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
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) 1-3, 8, 12-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Corhodzic (EP 3 937 326 A1).
Regarding independent claims 1, 14, and 19, and dependent claims 12 and 18, Corhodzic teaches a datacenter power system and method of power management (Fig. 1) comprising:
a grid connection (via 110) configured to receive grid electrical power (from 102) at a grid voltage, a grid amperage, and a grid frequency;
a plurality of co-locations (142 and 152, 144 and 154, 146 and 156), each co-location including a plurality of computing devices (datacenters);
a solid-state transformer (inside 112, 114, 130) in electrical communication with the grid connection and configured to convert the grid electrical power to co- location electrical power having a co-location voltage different from the grid voltage and a co-location amperage different from the grid amperage ([0023], [0034], [0035]);
a superconducting cable (120 and 140) providing electrical communication of the co- location electrical power from the solid-state transformer to the plurality of computing devices at the co- location voltage ([0037], [0038]); and
a plurality of branch conduits (140 from 130 to 142/144/146) from the superconducting cable that provide electrical communication to the plurality of co-locations.
Regarding claims 2 and 17, Corhodzic teaches the co-location electrical power has a co-location frequency (a DC signal) different from the grid frequency (an AC signal).
Regarding claims 3 and 20, Corhodzic teaches the superconducting cable/branch conduits includes a high-temperature superconductor ([0032]).
Regarding claim 8, Corhodzic teaches the superconducting cable electrically connects the solid-state transformer directly to the co-location ([0037]).
Regarding claim 13, Corhodzic teaches the solid-state transformer is a first solid-state transformer of a plurality of solid-state transformers (inside 112, 114, 130; [0023], [0031]).
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) 4-7, 9-11, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corhodzic (EP 3 937 326 A1). Corhodzic teaches the datacenter power system and method of power management as described above.
Regarding claims 4-7, 15, and 16, Corhodzic teaches the grid voltage being a high voltage, and the idea of converting the grid voltage and grid amperage via first and second transformers (inside 112, 130, and 152/154/156) into various other voltage and amperage levels (i.e. a middle voltage and a co-location voltage and amperage) ([0034], [0035], [0038]). Corhodzic fails to explicitly teach the co-location voltage and amperage being in the claimed ranges. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the co-location voltage be no more than 48 (or 120) Volts and the co-location amperage be at least 200,000 A, 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.
Regarding claims 9-11, Corhodzic teaches an uninterruptable power supply (at 152/154/156) electrically between the solid-state transformer (at 130) and the superconducting cable (162/164) ([0037]). Corhodzic fails to explicitly teach the type of UPS at the substations (152/154/156). However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that generator and/or DC uninterruptible power supplies are known in the power distribution art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a generator or DC uninterruptible power supply into the substations in Corhodzic’s invention, since it involves a mere simple substitution of one type of UPS for another to perform the same function of providing uninterruptible power to the datacenters.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner believes that the Corhodzic reference teaches (at Fig. 1 and [0037] and [0038]) all of the argued independent claim limitations. In [0037], it states that the voltage provided on superconducting cable (140) can be supplied directly to the datacenters (without the use of substations 152-156). In [0038], it states that superconductor cables 120 and 140 can have the same (co-location) voltage. Therefore, Corhodzic teaches an embodiment (among many different embodiments described in the reference) comprising a grid (102) with a transformer (inside 112) that converts the grid voltage to a co-location voltage and superconducting cable(s) (120 and 140) provide the co-location voltage directly to a plurality of computing devices.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DRU M PARRIES whose telephone number is (571)272-8542. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Thursday from 9:00am to 6:00pm. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Rexford Barnie, can be reached on 571-272-7492. 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).
DMP
7/21/2026
/DANIEL KESSIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights