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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration dated 11/21/2025.
Claim(s) 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim(s) 1, 12-14 and 17-20 have been amended.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: For proper for, it is suggested that claim 12 be amended to read as follows:
12. The system of claim 1, wherein the system further comprises multiple power modules mounted in said housing, wherein each power module of the multiple power modules is associated with a respective tenant power module configuration.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 12 is 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.
The limitation “wherein the system further comprises multiple power modules mounted in said housing, wherein each power module of the multiple power module is associated with a respective tenant power module configuration” is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Claim 1, from which claim 12 depends, recites a power module. It is not clear if the multiple power modules of claim 12 include the power module recited in claim 1. One of ordinary skill cannot reasonably ascertain the scope of the claim. Appropriate correction and clarification is required.
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.
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(s) 1-5, 7, 9-13 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0358919 A1, Ansari in view of US 2012/0201016 A1, Robertson et al. (hereinafter “Robertson”).
Regarding claim 1
Ansari teaches a hybrid modular power system (corresponding to transportable power box 2) [Figs. 1 and 4, paras. 0035 and 0041] comprising:
a housing with an interior (corresponding to transport container box 4) [Figs. 1-4, paras. 0035, 0039 and 0041];
a control subsystem including a microprocessor (corresponding to CPU and data storage 133) [Fig. 10 and para. 0048];
a power module (corresponding to, for example, fuel cell power sub-system 42) in said interior associated with a first tenant power module configuration (any one of access doors 248A-248C) of a plurality of tenant power module configurations (access doors 248A-248C) [Fig. 17 and para. 0058];
said power module connected to said control subsystem (133) [Figs. 10 and 17, paras. 0048 and 0058];
one or more power sources chosen from the group comprising: a wind turbine (36) [Fig. 3 and paras. 0039-0040]; a photovoltaic solar panel array (20) [Fig. 4 and para. 0041]; an electrical storage battery [para. 0056]; a generator [para. 0056]; and an electrical grid [para. 0056];
a mast (corresponding to hydraulic extension arm 34) having a proximate end pivotally attached to said housing (4) and a distal end [Fig. 3 and para. 0040];
said mast (34) mounting one or more of a wind turbine (36) and an antenna (270) for a telecommunications subsystem connected to said control subsystem [Figs. 3-4 and 16, paras. 0040 and 0059];
said mast (34) being pivotable between a lowered position adjacent said housing (4) and a raised position extending upwardly therefrom [Figs. 3-4, para. 0040]; and
said control subsystem configured for managing power input to said power module from said power sources using the first tenant power module configuration and managing power output to an electrical power load (A computer having a CPU and data storage 133 controls and automates much of the power system 102, wherein the system is configured for use by different entities/tenants, thereby managing power using a tenant configuration of the system) [para. 0048 and 0050].
PNG
media_image1.png
570
698
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3
As further clarification with regards to the control subsystem managing power input to said power module from said power sources and managing power output to an electrical power load, Robertson is cited below.
Robert teaches a hybrid modular power system (10) comprising a control subsystem (unit control module 200) that is capable of managing power input to said power module from said power sources and managing power output to an electrical power load (the unit control module also may include controls for charging and discontinuing charging of the batteries) [paras. 0014, 0032, 0054, 0061-0062 and 0064].
Ansari and Robertson are analogous inventions in the field of modular power systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the control subsystem of Ansar such that it manages power input to said power module from said power sources and managing power output to an electrical power load, as in Robertson, for the purpose of preventing overcharging or over-discharging of the batteries.
Regarding claim 2
Modified Ansari teaches the system as set forth above, wherein said electrical power sources include a photovoltaic solar array (20) mounted on top of said housing (4) and connected to said control subsystem (the computer 133 controls when the solar array is deployed or retracted) [Ansari, Figs. 4 and 10, paras. 0041, 0048 and 0049].
