DETAILED ACTION
The Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed 03/10/26 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are still pending. Despite the minor claim amendments and Applicant’s arguments, the rejections are maintained as detailed below. As a result, despite the RCE filing, this action is made Final. 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 § 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.
Stoff
Claim(s) 1-8, 11-15 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stoff (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2011/0031073). Stoff is directed to a modular brake device. See Abstract.
Claim 1: Stoff discloses a compressed-air module system [Figs. 1-9] for a utility vehicle having: a plurality of compressed-air components; a carrying apparatus (16), configured to be attached to a vehicle frame of the utility vehicle, wherein: the carrying apparatus and at least some of the plurality of compressed-air components are configured to be combined to form a first compressed-air module [see, e.g., Fig. 3 (B, C)], wherein the first compressed-air module has an air compressor (8) [[see, e.g., para. 0009 (either air compressor or “auxiliary air compressor”)], at least one compressed-air vessel (14, 15), and a compressed-air conditioning means (9-13) of the plurality of compressed-air components [see para. 0023; Fig. 3]; and the carrying apparatus and at least some of the plurality of compressed-air components are configured to be combined to form a second compressed-air module, wherein the second compressed-air module has the at least one compressed-air vessel and the compressed-air conditioning means, and, in place of the air compressor, at least one further compressed-air vessel of the plurality of compressed-air components (another 14, 15, or “auxiliary pressure supply”) [see para. 0009 (“auxiliary pressure supply…instead of the auxiliary compressor”)]. See Figs. 1-9; para. 0031 (in Figure 9 all modules are configured to be combined together in a single carrying apparatus).
Claim 2: Stoff discloses that the carrying apparatus is designed to carry the plurality of compressed-air components in a plurality of vertically spaced-apart planes; and/or the carrying apparatus is designed to at least partially support the plurality of compressed-air components from below and at least partially to carry same in a suspended manner below the carrying apparatus. See Figs. 1-9.
Claim 3: Stoff discloses that the air compressor is supported on the carrying apparatus; and the at least one further compressed-air vessel is supported on the carrying apparatus. See Figs. 1-9.
Claim 4: Stoff discloses that the at least one compressed-air vessel and/or the compressed-air conditioning means are/is carried in a suspended manner below the carrying apparatus. See Figs. 1-9.
Claim 5: Stoff discloses that the at least one compressed-air vessel comprises a first compressed-air vessel and a second compressed-air vessel. See Figs. 1-9.
Claim 6: Stoff discloses that the first compressed-air vessel and/or the second compressed-air vessel have/has a different function in the first compressed-air module than in the second compressed-air module; and/or the first compressed-air vessel is arranged between the second compressed-air vessel and the compressed-air conditioning means; and/or the first compressed-air vessel protrudes beyond the carrying apparatus with respect to a transverse axis of the carrying apparatus. See para. 0022, 026.
Claim 7: Stoff discloses that in the case of the first compressed-air module, the first compressed-air vessel is assigned or can be assigned to a first brake circuit of the utility vehicle and the second compressed-air vessel is assigned or can be assigned to a second brake circuit of the utility vehicle; and in the case of the second compressed-air module, the first compressed-air vessel is assigned or can be assigned to the first brake circuit of the utility vehicle, the second compressed-air vessel is assigned or can be assigned to a pneumatic secondary consumer of the utility vehicle, and the at least one further compressed-air vessel is assigned or can be assigned to the second brake circuit. See para. 0022, 0026.
Claim 8: Stoff discloses that the carrying apparatus has a first L-shaped carrier and a second L-shaped carrier, which carriers are connected to each other by at least one transverse element. See Figs. 1-9.
Claim 11: Stoff discloses that the carrying apparatus has at least one collar portion for placing flat on the vehicle frame, wherein the at least one collar portion is reinforced by supporting ribs. See Figs. 1-9.
Claim 12: Stoff discloses that the air compressor has an exchangeable filter; and the carrying apparatus has a reinforcing strut with a cutout, wherein the cutout creates an installation space which is required for exchanging the exchangeable filter, wherein the exchangeable filter should inevitably be guided through the cutout as it is being removed or fitted. See para. 0023; Fig. 3.
Claim 13: Stoff discloses that the compressed-air conditioning means has an air dryer, a pressure regulator and/or a multi-circuit protection valve. See para. 0023; Fig. 3.
Claim 14: Stoff discloses a utility vehicle driven by electric motor having: the first compressed-air module which is combined from the compressed-air module system according to one of the preceding claims. See para. 0001.
Claim 15: Stoff discloses a utility vehicle which is driven by an internal combustion engine having: the second compressed-air module which is combined from the compressed-air module system according to claim 1. See para. 0001.
Claim 18: Stoff discloses that the utility vehicle is a lorry: and/or the carrying apparatus is designed to carry the plurality of compressed-air components in two vertically spaced-apart planes; and/or the air compressor is supported by means of elastic damping elements on the carrying apparatus; and/or the at least one further compressed-air vessel is rigidly supported on the carrying apparatus; and/or the carrying apparatus has at least one collar portion for placing flat on the vehicle frame, wherein the at least one collar portion is welded-on supporting ribs; and/or the compressed-air conditioning means has an air dryer, a pressure regulator, and/or a four-circuit protection valve. See Figs. 1-9.
