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 .
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 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.
Reply Under 37 CFR 1.111
The submission of the reply filed on 06/02/2026 to the non-final Office action of 03/11/2026 is acknowledged. The Office action on currently pending claims 11, 12, 15-18, and 20 follows.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “input connector”, “output connector” and “each of the at least 10 reciprocating generators comprises one and only one output connector connected to the input connector of the at least 10 input breaker assemblies” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification teaches in (¶ [0022]) that “The generators are housed on trailers”. Then, further down, it teaches that “The connectors 104 between the breakers and the outside of the switchgear trailer 12” ( ¶ [0023], emphasis added). Furter, figs. 1 and 2 show that the generators (14) are positioned outside the switchgear trailer (12) and connected to it by said connectors (104). Therefore, this contradiction renders the specification contradictory, since it’s not clear how said generators can be “housed on a trailer” and at the same time be located outside thereof and connected to the trailer by connectors (104) as taught by the speciation and depicted on figs. 1 and 2.
Appropriate correction is required. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 11, 12, 15-18, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claimed terminology is inconsistent with the terminology of the specification. For example, the “input breaker(s)” recited in the specification as the “generator breaker(s)”. Furter, the “energy storage input braker” recited in the specification as the “energy storage breaker”. Furter, the “utility input breaker” is recited in the specification as the “utility breaker”, etc. Furter, the limitations “input breaker assemblies”, “input connector(s)”, “output connector(s)”, etc. are not present in the specification at all.
The Office reminds Applicant that the uniform terminology must be used throughout the claims. The claimed terminology must be consistent with the terminology of the specification and must follow the nomenclature of the specification. The terms and phrases used in claims must have a clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o).
Appropriate corrections are required. The Office requests Applicant’s cooperation with reviewing the claims and correcting all remaining informalities present in the claims, but not made of record above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11, 12, 15-18, and 20, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitations “powered exclusively by natural gas”. These limitations were added by the amendment of 02/12/2026. Ther is no support for these limitations in the original specification as filed. There are no teachings of any “exclusivity” whatsoever in the original specification as filed. On the contrary, the specification teaches that various types of generators can be used (¶ [0035]). To say more, in relation to the natural gas generators, there are no teachings whatsoever that they are powered “exclusively by natural gas” as claimed. Accordingly, the aforementioned limitations constitute impermissible new matter.
Furthermore, claim 11 recites the limitations “at least 10 reciprocating generators” (added by the amendment of 10/02/2024) and “at least 10 input breakers assemblies” (added by the amendment of 01/16/2025). Ther is no support for these limitations in the original specification as filed. On the contrary, the specification teaches in relation to fig. 1 that “One or more generators 14 are connected to the switchgear trailer 12.” (¶ [0022]). Therefore, “one or more” is clearly not “at least 10” as claimed. Accordingly, the aforementioned limitations constitute impermissible new matter.
Furthermore, claim 11 recites the limitations “at least 10 reciprocating generators” (added by the amendment of 10/02/2024) and “at least 10 input breakers assemblies” (added by the amendment of 01/16/2025). Ther is no support for these limitations in the original specification as filed.
Furthermore, claim 11 recites the limitations: “each of the at least 10 reciprocating generators is […] interchangeable with the others of the at least 10 reciprocating generators”.
Ther is no support for these limitations in the original specification as filed. The only brief mentioning about any “interchangeability” pertained to the power sources is in ¶ [0019], which teaches that “the system is able to interchange sources of energy in a dynamic manner for a variety of reasons including to: charge, discharge, dispatch, and provide power to load.”
However, this is not the teaching that “each of the at least 10 reciprocating generators is […] interchangeable with the others of the at least 10 reciprocating generators”. Furter, ¶ [0022] teaches that “he connections on the switchgear trailer 12 are interchangeable and a different power source could be connected to the switchgear trailer 12 in place of the generator 14. For example, an Energy Storage System (ESS) 20 can be connected to the switchgear trailer. In some embodiments a utility section 16 is connected to the switchgear trailer. Each utility section may include a 1200A Circuit breaker, wye/wye PTs, a main bus certified for up to 2000 Amps, a SEL 700G relay, installation of a pilot wire detection relay, and 15kV interconnect receptacle for cables. It should be appreciated that the utility source 16 and ESS unit 20 could be connected to the switchgear trailer 12 at different connections than the ones illustrated in FIG. 1. Additional features show a feeder section 18 connected to the switchgear trailer 12. In certain embodiments, each feeder section includes a 1200A Circuit breaker, a SEL 700G relay, installation of a pilot wire detection relay, and 15kV interconnect receptacle for cables.”
Again, this is not the teaching that “each of the at least 10 reciprocating generators is […] interchangeable with the others of the at least 10 reciprocating generators”.
Accordingly, the aforementioned limitations constitute impermissible new matter.
Furthermore, claim 11 recites the limitations “each of the at least 10 reciprocating generators comprises one and only one output connector ” (added by the amendment of 04/30/2025). Ther is no support for these limitations in the original specification as filed.
Furthermore, there is no support in the specification for the following limitations recited throughout numerous claims: “input breaker(s)”, “energy storage input braker”, “utility input breaker”, “input breaker assemblies”, “input connector(s)”, “output connector(s)”, etc. (see claims objection above).
Furthermore, claim 20 recites that “each of the at least 10 reciprocating generators is housed on a trailer”. There is no support (despite one generic statement in ¶ [0022]) for the aforementioned limitations in the specification. According to the drawings all of the generators (14) are disposed outside of the trailer (12) (see figs. 1 and 2). Also, said generators (14) are connected to the trailer (12) by connectors (104) and the specification teaches that “The connectors 104 between the breakers and the outside of the switchgear trailer 12” ( ¶ [0023], emphasis added). Therefore, there is no support for the aforementioned limitations of claim 20, since the generators cannot be “housed on a trailer” (as claimed), since they are located outside thereof and connected to the trailer by connectors (104) as taught by the speciation in ¶ [0023] and as depicted on figs. 1 and 2.
The remaining depdnednmd claims have been also rejected along with said claim 11, since they inherit aforementioned problems of said claim 11. Ther is no support for these limitations in the original specification as filed.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11, 12, 15-18, and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims recite terminology that is inconsistent with the terminology of the specification and does not follow the nomenclature of the specification (see claim objection above). The terms and phrases used in claims do not have clear support or antecedent basis in the description so the meaning of the terms in the claims cannot be clearly ascertained by reference to the description. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Accordingly, the scopes of the claims are not clear and will be interpreted as best understood by the Office.
Furthermore, claim 20 recites that “each of the at least 10 reciprocating generators is housed on a trailer”. However, according to the drawings all of the generators (14) are disposed outside of the trailer (12) (see figs. 1 and 2). Also, said generators (14) are connected to the trailer (12) by connectors (104) and the specification teaches that “The connectors 104 between the breakers and the outside of the switchgear trailer 12” ( ¶ [0023]). Therefore, this contradiction renders the claim indefinite, since it’s not clear how said generators can be “housed on a trailer” (as claimed) and at the same time be located outside thereof and connected to the trailer by connectors (104) as taught by the speciation and depicted on figs. 1 and 2.
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 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.
Claims 11 and 15-18, as best understood, are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinderliter (US 2020/0300073) taken alone, or alternatively in view of Jiang (CN 11011353) (using English translation submitted by Applicant on 4/30/25), U.S. Energy Information Administration (“Natural gas-fired reciprocating engines are being deployed more to balance renewables”, February 19, 2019, hereafter “US Energy”), and Campion (US 2014/0210213).
Regarding Claim 11, Hinderliter teaches a microgrid system comprising: a plurality of reciprocating (¶ [0058, ll. 8-9) generators (fig. 3, 204A-204C), wherein each of the reciprocating generators is configured to be powered exclusively by natural gas (¶[0058, ll. 8-9) and interchangeable (see ¶[0058], l. 14, the generators are of the same type) with the others of the reciprocating generators; and a switchgear trailer comprising: a plurality of input breaker assemblies (fig. 5, MAIN BREAKERS 1-3 and ¶[0024], ll. 1-2) in a parallel arrangement (see fig, 14), each of the input breaker assemblies comprising: an input breaker (fig. 14, CB M1 or CB M2) having a load capacity of no more than 1200 amps (¶[0025], “The feeder breakers (or outgoing) may be reduced to a 1200 A bus”); and an input connector (fig, 14, upper connection of CB M1 or CB M2) configured to connect the input breaker to one of the reciprocating generators; and a common bus (1402) connected to each of the plurality of input breakers, and having power density sufficient to operate the microgrid with all of the reciprocating generators providing power simultaneously (¶[0029], ll. 4-5 and ¶[0060], ll. 6-7); wherein each of the reciprocating generators is connected to an input connector of one of the input breaker assemblies (each generator is connected to a single main circuit breaker).
