Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/197,557

POWER GENERATION SYSTEM

Final Rejection §103
Filed
May 15, 2023
Examiner
CHAVCHAVADZE, COLLEEN MARGARET
Art Unit
3634
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Stewart & Stevenson LLC
OA Round
2 (Final)
58%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 58% of resolved cases
58%
Career Allow Rate
476 granted / 825 resolved
+5.7% vs TC avg
Strong +40% interview lift
Without
With
+40.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
852
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
39.5%
-0.5% vs TC avg
§102
26.9%
-13.1% vs TC avg
§112
29.8%
-10.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 825 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 Objections Claim 3, objected to because of the following informalities: it appears that both recitations of “plates” in line 4 should be “one or more plates” so as to agree with the antecedent basis in line 2. A similar correction is required in Claim 4. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claim(s) 1-3 and 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klepacki et al. (US 12,040,656) in view of Salyer (2019/0352920). Klepacki et al. disclose: 1. A power generation system (Abstract) comprising: an enclosure (figure 2A, see below) having a roof, side walls, end walls, a rear and a floor (roof, side walls, end walls, rear and floor of module), the enclosure adapted to be transported by a platform (module 2 being disclosed as an “easily transportable unit” such as a Sea-Can™ Container); a generator (22, figure 2C, see below) positioned entirely within the enclosure (figure 2C), the generator including an engine (24, figure 1), wherein the engine is entirely encapsulated within the enclosure (as it is part of 22); a ladder (64, figure 2C). PNG media_image1.png 416 560 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 289 554 media_image2.png Greyscale While Klepacki et al. disclose the system to be in an “easily transportable unit” such as a Sea-Can™ Container, which is a well-known shipping container that can be transported on trailers, they do not specifically disclose the system to be “trailer mounted”. Additionally, Klepacki et al. do not disclose a fall arrest system attached to the enclosure. However, Salyer teaches a trailer mounted system (“tractor trailers and oil tankers” [0020]), comprising an enclosure (tank, figure 7), and a fall arrest system (see below) attached to the enclosure (figure 7; [0014], see below), PNG media_image3.png 286 625 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 718 792 media_image4.png Greyscale Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the ladder of Klepacki et al. with a fall arrest system as taught by Sayler, for added user safety, to prevent the user from falling to the ground should they slip atop the enclosure, and to dampen the shock and prevent injury (see Sayler [0014] insert above). Additionally, it would have been obvious to mount the enclosure on a trailer as one of the many known means of transportation of such containers. Sayler further teaches 2. The trailer-mounted power generation system of claim 1, wherein the ladder and fall arrest system includes: a fixed ladder (see image above), the fixed ladder affixed directly to the rear of the enclosure (see above), the fixed ladder having a top (see above); a landing area (see above), the landing area including: a landing platform (72, 72, and supporting slats extending therebetween; figure 7), the landing platform having sides and affixed to the rear of the enclosure (see above); and handrails (68, 69; figure 7 above) affixed to the landing platform or the rear of the enclosure (see above). 3. The trailer-mounted power generation system of claim 2, wherein the landing area further includes one or more plates (5, see above) affixed to the roof of the enclosure (see above), the [one or more] plates adapted to provide a level space for a user to stand directly on the [one or more] plates (5 is disclosed as a walkway for the user). Klepacki et al. further disclose: 9. The trailer-mounted power generation system of claim 1, wherein the engine includes an engine block (col. 11, Table 1, examples of engines comprise those with engine blocks) and an exhaust system (HVAC system, col. 10, lines 55-56). 10. The trailer-mounted power generation system of claim 9, wherein the enclosure includes one or more intake vents (126) positioned on the side walls (figure 3B, note that what is named side walls and end walls can be interchangeable). 11. The trailer-mounted power generation system of claim 10 further comprising a transformer (40), the transformer positioned within the enclosure (as it is part of the compressor system 46; figure 2C). 12. The trailer-mounted power generation system of claim 11 further comprising exhaust vents (88, 98a, figure 3A), the exhaust vents positioned opposite the intake vents (126, figure 3A) such that air may flow from the intake vents across the engine to the exhaust vents (figure 3A). 13. The trailer-mounted power generation system of claim 12 wherein the exhaust vents include exhaust fans (98a, 98b). 14. The trailer-mounted power generation system of claim 13, wherein the exhaust fans are driven by variable-speed motors (col. 11, lines 4-20). Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klepacki et al. and Salyer as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Barret et al. (US 8,801,041). Klepacki et al. in view of Salyer do not disclose wherein the plates are arranged on either side of the platform. However, Barret et al. teach: 4. The trailer-mounted power generation system of claim 3, wherein the plates are arranged on either side of the platform (fig 2). PNG media_image5.png 526 737 media_image5.png Greyscale Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position one or more plates of Klepacki et al. in view of Salyer, on either side of the platform as taught by Barret et al. so as to provide a wider level surface area for personnel working at elevation while carrying out maintenance and/or inspection. Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klepacki et al. and Salyer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of in view of Thornton et al. (US 11,130,009). Re: claim 5, While Klepacki et al. in view of Slayer disclose a fall arrest system including anchor points for securing a user working atop the enclosure, they do not disclose wherein the fall arrest system includes: at least two enclosure securement points; a cord attached to the at least two enclosure securement points; a harness affixed to the cord. However, Thornton et al. teach a fall arrest system including at least two enclosure securement points (176a-c, 174; figure 7A); a cord (172a-c) attached to the at least two enclosure securement points (figure 7A); a harness affixed to the cord (harness shown but disclosed as part of the system; col. 2, lines 49-60). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Klepacki et al. in view of Slayer with at least two enclosure securement points, a cord attached to the at least two enclosure securement points and a harness affixed to the cord, as taught by Thornton et al. so as to provide additional fall protection beyond the limits of the walkway, providing fall restraint protection for personnel working or performing maintenance on a structure over four feet high in relation to ground as described by OSHA under the general industry regulations/requirements (Thornton et al., col. 4, lines 18-26). The fall arrest system of Thornton et al. further includes: 6. The trailer-mounted power generation system of claim 5, wherein the fall arrest system (figure 7A) includes only four enclosure securement points (176a-c, 174; figure 7A). 7. wherein the enclosure securement points are arranged to form a "Y" (figure 7A). 8. The trailer-mounted power generation system of claim 7, wherein three cords (172a-c) are positioned to connect the segments of the "Y" formed by the four enclosure securement points (Figure 7A). PNG media_image6.png 482 741 media_image6.png Greyscale Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Klepacki et al. in view of Slayer with only four securement points, arranged in a Y, and three cords, arranged in a Y, as taught by Thornton et al., so as to provide a fall arrest system that can be positioned and arranged around structural components where needed, while still providing access atop the enclosure. Thornton et al. depicts multiple different orientations and arrangements of the cords and a securement points, such as Y-shaped (figure 7A), parallel loops (figure 1) or asterisk shape (figure 10B), demonstrating that straps and securement points can be arranged based on surface availability and/or access needs. Additionally, Thornton et al. teaches that as will be recognized by those skilled in the art after a complete reading of the present application, the devices, members, apparatuses, etc. described herein may be positioned in any desired orientation (col. 3, line 61-col 4, line 1). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 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 COLLEEN M CHAVCHAVADZE whose telephone number is (571)272-6289. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-4:00PM. 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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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. COLLEEN M. CHAVCHAVADZE Primary Examiner Art Unit 3634 /COLLEEN M CHAVCHAVADZE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 15, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 28, 2025
Interview Requested
Nov 05, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Nov 05, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Dec 09, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 27, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600611
OPTO-ELECTRIC SYSTEM OF ENHANCED OPERATOR CONTROL STATION PROTECTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595668
HANGING SCAFFOLD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12571259
FALL PROTECTION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565780
A BRICK GUARD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12565779
Work Platform and Method
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
58%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+40.0%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 825 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