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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 and 13-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The sole arguments presented by Applicant pertain to “a support apparatus” of the amended claims and, more particularly, “a support platform” and “a platform mounted to the support platform.” Examiner agrees that Warlick fails to disclose such a configuration; however, such a configuration is disclosed by the new rejection below, based in part on the teachings of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0033292 (“Bowen”).
Applicant does not appear to contest Examiner’s finding that the generator set of Warlick is inherently disposed on another surface (i.e., “a support apparatus”) or that it would be obvious to modify Warlick’s generator set to be disposed on such (see, generally, the rejection of claim 2 in the Office Action mailed 02/06/2026). Thus, Examiner has found a reference in which a generator set is disposed on “a support apparatus,” the support apparatus comprising both “a support platform” and “a platform which is mounted to the support platform” (as detailed below). As amended, the “mounting” of elements need not be direct; thus, mounting every element of Warlick on “a platform which is mounted to the support platform” (as is taught by Bowen) is sufficient to teach the amended limitations pertaining to the elements and their mounting arrangement. To be even more clear, a housing of a generator set controller which is affixed to a generator housing, for example, would nonetheless be “mounted to the support platform” if the generator housing is mounted on “a platform which is mounted to the support platform.”
Thus, the new grounds of rejection based on Warlick in view of common knowledge and Bowen adequately discloses the instant subject matter when properly considered as a combination of references. Applicant does not argue the subject matter of the dependent claims separately from the independent claims; as such, Examiner finds that the dependent claims remain properly rejected, modified as necessary in view of the present amendments.
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.
Claims 2-6 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.
Regarding claim 2, Applicant recites “further including a support apparatus” in lines 1-2 of the claim as amended. This limitation is rendered indefinite because it recites the same subject matter introduced with the amendment to claim 1 (“a support apparatus”). Thus, claim 2 effectively recites a second instance of “a support apparatus,” making it unclear which of the plural support apparatuses is being referenced.
Examiner notes that this issue appears to result from Applicant’s oversight in amending claim 2. The corresponding method step (amended claim 14) appropriately strikes recitation of “a support apparatus,” suggesting that Applicant meant to do the same with claim 2.
Appropriate correction is required. For purposes of examination, claim 2 will be examined as if it omitted “further including a support apparatus….” Claims 3-6 depend from claim 2, fail to cure this deficiency, and are therefore subject to the same rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0312711 (“Warlick”) in view of common knowledge in the art and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0033292 (“Bowen”).
Regarding claim 1, Warlick discloses:
A generator set system (title), comprising:
a generator set (FIG 5) including an engine and a generator operatively coupled with the engine (para. [0028]; “[t]he genset…in this embodiment, is shown as a fuel generator set”);
a radiator (FIG 5:525) operatively coupled with the engine (“genset radiator” implies that the radiator is operatively coupled with the engine); and
a load bank system (510) including:
a load bank mounted to the radiator (para. [0029]; “load bank 510 is shown as a radiator-mounted resistive load”) and including a resistor array (“load bank 510 includes a plurality of independent resistive elements”); and
a load bank control panel (control system 515 “controls various operations in the system 500, such as the operation of the load bank 510”) operatively coupled (inherent; to control the load bank it must be operatively coupled thereto) with and spaced apart from the load bank (FIG 5; controller 515 is on the opposite side of genset 505 relative to radiator 525 and load bank 510), the load bank control panel including a housing (inherent; one of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably interpreted the Warlick reference as disclosing a control panel which is completely exposed to the elements, thus there is inherently some form of “housing” which protects the control panel from such exposure) that is spaced apart from the load bank (inherent; if the control panel for the load bank is spaced apart from the load bank, the housing for the load bank must also be spaced apart from the load bank), [the] load bank control panel being a relay and switching station (paras. [0031-33]; as the control panel (515) controls switching operations, it may be reasonably interpreted as being “a switching station” as presently recited; moreover, para. [0033] expressly contemplates the control panel (515) being implemented as a relay switch); and
a generator set controller (para. [0030] contemplates provision of separate control systems, and thus separate control panels, for the load bank and genset), which includes a housing that is spaced apart from the load bank (as shown by FIG 5, Warlick contemplates at least one embodiment where the generator set controller, a component of control system 515, is spaced apart from load bank 510).
Warlick does not explicitly disclose “the housing of the load bank control panel and the housing of the generator set controller being distinct relative to one another” or “a support apparatus, which includes a support platform and a platform which is mounted to the support platform, the housing of the generator set controller being mounted to the support platform, the housing of the load bank control panel being mounted to the platform.”
However, as asserted by Applicant, FIG. 5 is a schematic depiction of the system as disclosed by Warlick and, thus, the figure “does not necessarily correspond to its actual location.” It is well-known in the art that physically distinct controllers may be placed in physically distinct locations. Thus, in an embodiment where the load bank and genset controllers are provided as separate control systems (as contemplated by para. [0030]), it logically follows that the load bank controller and the genset controller may be provided in physically distinct locations which necessitate provision of physically distinct housing elements for the separate control systems. In such an embodiment, one of ordinary skill would recognize the need for physically separate housings for the purposes of protecting the physically separate control elements located in physically separate locations from the elements.
Moreover, Bowen discloses a generator set system including a support apparatus (i.e., “a trailer,” as shown by FIGS 3 and 4), the support apparatus including a support platform (268) and a platform which is mounted to the support platform (unlabeled structure indicated by annotated FIG 3, below; as the generator set is shown sitting upon a plurality of mounts, and said mounts are shown as being seated upon an unlabeled surface, the unlabeled surface may be reasonably interpreted as “a platform” which is “mounted to the support platform”), the generator set and its constituent parts all being mounted (directly or otherwise) to the support apparatus (and thus the support platform and platform, as relevant). As would be appreciated by those of ordinary skill, mounting a generator set on a trailer enables the generator set to be easily relocated to other areas in need of electrical power generation.
Thus, Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify Warlick by providing a first housing to the genset controller and a second housing to the load bank controller when the genset and load bank controllers are physically separated from each other for the purposes of protecting each controller from the elements, and further modifying Warlick as taught by Bowen by placing the entire genset system onto a trailer comprising a support platform and a platform mounted to the support platform, the genset being mounted (directly or indirectly) to the support platform and/or the platform, for the purposes of facilitating relocation of the genset.
PNG
media_image1.png
451
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Warlick in view of common knowledge and Bowen (“the first combination”) discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 wherein the generator set, the radiator, the load bank system, and the generator set controller are coupled with the support apparatus (inherent; as the generator set includes the radiator, the load bank system, and the controller, and the generator set is mounted to or seated upon a support apparatus, all elements are “coupled” to the support apparatus), wherein the load bank control panel is operatively coupled with the generator set controller (inherent; the load bank control panel and the generator set controller are part of the same control system 515).
Regarding claim 3, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 2 and Warlick further discloses the resistor array including a plurality of resistor assemblies (para. [0029]) but does not explicitly disclose the resistor assemblies including a ceramic rod and a resistor element coiled around the ceramic rod. Such resistor assemblies are well-known in the art. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify Warlick to specifically utilize resistors coiled around ceramic rods because such recognized by the art as being suitable for use in load banks.
Regarding claim 4, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 3 and further discloses the load bank system including a plurality of cables electrically coupling the resistor array with the load bank control panel (inherent; in order for the control system to assert control over the load bank, there must inherently be some electrical cabling operationally coupling the resistor array and the controller), but does not explicitly disclose each of the cables being coupled with six of the plurality of resistor assemblies.
Warlick contemplates step-based control of the load bank (para. [0029]) by means of sending signals to one or more resistive elements to turn on or off portions of the load bank (para. [0031]). Moreover, the load step size of Warlick may be adjustable (para. [0032]) based upon instant needs. Thus, Warlick inherent discloses the controller being electrically connected to a plurality of electric cable (as discussed in claim 3 above) and furthermore inherently discloses that said electric cables are connected to one or more of the resistive elements.
Thus, the sole difference between Warlick and the instant claim is the specific number of resistive elements to which each electric cable is connected. Because the step size of Warlick is adjustable, it may be reasonably interpreted that the inherent electric cables may be connected to one, multiple, or all of the resistive elements. Therefore, the specific number of connected resistive elements is a matter of routine experimentation to obtain a desired load step. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In view of the above, Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify Warlick to connect each of the electric cables to six of the resistive elements for the purposes of obtaining a desired load step size based on instant needs of the system.
Regarding claim 5, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 4, and Bowen further discloses the support apparatus including a housing (FIG 4:250) which encloses at least a portion of the generator set (engine 202, generator 204) and the load bank control panel (inherent to the combination of references; as modified, the entire system of Warlick would be disposed within housing 250 of Bowen, similar to how the generator set of Bowen is at least partially enclosed by housing 250).
Regarding claim 6, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 5 and further discloses the generator set controller being configured to adjust a load applied to the generator by selectively increasing or decreasing the load based upon the load relative to a predetermined maximum generator set load (inherent; as understood by Examiner, the generator set controller adjusts a load that is not the load bank; it is inherent that changes made to the generator set load would be dependent upon the demand from the load, and that any changes in the load would be subject to a predetermined maximum generator set load because exceeding such a maximum would likely cause damage to the generator set).
Regarding claim 13, Applicant recites a method of using a generator set system (claim 13). Claim 13 is nothing more than a method of operating the system of claim 1; as Warlick discloses both system and operation, Examiner finds that the rejection of claim 1 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter recited by claim 13.
Regarding claims 14-17, Applicant recites limitations identical or substantially identical in scope to claims 2-5, respectively. As such, Examiner finds that the rejection of claims 2-5 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter recited by claims 14-17.
Regarding claim 18, Warlick discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 17 and further discloses adjusting a load applied to the generator by selectively increasing or decreasing the load based upon the load relative to a predetermined maximum generator set load (inherent; as understood by Examiner, the generator set controller adjusts a load that is not the load bank; it is inherent that changes made to the generator set load would be dependent upon the demand from the load, and that any changes in the load would be subject to a predetermined maximum generator set load because exceeding such a maximum would likely cause damage to the generator set), wherein the step of adjusting is performed at least in part by the generator set controller (inherent; that portion of the load which is not attributable to the load bank is controlled by the generator set controller), and wherein, when the load applied to the generator set is to be increased by the load bank system, the load is increased in a step-wise manner (paras. [0029], [0032-33]) and thus using at least one load step (Warlick discloses step-wise adjustment, thus there is inherently at least one load step) at a first predetermined time interval (para. [0037]; multiple steps provided “rapidly” implies a controlled set of steps at predetermined intervals to achieve “rapid” change) based upon a predetermined percentage of the predetermined maximum generator set load (para. [0038] discusses how operation of the genset at less than 30% load is undesirable, thus step changes made would seek to avoid having a genset load less than 30% of the maximum).
Regarding claim 19, Warlick discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 18 and further discloses wherein, when the load applied to the generator set is to be decreased by the load bank system, the load is decreased in a step-wise manner and thus using at least one unloading step at a second predetermined time interval based upon a predetermined percenter of the predetermined maximum generator set load (para. [0037] discusses reduction of load from the load bank, stating that it may be done all at once or in pulses; those portions of the rejection of claim 18, above, relating to predetermined time and predetermined percentage are equally applicable to increases and decreases), but does not explicitly contemplate the predetermined percentage being a percentage above a maximum generator set load.
Those of ordinary skill would recognize and appreciate that operation of a genset above its maximum load is likely to cause damage to the system, and will at least unduly fatigue the system. Thus, one of ordinary skill would seek to reduce unnecessary loading (such as that imposed by the load bank) when the load on the genset exceeds its maximum value. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify Warlick to explicitly reduce the loading of the genset attributable to the load bank based upon the load being a predetermined percentage above the maximum genset load for the purposes of avoiding undue damage or fatigue to the system.
Regarding claim 20, Warlick discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 18 and further discloses reducing in a step-wise manner (claim 20 recites identical limitations to those found in claim 19, thus the rejection of claim 19 is applicable to this portion of claim 20) or all at once in a predetermined time interval (para. [0037]), but does not explicitly contemplate the predetermined percentage being a percentage above a maximum generator set load.
Those of ordinary skill would recognize and appreciate that operation of a genset above its maximum load is likely to cause damage to the system, and will at least unduly fatigue the system. Thus, one of ordinary skill would seek to reduce unnecessary loading (such as that imposed by the load bank) when the load on the genset exceeds its maximum value. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify Warlick to explicitly reduce the loading of the genset attributable to the load bank based upon the load being a predetermined percentage above the maximum genset load for the purposes of avoiding undue damage or fatigue to the system.
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 THOMAS K QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4050. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM 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, TULSIDAS PATEL can be reached at 571-272-2098. 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.
/THOMAS K QUIGLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights