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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 29, 30, and 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 29, there is no clear recitation in the original specification that discloses the new limitations “wherein the at least one sensor is configured to detect the position of the container relative to the lift based on intrinsic characteristics of the container.” This recitation is well beyond what the instant disclosure provides and appears to be implying computing abilities of the invention that were simply not originally present. For this limitation to be properly entered, it would need to be under a Continuation-in-Part (CIP) filing. The claim has not been further addressed on the merits since the scope is not possible to ascertain, and having the ability to locate a dumpster using sensors is well known in the art.
Regarding claim 30, the claim requires “the one or more processors are remote from the refuse vehicle.” There is no mention of in the disclosure of this limitation, thus it is being considered new matter, and the limitation will not be further treated on the merits unless it is included in a CIP application. Even so, there is no inventive step in the design choice to decide where to place controllers.
Regarding claim 37, there is no expressly disclosed antecedent basis for the claim, which recites: “generating a first signal indicating the occurrence of the positive dump event, the first signal conforming to a first signal standard; and converting, using a signal converter, the first signal to a second signal that conforms to a second signal standard different than the first signal standard, wherein communicating the signal indicating the occurrence of the positive dump event to the computing device comprises communicating the second signal to the computing device.” There is no clear recitation of multiple signal standards in the instant specification. Even there were, the limitation does not appear to hold any potential patentable significance. Accordingly, the claim has not been treated further on the merits.
Regarding claims 38 and 39, the claims require a wireless tablet to control the dump cycle. The claims depend from rejected claim 37 which comprises new matter, thus the claims are rejected under the same rationale for being dependent on a rejected base claims. It is further noted that even if claims 38 and 39 did not depend from a claim composed of new matter, controlling the vehicle dump cycle with a handheld computer would have been an obvious design choice to a POSITA. It is further noted that this limitation is addressed in the Applicant’s admitted prior art (AAPA) in the Background of the Invention of the instant specification as already being known. Thus further consideration of this limitation is not deemed to be necessary at this time as it is already established that refuse vehicles are known to have computers for controlling vehicle output.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 20-23, 25, and 31-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Whitfield Jr. et al. (US 2014/0343801).
Regarding claims 20, 31 and 35, Whitfield discloses a dump verification system and refuse vehicle and method, comprising:
a lift supported by a chassis of a refuse vehicle (lift arm assembly 12 of figure 1), the lift configured to selectively engage a container and move through a dump cycle (see at least figure 1 and [0025]);
at least one sensor configured to detect a position of the container relative to the lift (see at least [0047-0048] which teaches various position sensors are used); and
one or more processors configured to determine, based at least in part on a position of the container relative to the lift detected by the at least one sensor and an input indicating that a dump cycle was performed by the lift, that the dump cycle was performed by the lift while the container was engaged by the lift (see at least [0049] which discloses this entire section of the claim).
Regarding claim 21 and 32, Whitfield discloses the at least one sensor comprises at least one of a mechanical sensor, an electrical sensor, an electro-mechanical sensor, a camera-based sensor, a laser-based sensor, a radar-based sensor, or a hydraulic-based sensor (Whitfield teaches at least mechanical, radar, electrical, hydraulic based, and electromechanical sensors, see at least [0030, 0040, 0047-0054, etc.).
Regarding claim 22, Whitfield discloses the at least one sensor comprises a first sensor, and wherein the input indicating that the dump cycle was performed by the lift comprises output from a second sensor of the dump verification system (via the multiple sensors which confirm a load was emptied during the dump cycle including weight and position sensors and counters, described in at least [0047, 0049, 0058] .
Regarding claims 23 and 33, Whitfield discloses the second sensor is configured to detect an angular position of at least a portion of the lift as the lift moves through the dump cycle (see at least [0049] at “The control module 104 determines an angle of the lift arm assembly 12 relative to the vehicle 10. The control module 104 then determines a dump position of the lift arm assembly 12.”).
Regarding claim 25, Whitfield discloses the second sensor is configured to detect one or more characteristics of a hydraulic actuator coupled to the lift (see at least [0036, 0040] which teaches the control system 100 optimizes the hydraulically controlled structural motion for performance and structural integrity, it is at least implied that the aforementioned position sensors are necessarily used to perform this function properly).
Regarding claim 34, Whitfield discloses the input indicating that a dump cycle was performed by the lift comprises input received from a controller installed in the refuse vehicle (see again at least [0049]).
Regarding claim 36, Whitfield discloses communicating, by the at least one processor, a signal indicating an occurrence of a positive dump event to a computing device (see again at least [0049]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitfield Jr. et al. (US 2014/0343801).
Regarding claim 26, Whitfield discloses hydraulics are used, as is well known in the art, as one of the means of movement of the lifting arms (see at least [0034] and figure 1 and 2 which illustrate hydraulic lifting arms with pistons). However, Whitfield does not explicitly disclose “the hydraulic actuator comprises a cylinder containing a piston, and wherein the one or more characteristics comprise at least one of a hydraulic pressure within the cylinder or a position of the piston relative to the cylinder.” The examiner notes that this claim merely describes some necessary parts of a hydraulic system that are widely well known in the art. As hydraulics are so ubiquitous in the art, the examiner contends that the simple fact that Whitfield uses hydraulics is more than sufficient to render the instant claim limitations obvious.
Claims 24, 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitfield Jr. et al. (US 2014/0343801) in view of Pieperhoff (US 5,062,759).
Regarding claim 24, Whitfield does not appear to explicitly disclose the second sensor comprises a limit switch. Pieperhoff teaches a functionally equivalent limit switches throughout the disclose (see at least column 8 lines 6-28). Therefore, from the teaching of Pieperhoff, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to provide limit switches for added safety to potentially prevent over-rotation of the movement of the lift arms
Regarding claims 27 and 28, Whitfield does not appear to explicitly disclose confirming a dump cycle with use of the transmission of the vehicle, specifically shifting into a reverse gear.
Pieperhoff teaches it is known in the art to provide a garbage truck wherein when the driver shifts into reverse, the driver is alerted based on different scenarios like the automatic lifting system is active or the lifting frame is in its lowest position (see at least column 4 lines 42-55, column 6 lines 4-33). Therefore, from the teaching of Pieperhoff, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Whitfield to send an alert based on the transmission being shifted into reverse or any other gear similar to that of the teaching of Pieperhoff in order to keep the driver informed and alerted when the vehicle is not in a parked or fully secured condition and could potentially engage in undesirable movement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON HOLLOWAY whose telephone number is (571)270-5786. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Tommy Worden can be reached at 571-272-4876. 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.
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights