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 1, 11 and 20 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The specification does not sufficiently describe or enable how to make and use a "current reducer" that specifically reduces the magnitude of the transient current without also changing its duty cycle. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to practice this aspect of the invention without undue experimentation. The specification is devoid of specific components, circuitry, mechanisms, operating principles, or control algorithms that could achieve this specific function. The claim specifies the reduction of the transient current draw's magnitude without affecting the duty cycle, yet there is no corresponding support in the specification for how this function is accomplished.
Claims 1, 11 and 20 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.
The claim recites a current reducer that reduces the magnitude without changing the duty cycle. This specific limitation is not explicitly or implicitly supported by the original disclosure. Nothing in the original specification discusses the separate control of magnitude and duty cycle or even suggests that these are independently adjustable parameters with respect to the transient current draw. The addition of this specific functional limitation constitutes new matter. The original specification describes a general current reducer without defining how to control duty cycle specifically. This new limitation introduces a new technical feature that was not present in the original disclosure, thereby adding new matter not previously described by the specification. The original specification lacks reasonable clarity for someone skilled in the art to understand the inventors' possession of the claimed subject matter as of the application's filing date.
Furthermore, The claim, which includes a negative limitation "the magnitude, but not the duty cycle ", is rejected because the original disclosure lacks adequate support for this exclusion. MPEP § 2173.05(i) clarifies that negative limitations require basis in the original disclosure, and the absence of a positive recitation is insufficient. The specification neither explicitly excludes the magnitude, but not the duty cycle nor inherently implies its absence. There's no description of the advantages of excluding the magnitude, but not the duty cycle or the disadvantages of including it. Furthermore, the background, summary, and original claims do not provide any basis for this exclusion, nor does the specification describe alternative elements.
To overcome this rejection, the applicant must either amend the claims to remove the negative limitation, amend the specification to provide basis for the negative limitation without introducing new matter, or provide an argument explaining how the original specification supports the negative limitation. The Examiner may reject attempts to add support if it's not found in the original disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
"Coupled to" is Indefinite: The term "coupled to" is used multiple times in the claim, but it is not clear what type of coupling is being claimed. The specification does not define the term "coupled," nor does it provide specific examples of how these elements are connected. For example, it's unclear if "coupled to" means direct electrical connection, indirect connection through other elements, or physical attachment. The lack of clarity regarding the nature of the coupling makes the scope of the claim indeterminate.
"Current reducer" is Indefinite: The claim recites an "air conditioning unit, the air conditioning unit including a current reducer configured to reduce the magnitude, but not the duty cycle, of the transient current draw encountered during startup of a compressor of the air conditioning unit". However, the specification does not describe the structure of the “current reducer” or how it functions to reduce the magnitude without altering the duty cycle. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain the specific structure or means for achieving the recited function based solely on this claim language and the specification.
"It is important to note that the dependent claims, are also subject to the same 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections as outlined above for Claims 1, 11 and 20. This is because the dependent claims rely on, and further specify or limit, the elements and functionalities described in Claims 1, 11 and 20, including the problematic limitations. Therefore, the same issues with enablement, written description, and definiteness present in the independent claim (Claims 1, 11 and 20) are also present in these dependent claims.
Specifically:
Lack of Enablement (112(a) - First Paragraph): To the extent that the dependent claims incorporate, either explicitly or implicitly, the "current reducer" or other limitations of Claims 1, 11 and 20, they suffer from the same lack of enablement. The specification's failure to provide a sufficient teaching on how to make and use the current reducer, especially in relation to controlling magnitude separately from the duty cycle, applies equally to the dependent claims that require or depend upon that functionality.
New Matter (112(a) - Introduction of New Matter): If a dependent claim introduces or relies on a specific variation or limitation related to the current reducer that is not supported by the original disclosure, it will also be subject to the new matter rejection. Since the base claim does not have sufficient support for reducing magnitude without changing the duty cycle, any dependent claims that further elaborate on that un-supported limitation will also be rejected as new matter.
Indefiniteness (112(b)): If a dependent claim recites the "coupled to" limitation from Claims 1 and 11, it will also be rejected under 112(b). This is because the lack of clarity regarding the nature of this connection makes the scope of the dependent claim indeterminate as well. This is because the dependent claims incorporate the indefinite language of Claims 1 and 11 and further complicate the issue by adding additional elements.
In Conclusion:
The dependent claims, inherit the deficiencies of Claims 1 and 11. They fail to clearly point out and distinctly claim the invention, fail to provide an enabling disclosure, and introduce new matter not found in the specification, thereby violating 35 U.S.C. 112. Therefore, these claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112. The applicant must amend the dependent claims or provide further support in the specification to address these deficiencies.
"This examination is based on the claim as originally filed; the proposed amendment will not be considered at this time."
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 11-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. (US 11,456,584) in view of Zimmer et al. (US 2011/0198340) and further in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (hereinafter AAPA)
Re Claims 1, 11, 16 and 20; Taylor discloses a system, comprising: a gas generator coupled to a gas supply and configured to generate alternating current (AC) electricity;
a receptacle (108) coupled to the gas generator and configured to receive AC electricity from the gas generator; (Col 5 line 54-67)
an interlock switch (120) coupled to the receptacle and configured to switch to gas generator power when a power outage occurs; (Col. 6 line 16-45)
an electrical panel (200) coupled to the interlock switch, the electrical panel including at least one circuit breaker; (Col. 6 line 16-45).
Taylor further discloses a male generator connector, of the cable, electrically attached to a generator, and the switch housing electrically connected to a main breaker panel for selectively supplying power to a plurality of breakers for powering multiple loads in a building such as, for example, a HVAC system, fridge, freezer or for lighting systems used in homes or businesses.
Taylor does not disclose that the load includes an air conditioning unit, the air conditioning unit including a current reducer configured to reduce the transient current draw encountered during startup of a compressor of the air conditioning unit.
However, Zimmer discloses an air conditioning unit, the air conditioning unit including a current reducer configured to reduce the transient current draw encountered during startup of a compressor of the air conditioning unit. (Par 0016)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have coupled an air conditioning unit which manages the startup current in order to increase the life span of the PTC heaters 242, reduce the heat output degradation of the PTC heaters 242, or both and also to protect the generator from overload. (par 0023 of Zimmer).
The combination does not disclose which is a 5-2-1 compressor saver configured to reduce the transient current drawn.
However, AAPA discloses “Current reducing mechanism, such as current reducer 160 may be any type of applicable current reducing mechanism that still allows for the operation of air conditioning unit 150 but decreases the transient power draw to a level below the peak running power of the gas generator 110. In some embodiments the current reducer 160 may be but is not limited to a “5-2-1 Compressor Saver” from CPS Products, Inc. of Hialeah, FL. Many other current reducers or current limiters are available on the market from other manufacturers which may be equally well suited for the system.” (Par 0015)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have added the 5-2-1 Compressor Saver to Zimmer in order to control the speed of the compressor so that the current is efficiently controlled.
Re Claims 2, 12; Taylor discloses wherein the gas generator is a gasoline powered generator. (Col. 1 line 20-35)
Re Claims 3 and 13; Taylor discloses wherein the gas generator is a portable gas generator. (Col. 1 line 20-35)
Re Claim 7; Taylor discloses wherein the interlock switch is coupled to a main circuit breaker of the electrical panel. (Fig. 5)
Re Claims 4-6, 14 and 15; Taylor discloses wherein the gas generator,
Taylor does not disclose is a generator rated to at least a maximum of 7500 peak running watts,
gas generator is a generator rated to at least a maximum of 10000 peak running watts and wherein the gas generator is a generator rated to at least a maximum of 12000 peak running watts.
However, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have chosen a generator rated to at least a maximum of 7500 peak running watts, gas generator is a generator rated to at least a maximum of 10000 peak running watts and wherein the gas generator is a generator rated to at least a maximum of 12000 peak running watts , since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 9, 10, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. (US 11,456,584) in view of Zimmer et al. (US 2011/0198340) and further in view of AAPA and Cristoforo (US 2011/0062725)
Re Claims 9, 10, 18 and 19; The combination of Taylor in view of Zimmer disclosure has been discussed above.
The combination does not disclose further comprising: a carbon monoxide detector further comprising: a carbon dioxide detector.
However, Cristoforo discloses a generator system include a carbon monoxide detector further comprising: a carbon dioxide detector. (Claim 1)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have added the carbon monoxide detector and carbon dioxide detector to the generating system in order to protect the user from harmful chemical.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant respectfully submits that Zimmer does not disclose, teach, or suggest any of "a current reducer which is a 5-2-1 compressor saver.
However, AAPA in par 0015 discloses that and have shown in par 0015.
The examiner also provided a motivation to combine all the references.
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 DANIEL KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-4449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pmEst.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached on (571) 272-7492. 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.
/DANIEL KESSIE/
01/14/2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836