Claim 19: Stoff discloses that the carrying apparatus has a first L-shaped carrier and a second L-shaped carrier, which carriers are connected to each other by at least one transverse element, wherein: the first L-shaped carrier and the second L-shaped carrier are designed as identical parts; and/or the at least one transverse element is a plurality of transverse elements which are designed as identical parts; and/or a horizontal limb of at least one of the first or second L-shaped carriers has at least one rectangular through hole through which a tensioning strap which carries a pressure vessel of the at least one pressure vessel is tensioned. See Figs. 1-9.
Claim 20: Stoff discloses that the first compressed-air vessel is arranged centrally between the second compressed-air vessel and the compressed-air conditioning means in a suspended manner on the carrying apparatus. See Figs. 1-9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Stoff
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoff.
Claims 16-17: Stoff discloses that the vehicle is a “rail-guided tractive vehicle” but not a “lorry.” It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use the module system in a lorry simply because the Stoff brake system is able to be used in a variety of vehicles and trucks are commonly used vehicles. Notably, this is an intended use limitation, and combined with the fact that his modular brake device is capable of being used in a lorry, means that the limitation is met.
Stoff in view of Song
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoff in view of Song et al. (CN 202879480) (cited by Applicant). Song is directed to an air cylinder module. See Abstract.
Claim 9: Stoff is relied upon as in claim 1 above but does not discuss “tensioning straps” for the pressure vessels. Song discloses that the carrying apparatus has at least one through hole through which a tensioning strap (4) which carries a pressure vessel (3) of the at least one pressure vessel is tensioned. See Fig. 3. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use tensioning straps to ensure that the air tanks are securely attached, which is certainly important given that it is intended to be attached to a moving truck.
Claim 10: Song discloses that the at least one through hole is rounded or chamfered in the region of contact with the tensioning strap; and/or a lower edge of the carrying apparatus is rounded or chamfered in the region of contact with the pressure vessel. See Fig. 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/10/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant traverses the rejection because the rejection relies on Stoff modules B and C for the claimed “first compressed-air module,” and Applicant contends that because they are “separate and distinct modules from each other” and can’t be “replaced” with the other, they fail to meet the limitation. See Remarks, pages 7-9. This is incorrect. Applicant is taking an overly narrow interpretation of the fairly broad claim term “module.” Just because the reference merely refers to modules B and C as separate modules, for the purpose of disclosing the claim term “module,” there is no recited limitation preventing the two Stoff modules together as a single “first compressed-air module.”
Second, Applicant contends that the new “configured to” language in claim 1 is sufficient to overcome the 102 rejection and briefly responds to the rejection’s “interpretations” of Stoff’s second module. Specifically, Applicant states that none of the interpretations disclose compressor 8 of Module C being “replaced” in a second module C. See Remarks, page 9. This is also incorrect. As a preliminary matter, claim 1 defines a carrying apparatus that is “configured to” be combined with certain components in two different ways (i.e., modules): (1) an air vessel, an air-conditioning means, and an air compressor; and (2) the air vessel, the air-conditioning means, excludes the air compressor, and adds another air vessel. The “air conditioning means” may include an air dryer, a pressure regulator, and/or a multi-circuit protection valve. See Application, at para. 0027. Stoff shows the first type of module in Figures 3 and 4 – air compressor 8, vessel 14, and dryer 10. Importantly, the Stoff “air compressor” for this claim feature could be the “auxiliary air compressor” referred to in Stoff paragraph [0009]. With the “air compressor” of the first module being the module C “auxiliary air compressor,” then the second module can employ an “auxiliary pressure supply” in its place. See para. 0009 (“Instead of the auxiliary compressor, an auxiliary pressure supply is also possible as a component”). This clearly meets the last claim 1 limitation that “in place of the air compressor, at least one further compressed-air vessel of the plurality of compressed-air components.” And as an explicitly disclosed embodiment, this contradicts Applicant’s belief that this second module would render Stoff “inoperable for its intended purpose.” See Remarks, page 9.
An alternative means for Stoff to meet the “second module” limitation is to simply remove the compressor. Stoff explicitly states that module C “expediently comprises a compressor, an air dryer, an air filter, a condensate container, a minimum pressure valve and/or auxiliary compressor.” See para. 0009 (emphasis added). Hence, Stoff’s module C technically may exclude the compressor. Stoff also explicitly discusses the flexibility with which certain components can be added/combined to form a given module. See para. 0028 (“However, at this point it will be pointed out once more that the components illustrated in the figures are given only by way of example. Within the scope of the invention, the modules can also have other components which are not illustrated or specified here”). Applicant traverses this alternative interpretation and contends that doing so would render the Stoff “inoperable.” See Remarks, page 9. In response, paragraph [0009] is explicit in stating that it need not include the compressor, or alternatively, it need not include the auxiliary compressor. By using either one of these compressors for the “air compressor” in the first module, Stoff properly discloses a second module without one of these compressors.
Finally, Applicant makes the additional argument that the claim 1 preamble refers to a “utility vehicle” and Stoff’s “rail vehicle” does not constitute a utility vehicle. See Remarks, pages 9-10. In response, while the term “utility vehicle” may typically refer to pickup trucks, UTVs, vans, etc., it should be noted that utility/service rail vehicles also exist. This alone is sufficient to meet this disclosed feature. Secondly, the preamble language “for a utility vehicle” is merely an intended use, and the mention in the claim language only requires that the Stoff system is capable of being attached to a utility vehicle frame. This is true for the Stoff system. Importantly, neither a utility vehicle nor its frame is actually being claimed here. Hence, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive here.
For the foregoing reasons, all pending claims remain rejected as detailed above.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 VISHAL R SAHNI whose telephone number is (571)270-3838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3pm PST.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
VISHAL SAHNI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/VISHAL R SAHNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 May 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights