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 (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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “first power distribution unit configured to generate…and…add” in Claim 1; “second power distribution unit configured to generate…and…add” in Claim 1; “first power distribution unit” in Claims 9 and 10; “second power distribution unit” in Claims 9 and 10; “first signal injection device configured to add” in Claim 9; “second signal injection device configured to add” in Claim 9; “first signal injection device configured to insert” in Claim 12; “second signal injection device configured to insert” in Claim 12; “power management and distribution unit” in Claim 12; “first power distribution unit that generates” in Claim 14; “second power distribution unit that generates” in Claim 14; “first signal injection device” in Claim 15; “second signal injection device” in Claim 15; “status component…receiving power…configured to compare…” in Claim 19; “status component configured to output…” in Claim 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication Number 2014/0164814 to Henise, IV et al. (“Henise”).
In reference to Claim 19, Henise discloses a system, comprising: a rack (See3 Figure 2 Number 220 and Paragraph 30) holding multiple computers (See Figure 2 Numbers 150 and 180 and Paragraph 30); a first lead and a second lead connected to the rack (See Figure 2 Numbers 212 and 217 and Paragraph 30); and, a status component positioned in the rack and receiving a first power waveform from the first lead and a second power waveform from the second lead to power the multiple computers (See Figure 1 Number 110 and Figure 2 Numbers 245, 255, 265, and 275, together, and Paragraphs 21, 23, and 25 [powers received via the leads have a frequency component, and are thus waveforms]), the status component configured to compare a first identifying frequency present in the first power waveform received from the first lead to a second identifying frequency present in the second power waveform received from the second lead to determine whether the first lead and the second lead are supplying power from two different power sources or from a single power source (See Paragraphs 24-26 and 39 [characteristic power source information identifying each power source includes the frequency of the power source power waveform; measured frequency characteristics of each waveform are compared with each other]). It is noted that Claim 19 does not require that the identifying frequencies present in the waveforms are added are injected to the waveforms.
In reference to Claim 20, Henise discloses the limitations as applied to Claim 19 above. Henise further discloses that the status component is configured to output an indication of whether the first lead and the second lead are supplying power from two different power sources or from a single power source (See Figure 4 Number 480 and Paragraphs 37 and 39).
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 and 3-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication Number 2012/0239958 to Archibald et al. (“Archibald”), US Patent Application Publication Number 2011/0320849 to Cochran et al. (“Cochran”), and US Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0057457 to Branson et al. (“Branson”).
In reference to Claim 1, Archibald discloses a system, comprising: a first power distribution unit (See Figure 1 Number 102a and Number 106 coupled to Number 102a) configured to generate a first power waveform (See Paragraph 13 [AC power is a waveform]) to power computers (See Figure 1 Numbers 108 and 112) in a system (See Figure 1 Number 100) and to add a first identifying signal that identifies the first power distribution unit to the first power waveform, resulting in a first combined waveform (See Paragraphs 22, 25-26, and 29-30 [power line communication adds a signal into a power supply; the identification signal from the first power supply uniquely identifies it as the first power supply]); a second power distribution unit (See Figure 1 Number 102b and Number 106 coupled to Number 102b) configured to generate a second power waveform (See Paragraph 13 [AC power is a waveform]) to power the computers in the system and to add a second identifying signal that identifies the second power distribution unit to the second power waveform, resulting in a second combined waveform (See Paragraphs 22, 25-26, and 29-30 [power line communication adds a signal into a power supply; the identification signal from the second power supply uniquely identifies it as the second power supply]); one or more circuits configured to carry the first combined waveform and the second combined waveform to the computers (See Figure 1 Numbers 106, 110, and 114); and, a manager connected to the computers (See Figure 1 Numbers 104 and 116 and Paragraph 16 [Numbers 104 and 116 may be implemented as a single unit]), the manager configured to sense whether the first identifying signal and the second identifying signal are present on the one or more circuits (See Paragraphs 25-26 and 29-30), and responsive to sensing that both the first identifying signal and the second identifying signal are present on the one or more circuits, generate a first status indicator indicating availability of redundant power (See Figure 5 and Paragraph 34 [graphic display indicates redundancy]) and to otherwise generate a second status indicator indicating a lack of availability of redundant power (See Figure 5 and Paragraph 34 [graphic display indicates no redundancy]). However, Archibald is silent as to the implementation of the datacenter system, and does not explicitly disclose a rack, that the computers are positioned in the rack, and that the manager is a rack manager positioned in the rack. Cochran discloses a datacenter system, comprising: a rack (See Paragraphs 2 and 17-18); a first power distribution unit (See Figure 1 Numbers 106 and 116) configured to generate a first power supply (See Paragraph 18) to power computers in the rack (See Figure 1 Number 102 and Paragraphs 2 and 18); a second power distribution unit (See Figure 1 Numbers 108 and 118) configured to generate a second power supply (See Paragraph 18) to power the computers in the rack; and, a rack manager positioned in the rack and connected to the computers (See Figure 1 Number 114 and Paragraphs 2 and 50), the rack manager configured to sense individual power supplies received at the rack for the presence of identification signals and upon sensing a first identification signal and a second identification signal the rack manager is configured to generate a first status indicator (See Paragraph 47) and to otherwise generate a second different status indicator (See Paragraph 47). Archibald further does not explicitly disclose the use of first and second identifying frequencies that are added to the first and second power supply waveforms to identify the first and second power distribution units. Branson discloses the use of alternating current sine waves having unique frequencies to uniquely identify a particular power source, and adding/injecting a particular alternating current sine wave to an alternating current power waveform from a particular power source to uniquely identify that power source to a device receiving the power waveform (See Paragraphs 21-24, 28, 30-32 and 35-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Archibald using the rack of Cochran, and using the identifying frequencies of Branson as the identifying signals, resulting in the invention of Claim 1, because Archibald is silent as to the particular structure of the datacenter system, and the simple substitution of the rack of Cochran to mount the components of Archibald would have yielded the predictable result of implementing the system using a commonly used structure offering high computer density (See Paragraph 2 of Cochran); and because Archibald is not limited as to how the power sources are identified, and the simple substitution of the identifying frequencies of Branson in place of the identifying signals of Archibald would have yielded the predictable result of uniquely identifying a particular power source to the computers receiving the power (See Paragraph 32 of Branson and Paragraphs 28-29 and 34 of Archibald).
In reference to Claim 3, Archibald, Cochran, and Branson disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Archibald further discloses that the first status indicator comprises a first audible indicator and the second status indicator comprises a second different audible indicator, or wherein the first status indicator comprises a first visual indicator (See Figure 5 and Paragraph 35 [graphic display indicating redundancy]) and the second status indicator comprises a second different visual indicator (See Figure 5 and Paragraph 35 [graphic display indicating no redundancy]).
In reference to Claim 4, Archibald, Cochran, and Branson disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Archibald further discloses that the first status indicator and the second status indicator are generated on a user interface that is accessible from a remote device (See Figure 5 and Paragraphs 35 and 39).
In reference to Claim 5, Archibald, Cochran, and Branson disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Archibald further discloses that the rack manager comprises a signal sensor configured to scan a range of frequencies on the one or more circuits to detect the first identifying signal and the second identifying signal (See Figure 2 Numbers 156, 158, 168, and 180 and Paragraphs 22-26, and 29-30). Branson further discloses that the rack manager comprises a signal sensor configured to scan a range of frequencies on the one or more circuits to detect the first identifying frequency and the second identifying frequency (See Paragraphs 32 and 35).
In reference to Claim 6, Archibald, Cochran, and Branson disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Archibald further discloses that the one or more circuits comprise one or more buses (See Figure 1 Numbers 106, 110, and 114). Branson further discloses that the one or more circuits comprise one or more buses (See Figure 1).
In reference to Claim 7, Archibald, Cochran, and Branson disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 6 above. Archibald further discloses that the multiple buses comprise a first bus carrying the first combined waveform and a second bus carrying the second combined waveform (See Paragraphs 14). Branson further discloses that the multiple buses comprise a first bus carrying the first combined waveform and a second bus carrying the second combined waveform (See Figure 1 and Paragraphs 32 and 35).
In reference to Claim 8, Archibald, Cochran, and Branson disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 7 above. Archibald further discloses that the rack manager is configured to generate the first status indicator when the rack is connected to both the first bus and the second bus and to generate the second status indicator when the rack is connected to the first bus and not to the second bus (See Paragraph 34).
In reference to Claim 9, Archibald, Cochran, and Branson disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Archibald further discloses that the first power distribution unit includes a first signal injection device configured to add the first identifying signal to the first power waveform (See Paragraphs 22, 25-26, and 29-30 [power line communication injects a signal into a power supply]), and wherein the second power distribution unit includes a second signal injection device configured to add the second identifying signal to the second power waveform (See Paragraphs 22, 25-26, and 29-30 [power line communication injects a signal into a power supply]). Branson further discloses that the first power distribution unit includes a first signal injection device configured to add the first identifying frequency to the first power waveform (See Paragraphs 21-24, 28, 30-32 and 35-36), and wherein the second power distribution unit includes a second signal injection device configured to add the second identifying frequency to the second power waveform (See Paragraphs 21-24, 28, 30-32 and 35-36).
In reference to Claim 10, Archibald, Cochran, and Branson disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Archibald further discloses that the one or more circuits comprise a first bus connected to the first power distribution unit (See Number 106 coupled to Number 102a) and a second bus connected to the second power distribution unit (See Number 106 coupled to Number 102b).
In reference to Claim 11, Archibald, Cochran, and Branson disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 10 above. Archibald further discloses a first lead removably connected between a connector on the first bus and a connector on the rack (See Figure 1 connections between Numbers 104 and 106, Figure 2 Number 182, and Paragraph 22) and a second lead removably connected between a connector on the second bus and another connector on the rack (See Figure 1 connections between Numbers 104 and 106, Figure 2 Number 182, and Paragraph 22).
In reference to Claim 12, Archibald discloses a system, comprising: a first signal injection device (See Figure 1 Number 102a and Number 106 coupled to Number 102a) configured to insert a first identifying signal (See Paragraphs 22, 25-26, and 29-30 [power line communication adds a signal into a power supply; the identification signal from the first power supply uniquely identifies it as the first power supply]) into a first power supply waveform (See Paragraph 13 [AC power is a waveform]); a second signal injection device (See Figure 1 Number 102a and Number 106 coupled to Number 102b) configured to insert a second identifying signal (See Paragraphs 22, 25-26, and 29-30 [power line communication adds a signal into a power supply; the identification signal from the second power supply uniquely identifies it as the second power supply]) in a second power supply waveform (See Paragraph 13 [AC power is a waveform]); and, an arrangement (See Figure 1 Number 100) having multiple computers (See Figure 1 Numbers 108 and 112), the arrangement comprising a power management and distribution unit (PMDU) (See Figure 1 Numbers 104 and 116 and Paragraph 16 [Numbers 104 and 116 may be implemented as a single unit]) receiving power waveforms at first and second electrical connectors (See Figures 1 and 2 and Paragraphs 14-15 and 22), the PMDU comprising a signal sensor configured to detect signals in the power waveforms received at the first and second electrical connectors (See Figure 2 Numbers 156, 158, 168, and 180 and Paragraphs 22, 25-26, and 29-30), and a signal comparator configured to determine whether the detected signals are different from one another (See Paragraph 33). However, Archibald is silent as to the implementation of the datacenter system, and does not explicitly disclose a rack physically holding the multiple computers, and the rack comprising the PMDU. Cochran discloses a datacenter system, comprising: a rack (See Paragraphs 2 and 17-18); a first power distribution unit (See Figure 1 Numbers 106 and 116) configured to generate a first power supply (See Paragraph 18) to power computers in the rack (See Figure 1 Number 102 and Paragraphs 2 and 18); a second power distribution unit (See Figure 1 Numbers 108 and 118) configured to generate a second power supply (See Paragraph 18) to power the computers in the rack; and, a PMDU positioned in the rack and connected to the computers (See Figure 1 Number 114 and Paragraphs 2 and 50), the PMDU configured to sense individual power supplies received at the rack for the presence of identification signals and upon sensing a first identification signal and a second identification signal the rack manager is configured to generate a first status indicator (See Paragraph 47) and to otherwise generate a second different status indicator (See Paragraph 47). Archibald further does not explicitly disclose the use of first and second identifying frequencies that are added to the first and second power supply waveforms to identify the first and second power distribution units, the second identifying frequency being different from the first identifying frequency. Branson discloses the use of alternating current sine waves having unique/different frequencies to uniquely identify a particular power source, and adding/injecting a particular alternating current sine wave to an alternating current power waveform from a particular power source to uniquely identify that power source to a device receiving the power waveform (See Paragraphs 21-24, 28, 30-32 and 35-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Archibald using the rack of Cochran, and using the identifying frequencies of Branson as the identifying signals, resulting in the invention of Claim 12, because Archibald is silent as to the particular structure of the datacenter system, and the simple substitution of the rack of Cochran to mount the components of Archibald would have yielded the predictable result of implementing the system using a commonly used structure offering high computer density (See Paragraph 2 of Cochran); and because Archibald is not limited as to how the power sources are identified, and the simple substitution of the identifying frequencies of Branson in place of the identifying signals of Archibald would have yielded the predictable result of uniquely identifying a particular power source to the computers receiving the power (See Paragraph 32 of Branson and Paragraphs 28-29 and 34 of Archibald).
In reference to Claim 13, Archibald, Cochran, and Branson disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 12 above. Archibald further discloses that the signal sensor is tuned to detect the first identifying signal and the second identifying signal (See Paragraphs 22-26, and 29-30). Branson further discloses that the signal sensor is tuned to detect the first identifying frequency and the second identifying frequency (See Paragraphs 32 and 35).
In reference to Claim 14, Archibald, Cochran, and Branson disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 13 above. Archibald further discloses that the first identifying signal uniquely identifies a first power distribution unit that generates the second power waveform (See Figure 1 Number 102a and Number 106 coupled to Number 102a and Paragraphs 22, 25-26, and 29-30) and the second identifying signal uniquely identifies a second power distribution unit that generates the second power waveform (See Figure 1 Number 102b and Number 106 coupled to Number 102b and Paragraphs 22, 25-26, and 29-30). Branson further discloses that the first identifying frequency uniquely identifies a first power distribution unit that generates the second power waveform (See Paragraphs 21-24, 28, 30-32 and 35-36) and the second identifying signal frequency identifies a second power distribution unit that generates the second power waveform (See Paragraphs 21-24, 28, 30-32 and 35-36).
In reference to Claim 15, Archibald, Cochran, and Branson disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 12 above. Archibald further discloses that the first power distribution unit includes the first signal injection device and the second power distribution unit includes the second signal injection device (See Paragraphs 22, 25-26, and 29-30). Branson further discloses that the first power distribution unit includes the first signal injection device and the second power distribution unit includes the second signal injection device (See Paragraphs 21-24, 28, 30-32 and 35-36).
In reference to Claim 16, Archibald, Cochran, and Branson disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 12 above. Archibald further discloses that the signal comparator is further configured to determine whether the rack is receiving power from two different power feeds based upon the detected signals (See Paragraphs 33 and 35). Branson further discloses that the signal comparator is further configured to determine whether the rack is receiving power from two different power feeds based upon the detected signals (See Paragraphs 21-24, 28, 30-32 and 35-36).
In reference to Claim 17, Archibald, Cochran, and Branson disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 16 above. Archibald further discloses that the signal comparator is further configured to generate an indication that conveys whether the rack is receiving power from two different power feeds (See Figure 5 and Paragraphs 33 and 35).
In reference to Claim 18, Archibald, Cochran, and Branson disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 17 above. Archibald further discloses that the signal comparator is further configured to present the indication at the rack and/or to send the indication to a remote device (See Figure 5 and Paragraph 35).
In reference to Claim 19, Archibald discloses a system, comprising: an arrangement (See Figure 1 Number 100) holding multiple computers (See Figure 1 Numbers 108 and 112); a first lead and a second lead connected to the arrangement (See Figure 1 connections between Numbers 104 and 106, Figure 2 Number 182, and Paragraph 22); and, a status component positioned in the arrangement (See Figure 1 Numbers 104 and 116 and Paragraph 16 [Numbers 104 and 116 may be implemented as a single unit]) and receiving a first power waveform from the first lead and a second power waveform from the second lead to power the multiple computers (See Paragraphs 13-15 and 22 [AC power is a waveform]), the status component configured to compare a first identifying signal present in the first waveform received from the first lead and a second identifying signal present in the second waveform received from the second lead to determine whether the first lead and the second lead are supplying power from two different power sources or from a single power source (See Paragraphs 33 and 35). However, Archibald is silent as to the implementation of the datacenter system, and does not explicitly disclose a rack physically holding the multiple computers, and the status component positioned in the rack. Cochran discloses a datacenter system, comprising: a rack (See Paragraphs 2 and 17-18); a first power distribution unit (See Figure 1 Numbers 106 and 116) configured to generate a first power supply (See Paragraph 18) to power computers in the rack (See Figure 1 Number 102 and Paragraphs 2 and 18); a second power distribution unit (See Figure 1 Numbers 108 and 118) configured to generate a second power supply (See Paragraph 18) to power the computers in the rack; and, a status component positioned in the rack and connected to the computers (See Figure 1 Number 114 and Paragraphs 2 and 50), the status component configured to sense individual power supplies received at the rack for the presence of identifying signals and upon sensing a first identifying signal and a second identifying signal the rack manager is configured to generate a first status indicator (See Paragraph 47) and to otherwise generate a second different status indicator (See Paragraph 47). Archibald further does not explicitly disclose the use of first and second identifying frequencies that are added to the first and second power supply waveforms to identify the sources of power. Branson discloses the use of alternating current sine waves having unique frequencies to uniquely identify a particular power source, and adding/injecting a particular alternating current sine wave to an alternating current power waveform from a particular power source to uniquely identify that power source to a device receiving the power waveform (See Paragraphs 21-24, 28, 30-32 and 35-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Archibald using the rack of Cochran, and using the identifying frequencies of Branson as the identifying signals, resulting in the invention of Claim 19, because Archibald is silent as to the particular structure of the datacenter system, and the simple substitution of the rack of Cochran to mount the components of Archibald would have yielded the predictable result of implementing the system using a commonly used structure offering high computer density (See Paragraph 2 of Cochran); and because Archibald is not limited as to how the power sources are identified, and the simple substitution of the identifying frequencies of Branson in place of the identifying signals of Archibald would have yielded the predictable result of uniquely identifying a particular power source to the computers receiving the power (See Paragraph 32 of Branson and Paragraphs 28-29 and 34 of Archibald).
In reference to Claim 20, Archibald, Cochran, and Branson disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 19 above. Archibald further discloses that the status component is configured to output and indication of whether the first lead and the second lead are supplying power from two different power sources or from a single power source (See Figure 5 and Paragraph 34).
In reference to Claim 20, Archibald, Cochran, and Branson disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 19 above. Branson further discloses that the first identifying frequency is a fixed-frequency tone and the second identifying frequency is a second fixed-frequency tone, that is higher than the first identifying frequency (See Paragraph 32).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Archibald and Cochran as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of knowledge commonly known in the art as evidenced by US Patent Application Publication Number 2009/0174393 to Dishman et al. (“Dishman”) and admitted by Applicant to be prior art.
In reference to Claim 2, Archibald, Cochran, and Branson disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Archibald further discloses that the first and second power waveforms can be any voltage, including 240 volts (See Paragraph 13). However, Archibald does not explicitly disclose that the first power supply waveform and the second power supply waveform comprise 240 volt and 60 hertz signals. Official Notice is taken that the use of 240 volt and 60 hertz signals for supplying power to a computer rack is well known in the art, as evidenced by Dishman (See Paragraph 48). This has been admitted by Applicant to be prior art. Furthermore, Branson is not limited as to the particular frequencies used as the first and second identifying frequences (See Paragraph 32) and the use of particular frequencies does not affect the functionality of the device (See Paragraph 32 of Branson). However, Branson does not explicitly disclose that the first identifying frequency is within a frequency range of 1 megahertz to 5 megahertz and the second identifying frequency is at least 10 megahertz. However, due to the physical limitations of a conductor, such as the plasma frequency of the conductor and skin effects, that set a maximum frequency that can be transmitted, along with the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem, which requires sampling a signal at no less than twice the frequency of the signal, and thus sets the maximum frequency that can be detected at one-half of the maximum operating speed of the detection circuitry, there is a finite number of frequencies that can be used as the first and second identifying frequencies.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Archibald, Cochran, and Branson using a well-known 240 volt and 60 hertz power supply signal, and using a frequency range of 1MHz to 5MHz for the first unique signal and a frequency of 10MHz or greater for the second unique signal, resulting in the invention of Claim 2, because Archibald, Cochran, and Branson are not limited as to the particular voltage and frequency used (See Paragraph 13 of Archibald), and the simple substitution of a 240 volt 60 hertz frequency power supply signal as the power supply signal of Archibald, Cochran, and Branson would have yielded the predictable result of making the system compatible with the standard North American AC input voltage and frequency (See Paragraph 48 of Dishman); and because there are a finite number of frequencies that the first and second unique signal can be selected from, and Branson is not limited as to the use of any particular frequencies for the first and second identifying frequencies (See Paragraph 32 of Branson), and the use of particular frequencies does not affect the functionality of the device (See Paragraph 32 of Branson), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try a first frequency in the range of 1MHz to 5MHz for the first identifying frequency and to try a frequency of 10 MHz or greater for the second identifying, because one of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to try the known options within their technical grasp in an effort to provide an improved construction of the device of Archibald, Cochran, and Branson.
Response to Arguments
Official Notice was taken in the previous Office Action. To adequately traverse such a finding, an Applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the Examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. If the Applicant does not traverse the Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice, the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art. (See MPEP 2144.03 C). The Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice is hereby taken to be admitted prior art due to the Applicant’s failure to traverse the assertion.
Applicant has argued that the terms indicated as invoking 35 USC 112(f) are understood by those skilled in the art as referring to structures capable of performing the functions. However, Applicant has provided no evidence supporting such an assertion. Arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. I, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965) and In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984). As indicated above, explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Each of the identified limitations recites a nonce term such as “unit” or “device” that is equivalent to “means” (Prong A), is modified by functional language such as “power distribution”, “signal injection”, “generate”, “add”, “insert”, “receiving power”, “compare”, or “output” (Prong B), and is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). As the indicated terms meet the three-prong test, they invoke 35 USC 112(f).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of Claim(s) 1-20 over Archibald and Cochran 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.
With respect to the prior art rejections of the claims, Applicant’s arguments are directed solely to the rejections over Archibald and Cochran. Applicant has not presented any arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render Claim 19 patentable over Henise as required by 37 C.F.R. 1.111(b). Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of Claim 1 over Archibald and Cochran are inapplicable to the rejection of Claim 19 over Henise, as the features relied upon in the argument are not recited in Claim 19. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). It is noted that Claim 19 requires only that the identifying frequencies are “present” in the first and second power waveforms, and there is no requirement that such frequencies are injected or added thereto. Thus, an identifying frequency that occurs in the waveform naturally is “present” in the waveform in accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term. As set forth in Henise, the characteristic power source information identifying each power source includes the frequency of the power source power waveform, and the measured frequency characteristics of each waveform are compared with each other (See Paragraphs 24-26 and 39).
Conclusion
The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 J CLEARY whose telephone number is (571)272-3624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, Andrew Jung can be reached at 571-270-3779. 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 J. CLEARY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175