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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McKibben et al. (USPub 2021/0155224).
With respect to claim 1, McKibben et al. disclose an air tank (1010A) on a vehicle comprising: at least one air module disposed on the vehicle, the at least one air module comprising a cradle (lower accessory frame 1010; [0029]) and an air tank (1010A), the air tank being connected with the cradle [0129]; wherein the cradle comprises at least one member having a first portion coupled to a hood of the vehicle ([0129] discloses that cradle 1010 can be secured to frame rails 43A, and frame rails 43A are coupled to the hood of the vehicle; as broadly interpreted, “coupled to” does not require a direct engagement) and a second portion engaging the air tank ([0129] discloses air tank 1010A is mounted to the cradle); and the at least one air module comprises a first air module disposed adjacent an edge of a wheel well and a hood on the vehicle (see Figs 1 and 1B in combination: The lower accessory frame is arranged between the wheels and covered by the hood).
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.
Claims 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKibben et al.
With respect to claims 2 and 3, McKibben et al. disclose the claimed invention discussed above but do not disclose wherein the at least one air module further comprises a second air module disposed adjacent an edge of a wheel well and a hood on the vehicle and opposite the first air module. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to have a second air module on the opposite side of the vehicle and spaced apart, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, and one having ordinary skill would have found it obvious to add a tank depending on the air storage capacity required and within the space available within the lower accessory frame, or separate side-by-side frames could be used.
Claims 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKibben et al. in view of Sutton et al. (USPub 2003/0151222)
With respect to claims 4 and 5, McKibben et al. disclose the claimed invention discussed above as well as two rails (43A) and a cross member (Figs 1A and 1C) but do not disclose a second air module disposed adjacent the rails and the cross member. Sutton et al., however, disclose a similar truck structure having adjacent rails (210) with an air tank (34A) disposed adjacent via a cradle (Fig 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to modify the invention of McKibben et al. in view of the teachings of Sutton et al. to try using a second air module anywhere along the rails such as by a cross member or at offset ends depending where space is available and how much air storage capacity is required, and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 9/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 3, Applicant argues that McKibben et al. do not disclose a cradle having a first portion coupled to a hood. However, the Examiner maintains that the rejection is proper because “couple to” is broadly interpreted to include indirect engagement; in the instant case, the cradle (1010) is “coupled to” the hood indirectly via the frame rails and any other vehicle brackets/fasteners. Applicant argues that McKibben et al. do not disclose a cradle extending from a hood toward a wheel edge. The Examiner maintains that the rejection is proper because the cradle extends from below the hood and is positioned between the frame rails and extend laterally toward the outside of the vehicle where the wheel well edges are located. Applicant argues that McKibben et al. do not disclose a cradle member engaging an air tank while being structurally coupled to the hood. The Examiner maintains that the rejection is proper because [0129] discloses that the air tank (1010A) is mounted to the cradle (1010), and there is no claim language reciting the cradle member “being structurally coupled to the hood.” Finally, Applicant argues that McKibben et al. do not disclose an air module mounted between a wheel edge and a hood. The Examiner maintains that the rejection is proper because the air module, which comprises the air tank (1010A) mounted to ([0129] the cradle (1010), is mounted between adjected frame rails (43A), wherein the frame rails are located between wheel well edges and under the hood. The Examiner also notes that the language used in claim 1 is that the at least one air module is “disposed adjacent an edge of a wheel well and hood” rather than “mounted between a wheel well edge and hood” as the arguments suggest. Applicant further argues on page 4 that the present application describes a structure in which cradle members are connected directly to the hood. While the Examiner agrees that this defines over the prior art, those limitations are absent in the claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DREW J BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-1362. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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 Olszewski can be reached at 571-272-2706. 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.
DREW BROWN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
/DREW J BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
