DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed May 21, 2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s arguments/amendments filed April 24, 2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection. Claims 3 and 14 had been canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. Claims 8, 10-13, 15, 16, 23 and 24 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, the claim limitation “…or a combination thereof such that the linking module and the inverter power station are stackable.” is being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention because it is not clear what is meant for “a combination thereof” because previously the claim states that “at least one indentation on an upper surface thereof configured to receive at least one foot extending from a lower surface of the inverter power station” and “at least one cutout on a lower surface thereof configured to receive at least one handle on an upper surface of the inverter power station”, but if both of the statements are combined then the term “the inverter power station” in both of the statements would conflict since there is only one inverter power station is previously defined and the “indentation on an upper surface thereof” and “at least one cutout on a lower surface thereof” are not able to accept only one inverter power station instead there must have two inverter power stations.
Regarding claim 10, the claim limitation “…wherein the power station and linking module are stackable, with the linking module comprising at least one indentation on an upper surface thereof configured to receive at least one foot extending from a lower surface of the power station, at least one cutout on a lower surface thereof configured to receive at least one handle on an upper surface of the power station, or a combination thereof.” is being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention because –
(i). the first underlined portion of the claim limitation “linking module” should be “the linking module” according to antecedent basis requirement;
(ii). the second underlined portion of the claim limitation “with the linking module” is not clear what is meant, it is appeared to be “with” is not necessary; and
(iii). the third underlined portion of the claim limitation “a combination thereof” is improper because previously the claim states that “at least one indentation on an upper surface thereof configured to receive at least one foot extending from a lower surface of the power station” and “at least one cutout on a lower surface thereof configured to receive at least one handle on an upper surface of the power station”, but if both of the statements are combined then the term “the power station” in both of the statements would conflict since there is only one power station is previously defined and the “indentation on an upper surface thereof” and “at least one cutout on a lower surface thereof” are not able to accept only one power station instead there must have two power stations.
Dependent claims 11-13, 15 and 16 are also rejected at least the same reason as rejected independent claim 10 as stated above because the dependent claims 11-13, 15 and 16 are depending on the rejected independent claim 10.
Regarding claim 23, the claim limitation “…or a combination thereof.” is being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention because it is not clear what is meant for “a combination thereof” because previously the claim states that “at least one indentation on an upper surface thereof configured to receive at least one foot extending from a lower surface of the inverter power station” and “at least one cutout on a lower surface thereof configured to receive at least one handle on an upper surface of the inverter power station”, but if both of the statements are combined then the term “the inverter power station” in both of the statements would conflict since there is only one inverter power station is previously defined and the “indentation on an upper surface thereof” and “at least one cutout on a lower surface thereof” are not able to accept only one inverter power station instead must have two inverter power stations.
Regarding claim 24, the claim limitation “…the second power output receptacle of the inverter power station…” should be “…the second power output receptacle of the gas generator…” according to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 of this title, 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.
5. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
6. Claims 1, 2, 4, 7 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. (11,631,990) (Hereinafter “Yamashita”) in view of Nguyen (2019/0319231).
Regarding claim 1, Yamashita discloses a power station and gas generator assembly (Figs.1 and 2, please refer to the whole reference for detailed) comprising: an inverter power station (3) comprising: an onboard battery system (54 in Fig.3); an inverter (55) electrically coupled to the onboard battery system (54) and configured to convert a DC power output from the onboard battery system into a first AC power output (AC power output from 55); at least one power input port (8 in Fig.2, which functions as an power input port when in a charge mode as stated in column 6, line 60 to column 7, line 7) configured to electrically connect to at least one external power source (1) to receive power for recharging the onboard battery system; a gas generator (1) configured to generate a second AC power output (AC power output from 51); and a linking module (2) electrically couplable to the inverter power station (3) and the gas generator (1), wherein the linking module couples the gas generator and the inverter power station in parallel and the linking module is capable of combining the first AC power output with the second AC power output to provide a combined power output therefrom when the inverter power station generates the first AC power output and the gas generator generates the second AC power output (please refer to at least column 3, line 33-52); wherein: the inverter power station (3) comprises a first power output receptacle (8, which functions as a power output receptacle when in a discharge mode) configured to provide the first AC power output (AC power output from 55); the gas generator (1) comprises a second power output receptacle (22) configured to provide the second AC power output (AC power output from 51); and the linking module (2) is electrically couplable to the first power output receptacle (8) and the second power output receptacle (22).
Yamashita doesn’t explicitly disclose an expansion battery input port configured to electrically connect to one or more expansion batteries to receive power therefrom.
Nguyen discloses an example of an inverter power station (200 and 300 in Fig.3A); and the inverter power station comprising an expansion battery input port (205A in Fig.3A; ¶ 52) configured to electrically connect to one or more expansion batteries (additional 200 (at the top) as shown in Fig.3C) to receive power therefrom (please refer to at least ¶ 52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamashita with the teaching of Nguyen to provide an expansion battery input port configured to electrically connect to one or more expansion batteries to receive power therefrom. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide an expandable battery storage option as supported by Nguyen.
Regarding claim 2, Yamashita in view of Nguyen is used to reject claim 1 above.
Yamashita discloses wherein the gas generator (1) is electrically couplable to the inverter power station (3) to charge the onboard battery system (54; column 6, line 60-63).
Regarding claim 4, Yamashita in view of Nguyen is used to reject claim 1 above.
Yamashita discloses the at least one power input port (8 in Fig.2, which functions as an power input port when in a charge mode as stated in column 6, line 60 to column 7, line 7) of the inverter power station (3) comprises: a DC input port configured to electrically connect to a DC power source to receive power for recharging the onboard battery system; and an AC input port (8 is an AC input port) configured to electrically connect to an AC power source (50, 69 and 51) to receive power for recharging the onboard battery system (column 6, line 60 to column 7, line 7).
Regarding claim 7, Yamashita in view of Nguyen is used to reject claim 1 above.
Yamashita discloses the linking module (2) receives AC power from the inverter power station (3) and the gas generator (1); and the linking module comprises at least one AC power output receptacle (59) to provide the combined power output therefrom (please refer to at least column 3, line 33-52).
Regarding claim 24, Yamashita in view of Nguyen is used to reject claim 1 above.
Yamashita discloses the first power output receptacle (8) of the inverter power station (3) comprises a first pair of linking module connection ports (ports connected to a pair of outputs from 55 in Fig.2); the second power output receptacle (22) of the inverter power station (assuming “gas generator” 1) comprises a second pair of linking module connection ports (ports connected to a pair of outputs from 51 in Fig.2); and the linking module comprises a first pair of power leads and a second pair of power leads (a first pair of power lead connected to 4 and a second pair of power lead connected to 5), the first pair of power leads being electrically couplable to the first pair of linking module connection ports, and the second pair of power leads being electrically couplable to the second pair of linking module connection ports (Fig.2).
7. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. (11,631,990) (Hereinafter “Yamashita”) in view of Nguyen (2019/0319231) and Luangrath et al. (2021/0376635) (“Luangrath”).
Regarding claim 5, Yamashita in view of Nguyen is used to reject claim 1 above.
Yamashita doesn’t disclose the inverter power station comprises a battery gauge configured to display a combined battery level of each of the one or more expansion batteries when connected to the inverter power station.
Luangrath discloses the inverter power station (Fig.1) comprises a battery gauge configured to display a combined battery level of each of the one or more expansion batteries when connected to the inverter power station (please refer to at least ¶ 51 and 55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamashita in view of Nguyen with the teaching of Luangrath to provide the inverter power station comprises a battery gauge configured to display a combined battery level of each of the one or more expansion batteries when connected to the inverter power station. The suggestion/motivation would have been to use stack storage method as taught by Luangrath to provide a compact system and/or to reduce space.
8. Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. (11,631,990) (Hereinafter “Yamashita”) in view of Nguyen (2019/0319231) and Collie (2013/0293023).
Regarding claim 6, Yamashita in view of Nguyen is used to reject claim 1 above.
Yamashita doesn’t disclose the inverter power station is electrically couplable to another inverter power station via the linking module.
Collie discloses an example of a power station (20) is electrically couplable to another power station (22 or 26) via a linking module (28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamashita in view of Nguyen with the teaching of Collier to provide the inverter power station is electrically couplable to another inverter power station via the linking module. The suggestion/motivation would have been to increase total power output as suggested by Collie.