Hinderliter fails to disclose at least 10 reciprocating generators configured to be powered exclusively by natural gas, at least 10 input breaker assemblies.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to duplicate the generators and input breaker assemblies of Hinderliter so that there are at least 10 reciprocating generators and input breaker assemblies (including an input breaker and an input connector), in order to predictably adapt the microgrid system for specific demands in a particular application (e.g., to satisfy specific load/power demand, etc.) and to provide a means to attach and protection of the switchgear trailer for each of the generators intended to be coupled to the switchgear trailer, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Alternatively, regarding the ampacity while input breakers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select input brakers with any desired load capacity, including to be no more than 1200 amps as claimed, in order to predictably adapt the microgrid system for specific demands in a particular application (e.g., to satisfy specific load/power demand, etc.), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Alternatively, Jiang teaches a general concept of employing multiple input breaker assemblies (i.e., at least 10 input breaker assemblies as claimed) (G1-AH1 To G1-AH13) in a parallel arrangement (see fig. 1), each of the at least 10 input breaker assemblies comprising: an input breaker (each breaker of G1-AH1 To G1-AH13); and an input connector (fig. 1, generator side of 2) connection configured to connect the input breaker to an input; and a common bus (YJ-A1) connected to each of the at least 10 input breakers, and having power density sufficient to operate the microgrid with all of the at least 10 generators providing power simultaneously (¶[0035], “the thirteen generator sets start simultaneously. After each generator set starts, the corresponding generator outlet circuit breaker is automatically switched on. Once the units are running stably and in synchronization, the parallel control system automatically switches on the parallel input circuit breakers on the parallel busbars (G1-AH1 to G1-AH13 . . .) in sequence for paralleling”); wherein each of the at least 10 generators is connected to an input connector of one (see fig. 1, 1 to 1 correspondence between breakers and generators) of the at least 10 input breaker assemblies.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize teachings of Jiang and provide at least 10 input breaker assemblies in Hinderliter, so that each of the input breakers predictably protects the microgrid system from overcurrent conditions of a respective one of the generators. Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Yet alternatively, the US Energy teaches at least 10 reciprocating generators configured to be powered exclusively by natural gas (see p. 2, Pearsall Power Plant having 24 natural gas-fired reciprocating engines, each providing 8.4 MW of capacity).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement generation capacity of Hinderliter as 10 reciprocating natural gas generators powered exclusively by natural gas as taught by the US Energy for the benefit of increased operational flexibility and utilization of the ample supply of natural gas that can be procured at stable prices (see the US energy [1st paragraph]: “[t]he recent increase in natural gas . . . capable reciprocating internal combustion engine units has been driven in part by advancements in engine technology that increase operational flexibility and by changes in natural gas markets that have generally provided ample supply and relatively stable fuel prices”). Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Yet alternatively, Campion teaches conventionality of reciprocating natural gas generators used in portable modular power plants (¶ [0022], ¶ [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement generation capacity of Hinderliter as reciprocating natural gas generators powered exclusively by natural gas as taught by Campion as an obvious matter of design choice, since it appears that the invention would have performed equally well with such a design and all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claims 15-18, Hinderliter as previously modified further teaches the switchgear trailer comprises a single mobile platform (see fig. 5) (claim 15), an energy storage system (¶[0036], l. 4) (claim 16), the switchgear trailer further comprises an energy storage system input breaker (whether a generator or a battery bank is connected to the main circuit breaker determines whether the breaker is input breaker or an energy storage system input breaker) configured to connect to the energy storage system (claim 17) and the switchgear trailer further comprises a utility input breaker configured to connect to a utility source (¶[0036, l. 5) (claim 18).
Claims 12 and 20, as best understood, are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinderliter as previously modified and as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Oehring (US 2020/0109617).
Regarding Claim 12, Hinderliter as previously muddied discloses the claimed invention except for each input connector is interchangeable with all others of the other input connectors.
Oehring teaches each input connector is interchangeable ([0058], Il. 8-9, “multiple different power sources may be coupled to a single switchgear part 202, 204”, see ¶[0054]-[0055] disclosing different combinations of generator types and capacities) with each of the other input connectors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of the previously modified Hinderliter with the input connectors of Oehring for the purpose of enabling the system to be modular and use smaller compact trailers that enable easier moving between worksites and to use a universal input connector to reduce the number of input connectors that need to be inventoried to manufacture the switchgear trailer. All claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 20, Hinderliter as previously modified discloses the claimed invention except for each of the at least 10 reciprocating generators is housed on a trailer.
