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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7-10, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (US 2022/0360202).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Wang discloses a method of operating a generator of a recreational vehicle (¶ [0002], the system for a generator on a recreational vehicle), the generator comprising a controller, the generator electrically coupled to a plurality of appliances of the recreational vehicle, the controller in signal communication with the plurality of appliances (¶ [0043], the system being connected to one or more loads that may be appliances like air conditioners), the method comprising:
receiving, by the controller, an anticipatory signal from at least one appliance of the plurality of appliances (¶ [0043], the loads send “predictive load signals” to the controller), the anticipatory signal comprising a pre-event communication indicative of activation of the at least one applicance (¶ [0043], “an operator… can manually enable (or turn on) a power switch between a load 101 and an alternator 122. Responsive to enabling the power switch, the AVR 104 can receive a predictive load signal…” so the system has a pre-event communication which is providing power to an appliance which may be turning on the power switch of an appliance);
throttling-up, by the controller, the generator in response to the anticipatory signal (¶ [0043], according to the transmittal of the predictive load signal the generator may increase output); and
providing power to at least the one appliance of the plurality of appliances of the recreational vehicle from which the anticipatory signal was received (¶ [0043], the power from the generator 112 is sent to the loads which include the appliances), thereby abating brownout of the generator (this is a functional limitation as per MPEP 2173.05(g), wherein the structures and functions of the prior art in this case would perform the functional limitation as this method of operating a generator would, like the method that it anticipates, abate brownouts).
Regarding claim 7 and 16, Wang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of appliances comprises one or more of an air conditioning appliance, a dishwashing appliance, a water heater appliance, and a range appliance (¶ [0043], the loads may include an air conditioner).
Regarding claim 8 and 17, Wang discloses the method of claims 1 and 10, wherein receiving the anticipatory signal comprises at least one appliance of the plurality of appliances communicating to the controller of the generator via one or more of wirelessly through a network, and/or serial communication (Fig. 1A and ¶ [0040], the shown system may include communication via a bus and wireless terminals).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Wang discloses wherein generator of claims 1 and 10, wherein the generator of the recreational vehicle is a singular power source for each appliance of the plurality of appliances (¶ [0002] and Fig. 1, the genset 102 is the only shown or disclosed source of power)
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) 2-6 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2022/0360202).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Wang discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the generator is an inverter generator, wherein throttling-up the generator in response to the anticipatory signal comprises throttling-up an engine of the generator.
However, the inclusion of inverter type generators for recreational vehicles, or other generator use cases, is sufficiently old and well-known in the art for examiner to take official notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the genset of Wang as an inverter type generator because they are known to improve energy efficiency, be more portable, and reduce noise.
Regarding claim 3 and 12, Wang discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the engine of the generator is configured to operate at a first speed and a second speed, wherein the first speed is less than the second speed (¶ [0043], the genset increases or decrease generator output which means the engine speed is increased or decreased thus operating at different speeds and as per the modification above).
Regarding claim 4 and 13, Wang discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising operating the engine of the generator at the first speed while the generator is on (as per the modification above, the inverter type generators operate at an “idle speed” when activated which is a low-speed operation).
Regarding claim 5 and 14, Wang discloses the method of claim 4, wherein throttling-up the generator comprises operating the engine of the generator at the second speed after throttling-up the engine from the first speed in response to the anticipatory signal (as per modification above, inverter generators increase power output through throttle-up which increases engine speed).
Regarding claim 6 and 15, Wang discloses the method of claim 5, further comprising throttling-down the engine from the second speed to the first speed in response to one or more appliances of the plurality of appliances being deactivated (¶ [0043], the generator operation changes in response to load increase or decrease and thus would return to a lower output mode for load decrease).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The closest prior art of Wang discloses the amended claim limitations above. Notably, the brownout abatement limitation being a functional limitation wherein the generator system of Wang performs and fulfills the functional limitation through its predictive load control.
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 KEVIN A LATHERS whose telephone number is (571)272-1050. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10a-6p.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at 5712721196. 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.
/KEVIN A LATHERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights