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 the Claims
Claims 1-6 and 8-19 are pending. Claim 7 is canceled. Claim 19 is newly added. Claims 1 and 8 are currently amended. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1-6 are withdrawn. A response to Applicant’s remarks filed 11 August 2026 can be found at the end of this Office Action. This Office Action is Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 17 is ultimately dependent upon claim 19, which contains the claim limitations “wherein the set of grounding wheels is retractable and non-load bearing.” Thus, claim 17 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 19.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 and 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang (CN 212604543 U) in view of Iden (US 8413589 B2), Folts (US 7902461 B2), and Huang (CN 220107808 U).
In regards to claim 1, Liang teaches a mobile power system configured to be transported on a vehicle (see machine translation, para. [0027]) for supplying temporary electric power to a remote electric power system (para. [0004], lines 14-15), the mobile power system comprising:
A plurality of containers (1) configured to be transported on the vehicle (para. [0027]);
A power generator (2) (Fig. 2) contained in
Liang does not teach a plurality of containers transported on a vehicle.
Iden teaches a plurality of containers (14) transported on a vehicle (12) as seen in Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Liang to include a plurality of containers as taught by Iden with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the amount of power that can be transported (see Iden, col. 2, lines 1-3)
Liang does not teach a power cable configured to be electrically interconnected to the power generator at a first end and configured to be electrically interconnected to the remote electric power system at a second end.
Folts teaches a power cable (12) (Fig. 1) configured to be electrically interconnected to the power generator at a first end (col. 6, lines 49-55) and configured to be electrically interconnected to the remote electric power system (14, 16, 26, 28, 30, 32) at a second end (as seen in Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Liang to include a power cable as taught by Folts with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the efficiency of power transfer (see Folts, col. 1, lines 43-48).
Liang does not teach a faraday enclosure.
Huang teaches a faraday enclosure (see machine translation, para. [n0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Liang to include each container comprising a faraday enclosure as taught by Huang with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of improving the reliability of the system (see Huang, para. [n0040]).
Liang does not explicitly teach the power cable contained in a faraday enclosure of a second container of the plurality of containers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the power cable being contained in a faraday enclosure of a second container with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing protection to the cable and increasing the redundancy of the system by not locating essential parts in a singular container, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
In regards to claim 6, the combination of Liang as modified by Iden, Folts, and Huang above teaches the mobile power plant of claim 1 wherein the vehicle is one of a train (Iden, as seen in Fig. 1) or a ship.
Claim(s) 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang (CN 212604543 U) in view of Iden (US 8413589 B2), Folts (US 7902461 B2), Huang (CN 220107808 U), and Ulliman (US 20220169354 A1).
In regards to claim 2, the combination of Liang as modified by Iden, Folts, and Huang above teaches the mobile power system of claim 1 wherein the power generator is a
Ulliman teaches a high temperature superconductor (HTS) generator (54) (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the power generator of Liang to include a high temperature superconductor generator as taught by Ulliman with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing efficiency of power generation while reducing size and weight (see Ulliman, para. [0004], lines 7-11).
In regards to claim 3, the combination of Liang as modified by Iden, Folts, Huang, and Ulliman above teaches the mobile power system of claim 2 wherein the power cable is a HTS power cable (Folts, abstract).
In regards to claim 4, the combination of Liang as modified by Iden, Folts, Huang, and Ulliman above teaches the mobile power plant of claim 3 wherein the plurality of containers include a third container (Iden, Fig. 1, multiple containers 14) in which is included a cryogenic cooling system (Folts, col. 5, lines 57-61)
The combination of Liang as modified by Iden, Folts, Huang, and Ulliman above does not explicitly teach the cryogenic cooling system being contained in a third faraday enclosure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the cryogenic cooling system in a third faraday enclosure with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing protection to the cryogenic cooling system and increasing the redundancy of the system by not locating essential parts in a singular container, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
In regards to claim 5, the combination of Liang as modified by Iden, Folts, Huang, and Ulliman above teaches the mobile power plant of claim 4 wherein the plurality of containers includes a fourth container (Iden, Fig. 1, multiple containers 14)
The combination of Liang as modified by Iden, Folts, Huang, and Ulliman above does not explicitly teach the fourth container having the fuel tank providing fuel to the turbine, and the turbine contained in the third faraday enclosure in the second container.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the fuel tank on a fourth car and the turbine in a third faraday enclosure in the second car with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing protection to the turbine and increasing the redundancy of the system by not locating essential parts in a singular container, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8-16 and 19 are allowed.
Claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to teach the combination of limitations as recited in claim 19. The combination of Liang as modified by Iden, Folts, and Huang above taught the limitations of claim 7, which has been cancelled and incorporated into claim 19. Liang does not teach the limitations of claim 17 as discussed in the Office Action dated 02 July 2026, which have been incorporated into claim 19.
Thus, claim 19 is non-obvious in view of the prior art of record. Claims 8-18 are also non-obvious due to dependence upon claim 18. However, claim 17 is still subject to the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection presented above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Liang includes no suggestion of including a power cable on the vehicle to connect the fuel cell power system to the remote electric grid, that Folts HTS power cable is not portable, that Iden powers the train not a remote electric grid, and that Huang provides no motivation to include a generator and a cable, each in a faraday cage.
Examiner responds in disagreement. The rejection as presented above and in the Office Action dated 02 July 2026 recites specific motivations for each combination to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed limitations would be able to modify Liang with the teachings of Folts, Iden, and Huang to arrive at the current invention.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392; 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). See MPEP § 2145(X)(A).
In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no suggestion to combine the references, the Examiner recognizes that references cannot be arbitrarily combined and that there must be some reason why one skill in the art would be motivated to make the proposed combination of primary and secondary references. In re Nomiya, 184 USPQ 607 (CCPA 1975). However, there is no requirement that a motivation to make the modification be expressly articulated. The test for combining references is what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re McLaughlin, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). References are evaluated by what they suggest to one versed in the art, rather than by their specified disclosures. In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545 (CCPA 1969).
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 JAMES WILLIAM JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7063. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11am-7pm.
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, Samuel Morano can be reached at (571) 272-6684. 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.
/JAMES WILLIAM JONES/ Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