Regarding claim 3
Modified Ansari teaches the system as set forth above, wherein said solar array (20) is configured for unfolding to a generally flat use position and folding to a folded storage position for transport (“[a]n embodiment of such an array may include multiple sets of panels which are folded on top of one another when stored, as shown in FIG. 3, but which are hingedly connected and may be extended for additional solar collection as shown in FIG. 4.”) [Ansari, Figs. 3-4, para. 0041].
Regarding claim 4
Modified Ansari teaches the system as set forth above, which includes: said telecommunications subsystem is configured for transmitting system status information from said control subsystem and receiving system operating instructions for said control subsystem (the antenna array 270 is for the purpose of surveillance or to deliver telecommunications data to or from the container system) [Ansari, Fig. 16 and para. 0059].
Regarding claim 5
Modified Ansari teaches the system as set forth above, which includes multiple antennae mounted on said mast (an antenna array 270 is mounted on extension arm 34) [Ansari, Fig. 16, paras. 0040 and 0059].
Regarding claim 7
Modified Ansari teaches the system as set forth above, which includes: a mast mounting subassembly (corresponding to hingedly mounted turbine base 28) including a bracket (hinge) pivotally connecting said housing to said mast proximate end (turbine base 28 is hingedly mounted to slide base 32, wherein the end of the hydraulic extension arm 34, corresponding to the claimed mast, is connected to the housing 4 via said turbine base/hinge) [Ansari, Fig. 3 and para. 0040]; and said mast (34) and configured for raising said mast from a lowered position adjacent to said housing (4) to a raised position extending from said housing (4) [Ansari, Figs. 3-4, para. 0040].
Regarding Claim 9
Ansari discloses the system as set forth above, wherein the power sources include a genset (power generation set) with an internal combustion engine driving electrical generator (gas-powered generator) [para. 0033 and 0060]; a fuel tank [para. 0056]; said fuel tank mounted in said housing (the housing comprised a contained room 252 used to store fuel tanks, generators, batteries, or other equipment which is separated for fire protection purposes or security purposes, limiting access to those items to only allowed personnel) [para. 0056].
Modified Ansari is silent to the limitation “with said genset mounted on top of said fuel tank”. However, since applicant has not disclosed that the claimed configuration solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, absent persuasive evidence that mounting the genset on top of the fuel tank is essential and/or significant, said positioning would be an obvious matter of design choice to one ordinarily skilled in the art (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 10
Ansari discloses the system as set forth above 10.
The limitation “wherein said genset produces alternating current (AC) electrical power” is considered a functional limitation and is given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function. Since the structure of the prior art is the same as the one claimed, the same is considered capable of performing the limitations of the instant claim.
It has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP § 2112.01). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 11
Ansari discloses the system as set forth above 10.
The limitation “wherein said genset produces direct-current (DC) electrical power” is considered a functional limitation and is given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function. Since the structure of the prior art is the same as the one claimed, the same is considered capable of performing the limitations of the instant claim.
It has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP § 2112.01). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 12
Modified Ansari teaches the system as set forth above, wherein the system further comprises multiple power modules (fuel cells, PV cells, fuel tanks, generators, batteries, or other equipment may be stored within the interior housing 4) mounted in said housing (4) [Figs. 3 and 16, para. 0056], wherein each power module of the multiple power modules is associated with a respective power module configuration (the system is configured for use by different entities/tenants, thereby managing power using a tenant configuration of the system) [Ansari, Fig. 16, paras. 0048, 0050 and 0058].
Regarding claim 13
Modified Ansari teaches the system as set forth above, wherein each power module (fuel cells, PV cells, fuel tanks, generators, batteries) of the multiple power modules is utilized by a respective tenant and contains tenant-specific components [Ansari, para. 00058].
Regarding claim 17
Ansari teaches a hybrid modular power method (see transportable power box 2) [Figs. 1 and 4, paras. 0035 and 0041] comprising the steps of:
providing a housing with an interior (corresponding to transport container box 4) [Figs. 1-4, paras. 0035, 0039 and 0041];
providing a control subsystem including a microprocessor (corresponding to CPU and data storage 133) [Fig. 10 and para. 0048];
providing a power module in said interior (corresponding to, for example, fuel cell power sub-system 42) [Fig. 3 and paras. 0039-0041], wherein the power module is associated with a first tenant power module configuration (any one of access doors 248A-248C) of a plurality of tenant power module configurations (access doors 248A-248C) [Fig. 17 and para. 0058];
connecting said power module to said control subsystem (133) [Figs. 10 and 17, paras. 0048 and 0058];
providing one or more power sources chosen from the group comprising: a wind turbine (36) [Fig. 3 and paras. 0039-0040]; a photovoltaic solar panel array (20) [Fig. 4 and para. 0041]; an electrical storage battery [para. 0056]; a generator [para. 0056]; and an electrical grid [para. 0056];
providing a mast (corresponding to hydraulic extension arm 34) having a proximate end pivotally attached to said housing (4) and a distal end [Fig. 3 and para. 0040];
mounting on said mast (34) one or more of a wind turbine (36) and an antenna (270) for a telecommunications subsystem connected to said control subsystem [Figs. 3-4 and 16, paras. 0040 and 0059];
pivotally moving said mast (34) between a lowered position adjacent said housing (4) and a raised position extending upwardly therefrom [Figs. 3-4, para. 0040]; and
said control subsystem configured for managing power input to said power module from said power sources using the first tenant power module configuration and managing power output to an electrical power load (A computer having a CPU and data storage 133 controls and automates much of the power system 102, wherein the system is configured for use by different entities/tenants, thereby managing power using a tenant configuration of the system) [para. 0048 and 0050].
As further clarification with regards to the control subsystem managing power input to said power module from said power sources and managing power output to an electrical power load, Robertson is cited below.
Robert teaches a hybrid modular power system (10) comprising a control subsystem (unit control module 200) that is capable of managing power input to said power module from said power sources and managing power output to an electrical power load (the unit control module also may include controls for charging and discontinuing charging of the batteries) [paras. 0014, 0032, 0054, 0061-0062 and 0064].
Ansari and Robertson are analogous inventions in the field of modular power systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the control subsystem of Ansar such that it manages power input to said power module from said power sources and managing power output to an electrical power load, as in Robertson, for the purpose of preventing overcharging or over-discharging of the batteries.
Regarding claim 18
Modified Ansari teaches the method as set forth above, further comprising:
providing multiple power modules mounted in said housing (each access door 248A-248C belong to a separate entity utilizing the container system, each having equipment) [Ansari, Fig. 16 and para. 0058]
Regarding claim 19
Modified Ansari teaches the method as set forth above, further comprising: configuring each power module for use by a respective tenant and contains tenant-specific components in each said power module [Ansari,para. 00058].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansari in view of Robertson as applied to claims 1-5, 7, 9-13 and 17-19 above, and further in view of US 10,056,963 B1, Au.
Regarding claim 6
Modified Ansari teaches a parabolic reflector microwave antenna mounted on top of said mast (See Fig. 16 below); and an antenna array (270) [Fig. 16 and para. 0059].
Modified Ansari does not teach the antenna array comprising multiple elements mounted at radially-spaced positions around said antenna below said parabolic reflector antenna.
PNG
media_image2.png
620
902
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 16
Modified Ansari does not teach the antenna array comprising multiple elements mounted at radially-spaced positions around said antenna below said parabolic reflector antenna.
Au teaches a system comprising a parabolic reflector microwave antenna mounted on top of a mast and an antenna array comprising multiple elements mounted at radially-spaced positions [Fig. 1 and Col. 1].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to modify the antenna array of modified Ansari such that it comprises multiple elements mounted at radially-spaced positions, as disclosed in Au, as such configuration is disclosed to be capable of transmitting communications/signals to or from the container of modified Ansari.
Modified Ansari does not specifically teach the antenna array mounted below said parabolic reflector antenna. However, since applicant has not disclosed that the claimed configuration solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, absent persuasive evidence that the particular position of the antenna array (above/below the reflector) is essential and/or significant, positioning the antenna array below the parabolic reflector would be an obvious matter of design choice to one ordinarily skilled in the art (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansari in view of Robertson as applied to claims 1-5, 7, 9-13 and 17-19 above, and further in view of US 2006/0260672, A1, Niederer.
Regarding claim 8
Modified Ansari teaches the system as set forth above, which includes: said mast (34) including a proximate section with said mast proximate end and a distal section with said mast distal end [Fig. 3]. Modified Ansari appears to disclose a telescoping mast [Figs. 1-4].
Modified Ansari does not teach a mast section hinge pivotally connecting said mast proximate and distal sections; and said mast configured for folding about said mast section hinge between a folded, transport storage position and an unfolded, extended use position with said mast sections longitudinally aligned.
Niederer discloses a power system (supply unit) comprising a mast (10) having a proximate section with said mast proximate end and a distal section with said mast distal end [Fig. 2 and paras. 0021-0022], wherein the mast can be either telescoping or may include several mast sections fitted together with hinged elements [paragraph 0022].
Modified Ansari and Niederer are analogous inventions in the filed of power systems comprising mast sections. Because Niederer teaches choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable Mast configurations, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to pursue the known options with reasonable expectation of success [see MPEP 2143]. Since Niederer teaches that a Mast having hinged mast sections leads to the anticipated success, said configuration is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense [see MPEP 2143].
The limitation “configured for folding about said mast section hinge between a folded, transport storage position and an unfolded, extended use position with said mast sections longitudinally aligned” is considered a functional use and is given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function. Since the structure of the prior art is the same as the one claimed, the same is considered capable of performing the limitations of the instant claim.
It has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP § 2112.01). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansari in view of Robertson, Niederer and Au.
Regarding claim 14
Ansari teaches a hybrid modular power system (corresponding to transportable power box 2) [Figs. 1 and 4, paras. 0035 and 0041] comprising:
a housing with an interior (corresponding to transport container box 4) [Figs. 1-4, paras. 0035, 0039 and 0041];
a control subsystem including a microprocessor (corresponding to CPU and data storage 133) [Fig. 10 and para. 0048];
a power module in said interior (corresponding to, for example, fuel cell subsystem 42) [Figs. 3 and 17, paras. 0039-0041 and 0058]; said power module connected to said control subsystem (133) [Figs. 10 and 17, paras. 0048 and 0058];
one or more power sources chosen from the group comprising: a wind turbine (36) [Fig. 3 and paras. 0039-0040]; a photovoltaic solar panel array (20) [Fig. 4 and para. 0041]; an electrical storage battery [para. 0056]; a generator [para. 0056]; and an electrical grid [para. 0056];
a mast (corresponding to hydraulic extension arm 34) having a proximate end pivotally attached to said housing (4) and a distal end [Fig. 3 and para. 0040];
said mast (34) mounting one or more of a wind turbine (36) and an antenna (270) for a telecommunications subsystem connected to said control subsystem [Figs. 3-4 and 16, paras. 0040 and 0059];
said mast (34) being pivotable between a lowered position adjacent said housing (4) and a raised position extending upwardly therefrom [Figs. 3-4, para. 0040]; and
said control subsystem configured for managing power input to said power module from said power sources and managing power output to an electrical power load (A computer having a CPU and data storage 133 controls and automates much of the power system 102) [para. 0048 and 0050];
said photovoltaic solar array (20) mounted on top of said housing (4) and connected to said control subsystem (the computer 133 controls when the solar array is deployed or retracted) [Ansari, Figs. 4 and 10, paras. 0041, 0048 and 0049];
said solar array (20) being configured for unfolding to a generally flat use position and folding to a folded storage position for transport (“[a]n embodiment of such an array may include multiple sets of panels which are folded on top of one another when stored, as shown in FIG. 3, but which are hingedly connected and may be extended for additional solar collection as shown in FIG. 4.”) [Ansari, Figs. 3-4, para. 0041];
said telecommunications subsystem being configured for transmitting system status information from said control subsystem and receiving system operating instructions for said control subsystem (the antenna array 270 is for the purpose of surveillance or to deliver telecommunications data to or from the container system) [Ansari, Fig. 16 and para. 0059],
a parabolic reflector microwave antenna mounted on top of said mast (See annotated Fig. 16 above);
an antenna array (270) [Fig. 16 and para. 0059];
said mast including a proximate section with said mast proximate end and a distal section with said mast distal end mounting subassembly (corresponding to hingedly mounted turbine base 28) including a bracket (hinge) pivotally connecting said housing to said mast proximate end (turbine base 28 is hingedly mounted to slide base 32, wherein the end of the hydraulic extension arm 34, corresponding to the claimed mast, is connected to the housing 4 via said turbine base/hinge) [Ansari, Fig. 3 and para. 0040]; and said mast (34) and configured for raising said mast from a lowered position adjacent to said housing (4) to a raised position extending from said housing (4) [Ansari, Figs. 3-4, para. 0040];
the power sources including a genset (power generation set) with an internal combustion engine driving electrical generator (gas-powered generator) [para. 0033 and 0060]; a fuel tank [para. 0056]; said fuel tank mounted in said housing (the housing comprised a contained room 252 used to store fuel tanks, generators, batteries, or other equipment which is separated for fire protection purposes or security purposes, limiting access to those items to only allowed personnel) [para. 0056]; and
multiple power modules (e.g., PV cell, batteries, generators) mounted in said housing (4) [Figs. 3 and 17, paras. 0039-0041 and 0056], wherein each power module of the plurality of power modules is associated with a respective power module configuration (any one of access doors 248A-248C) of a plurality of tenant module configurations (access doors 248A-248C) [Fig. 17 and para. 0058], and wherein each power module is utilized by a respective tenant and containing tenant-specific components (three alternative access doors 248A, 248B, and 248C, each with access conduits for running cables or other services into and out of the container, wherein each door would belong to a separate entity utilizing the container system) [Ansari, para. 0058].
Modified Ansari is silent to the limitation “with said genset mounted on top of said fuel tank”. However, since applicant has not disclosed that the claimed configuration solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, absent persuasive evidence that mounting the genset on top of the fuel tank is essential and/or significant, said positioning would be an obvious matter of design choice to one ordinarily skilled in the art (see MPEP § 2144.04).
As further clarification with regards to the control subsystem managing power input to said power module from said power sources and managing power output to an electrical power load, Robertson is cited below.
Robert teaches a hybrid modular power system (10) comprising a control subsystem (unit control module 200) that is capable of managing power input to said power module from said power sources and managing power output to an electrical power load (the unit control module also may include controls for charging and discontinuing charging of the batteries) [paras. 0014, 0032, 0054, 0061-0062 and 0064].
Ansari and Robertson are analogous inventions in the field of modular power systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the control subsystem of Ansar such that it manages power input to said power module from said power sources and managing power output to an electrical power load, as in Robertson, for the purpose of preventing overcharging or over-discharging of the batteries.
Modified Ansari does not teach a mast section hinge pivotally connecting said mast proximate and distal sections; said mast configured for folding about said mast section hinge between a folded, transport storage position and an unfolded, extended use position with said mast sections longitudinally aligned.
Niederer discloses a power system (supply unit) comprising a mast (10) having a proximate section with said mast proximate end and a distal section with said mast distal end [Fig. 2 and paras. 0021-0022], wherein the mast can be either telescoping or may include several mast sections fitted together with hinged elements [paragraph 0022].
Modified Ansari and Niederer are analogous inventions in the field of power systems comprising mast sections. Because Niederer teaches choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable Mast configurations, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to pursue the known options with reasonable expectation of success [see MPEP 2143]. Since Niederer teaches that a Mast having hinged mast sections leads to the anticipated success, said configuration is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense [see MPEP 2143].
The limitation “configured for folding about said mast section hinge between a folded, transport storage position and an unfolded, extended use position with said mast sections longitudinally aligned” is considered a functional use and is given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function. Since the structure of the prior art is the same as the one claimed, the same is considered capable of performing the limitations of the instant claim.
It has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP § 2112.01). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Modified Ansari teaches a parabolic reflector microwave antenna mounted on top of said mast (See annotated Fig. 16 above); and an antenna array (270) [Fig. 16 and para. 0059].
Modified Ansari does not teach the antenna array comprising multiple elements mounted at radially-spaced positions around said antenna below said parabolic reflector antenna.
Modified Ansari does not teach the antenna array comprising multiple elements mounted at radially-spaced positions around said antenna below said parabolic reflector antenna.
Au teaches a system comprising a parabolic reflector microwave antenna mounted on top of a mast and an antenna array comprising multiple elements mounted at radially-spaced positions [Fig. 1 and Col. 1].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to modify the antenna array of modified Ansari such that it comprises multiple elements mounted at radially-spaced positions, as disclosed in Au, as such configuration is disclosed to be capable of transmitting communications/signals to or from the container of modified Ansari.
Modified Ansari does not specifically teach the antenna array mounted below said parabolic reflector antenna. However, since applicant has not disclosed that the claimed configuration solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, absent persuasive evidence that the particular position of the antenna array (above/below the reflector) is essential and/or significant, positioning the antenna array below the parabolic reflector would be an obvious matter of design choice to one ordinarily skilled in the art (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 15
The limitation “wherein said genset produces alternating current (AC) electrical power” is considered a functional limitation and is given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function. Since the structure of the prior art is the same as the one claimed, the same is considered capable of performing the limitations of the instant claim.
It has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP § 2112.01). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 16
The limitation “wherein said genset produces direct-current (DC) electrical power” is considered a functional limitation and is given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function. Since the structure of the prior art is the same as the one claimed, the same is considered capable of performing the limitations of the instant claim.
It has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP § 2112.01). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansari in view of Robertson as applied to claims 1-5, 7, 9-13 and 17-19 above, and further in view of US 10,389,121, Sherry.
Regarding claim 20
Modified Ansari does not teach the method further comprising:
monitoring and balancing electrical power usage by multiple loads with said control subsystem.
Sherry teaches monitoring and balancing power usage by multiple loads by a control subsystem so that the power source (engine) is not stalled, and further teaches balancing the electrical power in order to reduce wear on the power source and other components which increases the efficiency [Col. 8, lines 55-67 to Col. 9, lines 1-19].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the control subsystem of modified Ansari to include an additional step of monitoring and balancing electrical power usage by multiple loads with said control subsystem, as disclosed in Sherry, for the purpose of avoiding stall of the generator and reducing wear on the generator and other components.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that, while Ansari discusses alternative access doors in paragraph [0058] and as shown in Fig. 16, there is no discussion of tenant power module configurations.
Applicant argues that there is no discussion of a control subsystem using tenant power module configurations for managing power.
Applicant argues that neither Robertson nor any other cited prior art teaches the tenant power module configurations or a control subsystem using tenant power module configurations.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not impose structural limitations to the claimed tenant power module configurations. Ansari discloses a variety of power generating elements within the interior of the housing (4), including a fuel cell power sub-system (42), a photovoltaic solar panel array (20), a wind turbine (36), generators and batteries [Fig. 4, paras. 0039-0041 and 0056]. These subsystems reasonably correspond to the claimed power module configurations.
Furthermore, the recited “tenant power module configuration” merely labels the system configuration associated with a given tenant and does not impose structural limitations distinguishing the claimed system from that discloses in the reference.
Regarding the control subsystem, Ansari discloses a computer including a CPU and data storage to control and automate operation of the power system [para. 0048]. A computer as disclosed in Ansari reasonably corresponds to the claimed control subsystem. Applicant has not provided any persuasive arguments other than stating that Ansari does not disclose the claimed control subsystem.
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 MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9:00-5:00 - EST.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303)297-4684. 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.
/MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721