Regarding claim 8, Yamashita in view of Nguyen is used to reject claim 1 above.
Yamashita doesn’t disclose wherein the linking module comprises at least one indentation on an upper surface thereof configured to receive at least one foot extending from a lower surface of the inverter power station, at least one cutout on a lower surface thereof configured to receive at least one handle on an upper surface of the inverter power station, or a combination thereof such that the linking module and the inverter power station are stackable.
Collie discloses an example of a linking module (28 in Fig.1) is configured to provide a combined power output (at 52 of 28 in Figs.1 and 3) of a first power station (for example - 20) and a second power station (for example – 22 (or) 26) (please refer to at least ¶ 4, 8-11, 22 and 29-36); wherein the first power station (20) and the linking module (28) are stackable (Fig.1), the linking module (28) comprises at least one indentation (“recesses” as stated in ¶ 46) on an upper surface thereof configured to receive at least one foot (“protrusions” as stated in ¶ 46) extending from a lower surface of the first power station, at least one cutout on a lower surface thereof (lower surface of 28) configured to receive at least one handle (50) on an upper surface of the first power station (20 in Fig.1), or a combination thereof such that the linking module and the inverter power station are stackable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamashita in view of Nguyen with the teaching of Collier to provide the linking module comprises at least one indentation on an upper surface thereof configured to receive at least one foot extending from a lower surface of the inverter power station, at least one cutout on a lower surface thereof configured to receive at least one handle on an upper surface of the inverter power station, or a combination thereof such that the linking module and the inverter power station are stackable. The suggestion/motivation would have been to place the linking module at the top or side of the inverter power station as desired as suggested by Collie’s ¶ 46.
9. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. (11,631,990) (Hereinafter “Yamashita”) in view of Nguyen (2019/0319231), Ghasemabadi et al. (10,574,086) (“Ghasemabadi”) and Shibata et al. (10,348,097) (“Shibata”).
Regarding claim 9, Yamashita in view of Nguyen is used to reject claim 1 above.
Yamashita discloses the inverter power station (3) comprises a terminal (one of the terminals output from 55); the gas generator (1) comprises a terminal (one of the terminals output from 51); and the linking module (2) comprises first and second wires (first and second wires connected to the corresponding terminals of the inverter power station and the gas generator via terminals 22 and 4, respectively), wherein each of the first and second wires is electrically couplable to the terminal of the inverter power station or the terminal of the gas generator.
Yamashita doesn’t explicitly disclose the inverter power station comprises a ground terminal; the gas generator comprises a ground terminal; and the linking module comprises first and second ground wires, wherein each of the first and second ground wires is electrically couplable to the ground terminal of the inverter power station or the ground terminal of the gas generator.
For supporting purpose, Ghasemabadi discloses an inverter power station (formed by 130, 140 and 170 in Fig.1A) comprises a ground terminal (Common Ground in Fig.1A)
For supporting purpose, Shibata discloses a gas generator (1A in Fig.3) comprise a ground terminal (N1, which is connected to ground via P1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamashita in view of Nguyen with the teaching of Ghasemabadi to recognize that the inverter power station taught by Yamashita comprises a ground terminal and also the gas generator taught by Yamashita comprises a ground terminal, thus the linking module taught by Yamashita comprises first and second ground wires, wherein each of the first and second ground wires is electrically couplable to the ground terminal of the inverter power station or the ground terminal of the gas generator. The suggestion/motivation would have been to recognize that each of the inverter power station and the gas generator taught by Yamashita comprises the ground terminal.
10. Claims 10-13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. (11,631,990) (Hereinafter “Yamashita”) in view of Collie (2013/0293023).
Regarding claim 10, Yamashita discloses a power station and gas inverter assembly (Figs.1 and 2, please refer to the whole reference for detailed) comprising: a power station (3) comprising: a battery system (54) capable of generating a DC power output when the battery system has a charge, and an inverter (55) electrically coupled to the battery system and capable of converting the DC power output of the battery system into a first AC power output; a gas inverter generator (1; column 6, line 64-67) capable of generating a second AC power output; and a linking module (2) electrically couplable to the power station and the gas inverter generator to combine the first AC power output received from the power station with the second AC power output received from the gas inverter generator into a combined power output when the power station generates the first AC power output and the gas inverter generator generates the second AC power output (please refer to at least column 3, line 33-52), wherein the linking module (2) is configured to provide the combined power output with an increased current output in comparison to a current of the first AC power output received from the power station and a current of the second AC power output received from the gas inverter generator (please refer to at least column 3, line 33-52) and with a voltage output equal to a voltage of the first AC power output and the second AC power output received from the power station and the gas inverter generator (please refer to at least column 3, line 33-52; Note: AC output voltage is standardized - for example in United States: it is 120 V); wherein the power station and the linking module are placed side by side.
Yamashita doesn’t disclose wherein the power station and linking module are stackable, with the linking module comprising at least one indentation on an upper surface thereof configured to receive at least one foot extending from a lower surface of the power station, at least one cutout on a lower surface thereof configured to receive at least one handle on an upper surface of the power station, or a combination thereof.
Collie discloses an example of a linking module (28 in Fig.1) is configured to provide a combined power output (at 52 of 28 in Figs.1 and 3) of a first power station (for example - 20) and a second power station (for example – 22 (or) 26) (please refer to at least ¶ 4, 8-11, 22 and 29-36); wherein the first power station (20) and the linking module (28) are stackable (Fig.1), the linking module (28) comprising at least one indentation (“recesses” as stated in ¶ 46) on an upper surface thereof configured to receive at least one foot (“protrusions” as stated in ¶ 46) extending from a lower surface of the first power station, at least one cutout on a lower surface thereof (lower surface of 28) configured to receive at least one handle (50) on an upper surface of the first power station (20 in Fig.1), or a combination thereof (¶ 46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamashita with the teaching of Collier to provide the power station and linking module are stackable, with the linking module comprising at least one indentation on an upper surface thereof configured to receive at least one foot extending from a lower surface of the power station, at least one cutout on a lower surface thereof configured to receive at least one handle on an upper surface of the power station, or a combination thereof. The suggestion/motivation would have been to place the linking module at the top or side of the power station as desired as suggested by Collie’s ¶ 46.
Regarding claim 11, Yamashita in view of Collie is used to reject claim 10 above.
Yamashita discloses the gas inverter generator (1) is electrically couplable to the power station (3) to charge the battery system (column 6, line 60-63).
Regarding claim 12, Yamashita in view of Collie is used to reject claim 10 above.
Yamashita discloses the linking module (2) is configured to electrically couple the first AC power output and the second AC power output (AC power outputs “8” and “22”) from the power station (3) and the gas inverter generator (1) in parallel (Fig.2).
Regarding claim 13, Yamashita in view of Collie is used to reject claim 10 above.
Yamashita discloses the linking module (2) comprises an AC power output receptacle (59) configured to provide the combined power output (please refer to at least column 3, line 33-52).
Regarding claim 15, Yamashita in view of Collie is used to reject claim 10 above.
Yamashita discloses the power station (3) is an expandable power station couplable to one or more expansion batteries (column 6, line 49-59).
Regarding claim 16, Yamashita in view of Collie is used to reject claim 10 above.
Yamashita discloses the power station (3) is electrically couplable to another power station comprising a battery system (55 in Fig.2) and an inverter (55) electrically coupled to the battery system (column 6, line 49-59).
11. Claims 17, 18, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. (11,631,990) (Hereinafter “Yamashita”) in view of Ghasemabadi et al. (10,574,086) (“Ghasemabadi”) and Shibata et al. (10,348,097) (“Shibata”).
Regarding claim 17, Yamashita discloses a power station and gas generator assembly (Figs.1 and 2, please refer to the whole reference for detailed) comprising: an inverter power station (3) configured to provide a first AC power output at an AC voltage and a first AC current at or below a first AC current rating; a gas inverter generator (1) configured to provide a second AC power output at the AC voltage and a second AC current at or below a second AC current rating; and a linking kit (2) configured to: electrically connect to the inverter power station to receive the first AC power output therefrom; electrically connect to the gas inverter generator to receive the second AC power output therefrom; combine the first AC power output and the second AC power output into a third AC power output (at 59) at the AC voltage and a third AC current that is a combination of the first AC current and the second current when the inverter power station provides the first AC power output and the gas inverter generator provides the second AC power output (please refer to at least Fig.2 and column 3, line 33-52); and provide the third AC power output to a load (load connected to 59) at the AC voltage and the third AC current at or below a third AC current rating that is a combination of the first AC current rating and the second AC current rating (please refer to column 3, line 33-52); wherein: the inverter power station (3) comprises a first terminal (one of the terminals output from 55); the gas inverter generator (1) comprises a second terminal (one of the terminals output from 51); and the linking kit (2) comprises a first wire and a second wire (first and second wires connected to the corresponding terminals of the inverter power station and the gas generator via terminals 22 and 4, respectively), the first wire being electrically couplable to the first terminal, the second wire being electrically couplable to the second terminal.
Yamashita doesn’t explicitly disclose the inverter power station comprises a first ground terminal; the gas inverter generator comprises a second ground terminal; and the linking kit comprises a first ground wire and a second ground wire, the first ground wire being electrically couplable to the first ground terminal, the second ground wire being electrically couplable to the second ground terminal.
For supporting purpose, Ghasemabadi discloses an inverter power station (formed by 130, 140 and 170 in Fig.1A) comprises a ground terminal (Common Ground in Fig.1A)
For supporting purpose, Shibata discloses a gas generator (1A in Fig.3) comprise a ground terminal (N1, which is connected to ground via P1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamashita in view of Nguyen with the teaching of Ghasemabadi to recognize that the inverter power station taught by Yamashita comprises a first ground terminal and also the gas generator taught by Yamashita comprises a second ground terminal, thus the linking module taught by Yamashita comprises a first ground wire and a second ground wire, wherein each of the first ground wire and the second ground wire is electrically couplable to the first ground terminal of the inverter power station or the second ground terminal of the gas generator. The suggestion/motivation would have been to recognize that each of the inverter power station and the gas generator taught by Yamashita comprises ground terminal.
Regarding claim 18, Yamashita in view of Ghasemabadi and Shibata is used to reject claim 17 above.
Yamashita discloses the inverter power station (3) comprises an onboard battery system (54); and the gas inverter generator (1) is electrically couplable to the inverter power station to charge the onboard battery system (column 6, line 60-63).
Regarding claim 20, Yamashita in view of Ghasemabadi and Shibata is used to reject claim 17 above.
Yamashita discloses the inverter power station (3) comprises a first AC power output receptacle (8) configured to provide the first AC power output; the gas inverter generator (1) comprises a second AC power output receptacle (22) configured to provide the second AC power output; and the linking kit (2) comprises a third AC power output receptacle (59) configured to provide the third AC power output.
Regarding claim 21, Yamashita in view of Ghasemabadi and Shibata is used to reject claims 17 and 20 above.
Yamashita discloses the first AC current rating is an AC current rating of the first AC power output receptacle (8); the second AC current rating is an AC current rating of the second AC power output receptacle (22); and the third AC current rating is an AC current rating of the third AC power output receptacle (59).
12. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. (11,631,990) (Hereinafter “Yamashita”) in view of Ghasemabadi et al. (10,574,086) (“Ghasemabadi”), Shibata et al. (10,348,097) (“Shibata”) and Nguyen (2019/0319231).
Regarding claim 19, Yamashita in view of Ghasemabadi and Shibata is used to reject claim 17 above.
Yamashita discloses the inverter power station (3) is powered by an onboard battery system (54) and is electrically connectable to one or more expansion batteries to receive power therefrom (column 6, line 48-60).
Yamashita doesn’t explicitly disclose using lithium-ion battery (¶ 60).
Nguyen discloses an example of using lithium-ion battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamashita in view of Ghasemabadi and Shibata with the teaching of Nguyen to provide onboard lithium-ion battery system. The suggestion/motivation would have been to use a lithium-ion battery as supported by Nguyen.
13. Claims 22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. (11,631,990) (Hereinafter “Yamashita”) in view of Ghasemabadi et al. (10,574,086) (“Ghasemabadi”), Shibata et al. (10,348,097) (“Shibata”) and Collie (2013/0293023).
Regarding claim 22, Yamashita in view of Ghasemabadi and Shibata is used to reject claims 17, 20 and 21 above.
Yamashita doesn’t explicitly disclose the AC voltage is approximately 120V and the first AC current rating and second AC current rating are each approximately 15A.
Shibata discloses the AC voltage (output from 1A in Fig.3) is approximately 120V (please refer to at least column 2, line 65-67).
Collie discloses an AC voltage is approximately 120V (¶ 15) and the first (AC current rating of output receptacle of 20 which is connected to 30) and second (AC current rating of output receptacle of 24 which is connected to 34) AC current ratings are approximately 15 A (please refer to at least ¶ 36 and 37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamashita in view of Ghasemabadi with the teaching of Shibata to provide the AC voltage is approximately 120V and with the teaching of Collie to provide the AC voltage is approximately 120V and the first AC current rating and second AC current rating are each approximately 15A. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide a desired level of output AC voltage/current as a design choice.
Regarding claim 25, Yamashita in view of Ghasemabadi and Shibata is used to reject claim 17 above.
Yamashita discloses the inverter power station comprises a first AC power output receptacle (8); the gas inverter generator comprises a second AC power output receptacle (22); and the linking kit (2) comprises two pairs of parallel cables (cables connected between 61 and 60), wherein each pair of parallel cables is electrically connectable to the first AC power output receptacle or the second AC power output receptacle to receive the first AC power output or the second AC power output (Fig.2).
Yamashita doesn’t disclose the first AC power output receptacle is a first pair of parallel AC power output receptacles and the second AC power output receptacle is a second pair of parallel AC power output receptacles.
Collie discloses an example of a first AC power output receptacle (receptacle of 24 connected to 34 in Fig.1) is a first pair of parallel AC power output receptacles and the second AC power output receptacle (receptacle of 26 connected to 36 in Fig.1) is a second pair of parallel AC power output receptacles (Fig.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamashita in view of Ghasemabadi and Shibata with the teaching of Collie to provide the first AC power output receptacle is a first pair of parallel AC power output receptacles and the second AC power output receptacle is a second pair of parallel AC power output receptacles. The suggestion/motivation would have been to use a desired output receptacle as taught either by Yamashita or Collie based on availability in the market.
14. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. (11,631,990) (Hereinafter “Yamashita”) in view of Ghasemabadi et al. (10,574,086) (“Ghasemabadi”), Shibata et al. (10,348,097) (“Shibata”) and Collie (2013/0293023).
Regarding claim 23, Yamashita in view of Ghasemabadi and Shibata is used to reject claim 17 above.
Yamashita doesn’t disclose wherein the linking module and the inverter power station are stackable, with the linking module comprising at least one indentation on an upper surface thereof configured to receive at least one foot extending from a lower surface of the inverter power station, at least one cutout on a lower surface thereof configured to receive at least one handle on an upper surface of the inverter power station, or a combination thereof.
Collie discloses an example of a linking module (28 in Fig.1) is configured to provide a combined power output (at 52 of 28 in Figs.1 and 3) of a first power station (for example - 20) and a second power station (for example – 22 (or) 26) (please refer to at least ¶ 4, 8-11, 22 and 29-36); wherein the linking module (28) and the first power station (20) are stackable (Fig.1), the linking module (28) comprises at least one indentation (“recesses” as stated in ¶ 46) on an upper surface thereof configured to receive at least one foot (“protrusions” as stated in ¶ 46) extending from a lower surface of the first power station, at least one cutout on a lower surface thereof (lower surface of 28) configured to receive at least one handle (50) on an upper surface of the first power station (20 in Fig.1), or a combination thereof such that the linking module and the inverter power station are stackable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamashita in view of Ghasemabadi and Shibata with the teaching of Collier to provide the linking module comprises at least one indentation on an upper surface thereof configured to receive at least one foot extending from a lower surface of the inverter power station, at least one cutout on a lower surface thereof configured to receive at least one handle on an upper surface of the inverter power station, or a combination thereof such that the linking module and the inverter power station are stackable. The suggestion/motivation would have been to place the linking module at the top or side of the inverter power station as desired as suggested by Collie’s ¶ 46.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD TAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7455. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Menatoallah Youssef can be reached on 571-270-3684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Richard Tan/Primary Examiner 2836
Prosecution Insights