Oehring teaches each of the at least 2 natural gas reciprocating generators (¶[0051], l. 9) is housed on a trailer (fig. 2, 200 and ¶[0004], I. 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of the previously modified Hinderliter with the mobile generators of Oehring for the purpose of enabling the system to be moved between worksites. Furter, since the US Energy discloses at least 10 natural gas reciprocating generators (see p. 2, Pearsall Power Plant having 24 natural gas-fired reciprocating engines, each providing 8.4 MW of capacity), it would have been also obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the reciprocating generators of Oehring so that there are at least 10 interchangeable natural gas reciprocating generators to provide the total power required by the microgrid system, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the Hinderliter reference, Applicant contends that, allegedly, “as a threshold matter, the rejections are based on the assertion that Hinderliter discloses a system comprising a plurality of reciprocating generators configured to be powered exclusively by natural gas. 03/11/2026 Office Action at p. 3 ("Hinderliter teaches a microgrid system comprising: a plurality of reciprocating ( ¶ [0058], 11. 8-9) generators (fig. 3, 204A-204C), wherein each of the reciprocating generators is configured to be powered exclusively by natural gas ( ¶ [0058], 11. 8-9)"). Objectively, this is simply not true. The portion of Hinderliter upon which the assertion is based - paragraph 0058, lines 8-9 - simply identifies "natural gas engine generators" as one of six different types of available "electric generation options: [1] Gas turbine generators ..., [2] diesel turbine generators, [3] diesel engine generators, [4] natural gas engine generators, [5] batteries, [or 6] electrical grids ...." Hinderliter identifies only a few exemplary configurations of these options, including "one gas turbine generator, two gas turbine generators, [or] two gas turbine generators coupled with one diesel engine generator." Hinderliter at para. 0058. See also id. at para. 0024 ("power may be distributed from 2 larger block turbine generators (e.g., 30 MW and above) or up to 4 small block turbine generators (e.g., 10 MW and below)."). Nowhere does this reference disclose or suggest a system comprising a plurality of any kind of reciprocating generator, let alone a plurality of such generators configured to be powered exclusively by natural gas.”
On the contrary, Fig. 3 of Hinderliter clearly and explicitly teaches a plurality of generators (204). Furter, said ¶ [0058] clearly teaches that said generators can be of the reciprocating type configured to be powered exclusively by natural gas (i.e., “diesel engine generators, natural gas engine generators”). Furter, as explained in the rejection, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to duplicate the generators and input breaker assemblies of Hinderliter so that there are at least 10 reciprocating generators and input breaker assemblies (including an input breaker and an input connector), in order to predictably adapt the microgrid system for specific demands in a particular application (e.g., to satisfy specific load/power demand, etc.) and to provide a means to attach and protection of the switchgear trailer for each of the generators intended to be coupled to the switchgear trailer, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Furter, regarding the Hinderliter reference, Applicant contends that, allegedly, “Although these turbine-focused references mention in passing the existence of natural gas-powered reciprocating engines, they certainly do not disclose a system comprising a plurality of such generators.”
On the contrary, Hinderliter clearly and explicitly teaches in ¶ [0058] that a plurality of the natural gas-powered reciprocating generators can be used, i.e., “electrical generation can be supplied by various different options, as well as hybrid options. Hybrid options may include two or more of the following electric generation options: Gas turbine generators with fuel supplied by field gas, CNG, and/or LNG, diesel turbine generators, diesel engine generators, natural gas engine generators, batteries, electrical grids, and the like. Moreover, these electric sources may include a single source type unit or multiple units. For example, there may be one gas turbine generator, two gas turbines generators, two gas turbine generators coupled with one diesel engine generator, and various other configurations.” (emphasis added). Accordingly, contrary to the Applicant’s position Hinderliter clearly teaches that plurality of the natural gas powered reciprocating generators may be used to implement generation capacity of the system.
The remaining arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure teach various modular power generation arrangements. Furter, the following references teach trailer-mounted power distribution systems: US 2018/0183219, US 2021/0159677, US 2019/ 0245348, US 10686301, US 11114857, and US 20030057704. Furter, the US 6639331 teaches a general concept of a system architecture having parallel generators connected to a common bus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anatoly Vortman whose telephone number is (571)272-2047. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, between 10 am and 8:30 pm.
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, Jayprakash N. Gandhi can be reached at 571-272-3740. 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.
/Anatoly Vortman/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights