Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/270,026

AUTOMATIC CONTROL OF A REFUSE FRONT END LOADER

Non-Final OA §102§DP
Filed
Jul 15, 2025
Examiner
RAMESH, KRISHNAN
Art Unit
3663
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
The Heil Co.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
435 granted / 542 resolved
+28.3% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
562
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
12.1%
-27.9% vs TC avg
§103
42.2%
+2.2% vs TC avg
§102
21.0%
-19.0% vs TC avg
§112
16.9%
-23.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 542 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §DP
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 . 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. Status of Claims Claims 21-48 are pending and have been examined below. Specification The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which Applicant may become aware in the specification. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of US Patent No. 12365534. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the similarity and obvious variants between the two claim sets. The correspondence between the claims of the instant application and those of US Patent No. 12365534 are listed in the table below. Instant Application US Patent 12365534 claim 21 claims 1 and 21 claim 22 claims 1 and 12 claim 24 claim 20 claim 26 claim 24 claim 29 claims 1 and 21 claim 30 claims 1 and 12 claim 32 claim 19 claim 33 claim 20 claim 34 claim 24 Allowable Subject Matter Claims 39-48 are allowed. Claims 21, 22, 24, 26, 29, 30 and 32-34 are rejected under Double Patenting, but would be allowable if the rejections were overcome. Claims 23, 25, 27, 28, 31 and 35-38 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim(s) and any intervening claim(s). The closest prior art of record is US20050110330 and US6584884, which disclose refuse vehicle control systems including joystick control and various modes of operation. However, the aforementioned claims recite subject matter directed towards at least the following subject matter: a refuse vehicle, comprising: a cab; a vehicle chassis coupled to the cab; a refuse body coupled to and supported on the vehicle chassis, the refuse body comprising: a refuse collecting space; and a lift, comprising: a front arm comprising a distal end, the front arm configured to move pivotally relative to the refuse collecting space between a raised dumping position and a lowered position where the distal end is located forward of the cab; and a fork pivotally attached to the distal end of the front arm; a carry can engaging the fork, the carry can comprising: a refuse receptacle; and a loader arm coupled to the refuse receptacle; and a refuse vehicle control system comprising one and only one joystick controller, the one and only one joystick controller comprising: one and only one joystick lever, wherein the one and only one joystick lever is movable along a first axis and a second axis that is different from the first axis; and at least one mode-select switch; wherein: responsive to a first combination of (i) movement of the one and only one joystick lever along the first axis and (ii) a first actuation of the at least one mode-select switch, the one and only one joystick controller is configured to generate a first set of control instructions causing the refuse vehicle control system to initiate coordinated and automated movement of both the front arm and the fork; and responsive to a second combination of (i) movement of the one and only one joystick lever along the second axis and (ii) a second actuation of the at least one mode-select switch that is different from the first actuation, the one and only one joystick controller is configured to generate a second set of control instructions causing the refuse vehicle control system to initiate movement of the loader arm relative to the refuse receptacle; and a refuse vehicle, comprising: a cab; a vehicle chassis coupled to the cab; a refuse body coupled to and supported on the vehicle chassis, the refuse body comprising: a refuse collecting space; and a lift; a refuse vehicle control system comprising one and only one joystick controller comprising one and only one joystick lever in the cab, the refuse vehicle control system configured to operate the lift in multiple modes responsive to actuation of the one and only one joystick controller, and the one and only one joystick lever movable along a first axis and a second axis that is different from the first axis, wherein: the multiple modes comprise a first mode and a second mode, at least one of the first mode or the second mode comprising hydraulic proportional control of the lift; in the first mode, the one and only one joystick controller causes the refuse vehicle control system to automatically control movement of the lift; and in the second mode, the one and only one joystick controller causes the refuse vehicle control system to manually control movement of the lift at least partially via movement of the one and only one joystick lever; and an operator interface unit configured to continuously display a state of the refuse vehicle. While relevant to the claims, the prior art does not provide a basis for rejection of the claims under 35 USC 102 or 103 because the prior art found does not sufficiently teach nor suggest the limitations as claimed, hence the allowability of the claims. Examiner notes that amendment to the claims resulting in a change of scope may result in requirement of an updated search. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner KRISHNAN RAMESH whose telephone number is (571)272-6407. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm. 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, Abby Flynn, can be reached at (571)272-9855. 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. /KRISHNAN RAMESH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 15, 2025
Application Filed
Feb 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594924
VEHICLE BRAKE-BY-WIRE DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591244
Autonomous-Vehicle Dispatch Based on Fleet-Level Target Objectives
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12576951
SAFETY SYSTEM, LAND SYSTEM, ON-SHIP SYSTEM, AND CONTROL METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12567325
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PREDICTING TRAFFIC INFORMATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12561333
WEIGHTED TRAJECTORY SIMILARITY DETERMINATION BASED ON SUB-TRAJECTORY QUERYING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+18.5%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 542 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month