triggered to indicate that the refuse container is in the tilting position or not when the lift angle of the arm causes the refuse container to be in the tilting position or not. Therefore, to one of ordinary skill, the sensor obviously also can be interpreted to detect the lift angle of the lift arm being above or below the threshold angle that causes the refuse container to be in the tilting position- in combination with the second sensor of Rodoni in addition to the primary sensor, the detection of lift arm angle may be performed by the sensor both of Elbrink and Rodoni).
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elbrink (US 20030031543) (hereinafter Elbrink) in view of Bao et al. (US 20180088323) (hereinafter Bao), further in view of Aoki et al. (US 20160142685) (hereinafter Aoki).
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Elbrink, Bao, and Mullins teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 30, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
However, the combination of Elbrink, Bao, and Mullins does not explicitly teach a detection of proximity as needed for the limitations of claim 37.
Aoki, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein: the first operational state comprises the refuse collection vehicle being proximate the refuse container; and controlling the display system of the refuse collection vehicle to display the at least a portion of the image data within the area comprises: receiving a second signal from a second sensor indicating that the refuse collection vehicle is proximate the refuse container; and in response receiving the second signal from the second sensor, causing the display system to start displaying the at least a portion of the image data within the area (see Aoki paragraph 9 and paragraphs 70 and 71 regarding starting display of an image of an object proximate to a vehicle when the object is closer than a reference threshold distance, and stopping display when the object is no longer proximate according to the reference threshold distance. Aoki's process obviates a second sensor that is able to determine distance by at least image processing- in combination with Elbrink, Bao, and Mullins, the refuse collection truck may be programmed to only display when objects are proximate to the truck and stop display when the objects are no longer proximate, meaning display starts when the truck is near the refuse container).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the combination of Elbrink, Bao, and Mullins to include the teaching of Aoki so that in combination with Elbrink, Bao, and Mullins, the refuse collection truck may be programmed to only display when objects are proximate to the truck and stop display when the objects are no longer proximate, meaning display starts when the truck is near the refuse container.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to preserve display for when it is necessary in a vehicle (see Aoki paragraph 9 and paragraphs 70 and 71).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 24 and 32 is/are dependent upon a rejected base claim and are themselves rejected under non-statutory double patenting rejections as detailed above, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if the double patenting rejections were overcome, due to containing subject matter allowable for similar reasons noted in parent application 18/654222 (US 12351109).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 24 contains the limitations regarding a refuse collection vehicle with a grabber operable to engage a refuse container, a camera arranged to generate video data of an external scene of the refuse collection video, a sensor configured to detect a first and second operational state of a grabber, and a display device attached to a windshield of the vehicle and in the forward line of sight of the operator to display the video, where the display device displays a portion of the image data of the forward line of site of the operator when the first operational state is detected, and stops displaying video data when the sensor detects a second operational state of the grabber, and the first operational state is specified to be a signal indicating that the grabber engages a refuse container. At the time of the effective filing date of the application, these limitations had not been fully anticipated and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine elements of the prior art to meet this limitation. Claim(s) 32 contain(s) allowable subject matter for the same reasons as claim 24.
The closest prior art, Elbrink (US 20030031543), Bao et al. (US 20180088323), Rodoni (US 20180247351), Aoki et al. (US 20160142685), Yellambalase et al. (US 20160196748), Prokhorov et al. (US 20080291032), Searle et al. (US 20200369468), Arakawa (US 20130265251), Wildgrube et al. (US 20200401807), Nakamura et al. (US 20110181540), Satomi et al. (US 20190116315), Ikunami (US 20090251328), Chi et al. (US 20200064944), either singularly or in combination fail to anticipate or render obvious the above described limitations. Examiner notes that the prior art contains teachings regarding refuse collection vehicles with display arms and displays, and elsewhere contains teachings from other fields regarding stopping display in a vehicle environment due to the triggering effect of a vehicle process. The Allowability Notice for application 18/654222 cites, “Applicant’s arguments of 01/08/2024 for application 17/578914, page 8 cites, “in rejecting previously pending dependent claim 20, the Office Action cites to Yellambalase as allegedly teaching the general concept of "only displaying the side area [of the vehicle] when the side area is relevant" and thus asserts Yellambalase in combination with Elbrink, Bao, and Mullins teaching the idea that" the [video] feed is only shown when the vehicle is in the process of grabbing the refuse container." Office Action , pages 16-17. However, Applicant respectfully submits that cited references do not teach or suggest "a sensor configured to detect when the grabber has released the refuse container," nor does the Office Action cite to a portion of the references to teach this feature.” Examiner agrees with applicant’s assertion that the prior art’s triggering a display stoppage due to non-grabber-sensor related signals is a marked differentiation from requiring an explicit grabber releasing signal, or analogous object releasing signal, to trigger display stoppage. Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art, given a “reverse mode” signal to stop display as in Yellambalase, or finger release state signal to stop display, would not be sufficiently motivated to look to a refuse container grabber sensor release triggering display stoppage, as the mechanical considerations necessary in the handling of a grabber are not analogous to that of an engine or transmission. Meanwhile, the prior art was unable to produce any analogous grabber or object holding references that caused the stoppage of a display during the release of an object during the Examiner’s search period.” Examiner notes that similarly to the prior art not being able to teach that a grabber sensor release function is known to be a trigger for stopping display, the prior art also does not teach a grabber sensor engagement trigger to be known to start display simultaneously with another condition of the grabber causing the stop display, as the prior art teaches away from a grabber sensor being the start signal for monitoring since the monitoring would be used to assist the grabber in grabbing. Another interpretation of the claim language, where display of a different view is started because of a detected engagement with the grabber, is also not taught by the prior art in a way where a secondary operational state of the grabber causes the stop of display, similarly to what was noted in the notice of allowance for application 18/654222. Therefore, at the time of the effective filing date of the application, these limitations had not been fully anticipated and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine elements of the prior art to meet this limitation.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew D Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-3527. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 10:30am - 6:30pm 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, John Miller can be reached at (571) 272-7353. 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.
/MATTHEW DAVID KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights