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 § 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) 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-12, 15-19, and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chamberlain (US 2017/0094718 A1) in view of DeBoer (US 2008/0077280 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chamberlain discloses a system for powering a plurality of remote radio heads (RRHs) (Chamberlain is directed to delivering DC power from a base-located power supply to a plurality of remote radio heads mounted at the top of a tower (Chamberlain abstract, [0005]–[0006], [0041]-[0044], [0047]-[0057])), the system comprising:
a power cable comprising a plurality of DC circuits (Chamberlain discloses a trunk power cable for delivering DC power to multiple RRHs and explains that conventional trunk power cable may include a plurality of pairs of insulated power supply conductors and insulated return conductors, each pair supplying power to a respective RRH (Chamberlain [0006], [0047]-[0057]).);
a base protection unit (BPU) located at a base location and coupled to one end of the power cable (Chamberlain teaches a base equipment enclosure at the base of the tower housing a power supply (and a controller), with the trunk power cable routed from the base enclosure up the tower (Chamberlain fig. 3; [0005] and [0049]–[0050]).), the BPU comprising:
a base communication module configured to transmit a command signal to implement a command to turn on or off a designated RRH of the plurality of RRHs (Chamberlain teaches a switch controller located remotely from the RRHs/switches that communicates with and sends control signals to the respective per-RRH switches to selectively cause a particular RRH’s power path to pass or block power (i.e., to turn on/off a designated RRH). Chamberlain [0048] (controller sends control signals to switches), and [0042] (power to any individual RRH can be cut off from remote location such as base of tower)); and
a top protection unit (TPU) located proximate to the plurality of RRHs and coupled between a second end of the power cable and the plurality of RRHs to power the plurality of RRHs (Chamberlain teaches a breakout enclosure at/near the top of the tower close to the RRHs, where the trunk cable terminates and is connected out to RRHs via breakout cords/jumper cables (Chamberlain [0006], [0013], and [0042]).), the TPU comprising:
a power distribution circuit connecting individual ones of the plurality of DC circuits to groups of the plurality of RRHs (Chamberlain teaches that within the breakout enclosure electrical connections distribute the trunk conductors to a plurality of connectors/pigtails/jumper cables feeding the RRHs (Chamberlain [0042] and [0059]–[0060]). That corresponds to the claimed power distribution function (distribution from the incoming DC supply/return to multiple RRH feeds, including distribution to sets/groups via multiple connectors/jumpers).);
a set of switches coupled between the power distribution circuit and the plurality RRHs (Chamberlain teaches a plurality of remotely-controlled switches interposed between the trunk power cable/breakout distribution and respective RRHs (Chamberlain [0012], [0042], [0047]-[0048], and [0066]-[0069]).); and
a top communication module that receives the command signal from the base communication module and in response, the TPU switches on or off a particular one of switches connected to the designated RRH (Chamberlain teaches that the controller transmits control signals to cause a selected per-RRH switch to pass or block power (Chamberlain [0048] and [0054]–[0057]).).
However, Chamberlain does not expressly disclose a base communication module comprising a user interface configured to receive a user command to turn on or off a designated RRH of the plurality of RRHs, and wherein the switches are motorized circuit breakers.
In an analogous art, DeBoer teaches remote control and monitoring of electrical distribution switching/protection devices using a controller, communications, and a user interface (DeBoer {0013], [0015]–[0016], [0035]–[0038]), which is reasonably pertinent to remotely powering/controlling tower-mounted RRHs. DeBoer teaches a panel-mounted control system that includes a user interface device enabling a user to define operation of switching devices using the user interface (DeBoer [0013] (control system includes user interface device; controller commands switching devices), and [0015] (touch screen UI example). Thus, the combination teaches (or renders obvious) a base-side control module with a user interface receiving a user on/off command and transmitting a control/command signal to implement that command. Furthermore, DeBoer specifically teaches a remote-operated circuit breaker system in which the circuit breaker “contains a motor for actuating the switch unit” and operates “in response to a signal received from a control unit separate from the circuit breaker” (DeBoer [0008]). DeBoer further describes the control unit being hard-wired over a control bus and separately applying/removing operating current to the circuit breaker motor to open/close the breaker (DeBoer [0009]). Therefore, DeBoer teaches “motorized circuit breakers” suitable for being commanded to open/close, and Chamberlain teaches placement of per-load interrupters between the distribution/breakout and the RRHs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Chamberlain’s remotely-controlled RRH power switches using motorized circuit breakers as taught by DeBoer because Chamberlain already addresses the need to remotely interrupt power to individual RRHs from a remote/base location (Chamberlain [0042], [0048]), and DeBoer teaches a known, predictable remotely commanded solution—motor-actuated circuit breakers controlled by a separate controller (DeBoer [0008]–[0009])—that performs the same fundamental function (remote open/close of a power path) while also providing the well-known breaker advantages (protective trip capability and standardized branch protection hardware). The substitution is a predictable variation using known equivalents to achieve the expected result of remotely switching power to a designated RRH.
Regarding claim 2, Chamberlain in view of DeBoer teaches the system of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of DC circuits comprises a −48 DC volt cable and a return cable (Chamberlain teaches that cellular base station radios/RRHs are commonly powered by a (nominal) −48 Volt DC power supply (Chamberlain [0003]). Chamberlain further teaches that the trunk power cable may include a plurality of pairs of insulated power supply conductors and insulated return conductors, with each pair supplying power to a respective RRH (Chamberlain [0006]).). Same motivation to combine as claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Chamberlain in view of DeBoer teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the BPU is further configured to receive another user command to view status data from the TPU (DeBoer expressly teaches a controller having a user interface and functionality to obtain status information and display/report it to a user (DeBoer [0009], [0038], [0049]-[0050]).Accordingly, DeBoer teaches receiving a user command via a UI to view/obtain status data and retrieving/communicating that status data back for user viewing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chamberlain’s base controller for remotely switching RRH power to further allow an operator to request and view status data from the tower-top unit/switching subsystem (e.g., confirmation of switch/breaker state, diagnostics), as taught by DeBoer, because remote power control systems commonly include status/confirmation and diagnostic feedback to verify that commanded switching actually occurred and to support maintenance/troubleshooting. DeBoer explicitly teaches this status/feedback paradigm (state checking/contact confirmation/diagnostics, send status/report, and UI-based status viewing). See DeBoer [0009], [0036], [0038], [0049]–[0050].).
Regarding claim 5, Chamberlain in view of DeBoer teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the BPU receives the user command from an operator either locally at the BPU or remotely over a network (DeBoer teaches a controller mounted to the panel that includes a user interface device, including an integrated touch screen / LCD used by the user for configuration and control. See DeBoer [0013] (control system includes user interface device enabling user to define operation of switching devices), [0015] (touch screen display), and [0035]–[0036] (system controller operatively connected to touch screen/LCD; provides user interface application). This teaches receiving user commands locally at the controller/panel (i.e., at the BPU). DeBoer further teaches that the system controller includes an ethernet controller (and other interfaces such as modem/RS-485), enabling communications beyond the local panel UI. See DeBoer [0038] (microprocessor connected to ethernet controller; additional interfaces such as modem and RS-485). This teaches receiving user commands remotely via a networked interface. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide Chamberlain’s base-located RRH power controller with both (i) a local user interface for on-site operators and (ii) a network interface to allow remote operators to issue the same on/off commands over a network, as taught by DeBoer, because remote power-control systems commonly support both local commissioning/maintenance and remote operation/management, and DeBoer expressly discloses both modalities (local touch-screen UI and Ethernet/network connectivity). See DeBoer [0013], [0015], [0038].).
Regarding claim 7, Chamberlain discloses a power supply system for a plurality of remote radio heads (RRHs) (Chamberlain is directed to delivering DC power from a base-located power supply to a plurality of remote radio heads mounted at the top of a tower (Chamberlain abstract, [0005]–[0006], [0041]-[0044], [0047]-[0057])), the power supply system comprising:
a power cable from a power system, the power cable comprising a plurality of DC circuits (Chamberlain discloses a trunk power cable for delivering DC power to multiple RRHs and explains that conventional trunk power cable may include a plurality of pairs of insulated power supply conductors and insulated return conductors, each pair supplying power to a respective RRH (Chamberlain [0006]).);
a base protection unit (BPU) located at a base location and coupled to one end of the power cable (Chamberlain teaches a base equipment enclosure at the base of the tower housing a power supply (and a controller), with the trunk power cable routed from the base enclosure up the tower (Chamberlain fig. 3; [0005] and [0049]–[0050]).); and
a top protection unit (TPU) located proximate to the plurality of RRHs on a structure and coupled between a second end of the power cable and the plurality of RRHs to power the plurality of RRHs (Chamberlain teaches a breakout enclosure at/near the top of the tower close to the RRHs, where the trunk cable terminates and is connected out to RRHs via breakout cords/jumper cables (Chamberlain [0006], [0013], and [0042]).), the TPU including:
a power distribution circuit connecting individual ones of the plurality of DC circuits to groups of the plurality of RRHs (Chamberlain teaches that within the breakout enclosure electrical connections distribute the trunk conductors to a plurality of connectors/pigtails/jumper cables feeding the RRHs (Chamberlain [0042], [0047]-[0051], and [0059]–[0060]). That corresponds to the claimed power distribution function (distribution from the incoming DC supply/return to multiple RRH feeds, including distribution to sets/groups via multiple connectors/jumpers).);
and a set of switches coupled between the power distribution circuit and the plurality RRHs (Chamberlain teaches a plurality of remotely-controlled switches interposed between the trunk power cable/breakout distribution and respective RRHs (Chamberlain [0012], [0042], [0047]-[0048], and [0066]-[0069]).); and
transmit a corresponding command signal to the TPU to turn on/off a designated RRH or switches or to get the status information (Chamberlain teaches controlling switches to selectively cut off power to individual RRHs from a base/remote switch controller (e.g., “send control signals… selectively either pass or block” power to RRHs) (Chamberlain [0048]–[0050]). ),
However, Chamberlain does not expressly disclose wherein the switches are motorized circuit breakers; the BPU including a user interface having a display device; a first memory storing status information associated with the set of motorized circuit breakers; and wherein the BPU further includes a printed circuit board having a processor and a second memory, the second memory storing instructions, which when executed by the BPU cause the processor to: periodically poll the TPU by transmitting one or more status command signals to the TPU requesting status data from the TPU; receive one or more response messages from the TPU containing the status data stored by the TPU; display the status data on the display device of the BPU; responsive to receiving a user command from an operator via the user interface; and receive and display a response message from the TPU containing the status data stored by the TPU for the designated RRH or the motorized circuit breaker.
In an analogous art, DeBoer teaches remote control and monitoring of electrical distribution switching/protection devices using a controller, communications, and a user interface (DeBoer {0013], [0015]–[0016], [0035]–[0038]), which is reasonably pertinent to remotely powering/controlling tower-mounted RRHs. DeBoer teaches a remote-operated circuit breaker that contains a motor for actuating the breaker switch unit (DeBoer [0008]–[0009]). DeBoer further teaches that a remote operated device includes a microcontroller and associated memory storing software, and routines that keep status data up to date and support “send status” / “send report” functionality (DeBoer [0045]–[0049]). DeBoer also teaches sensing switching element state/position (e.g., sensor 484 sensing relay CR status) and maintaining such status for reporting (DeBoer [0044], [0047]–[0049]). DeBoer teaches controller boards (e.g., I/O controller boards 124-1, 124-2, 124-3) including a microprocessor operatively connected to memory devices (DeBoer [0038]-[0039]). DeBoer further teaches a communications handler supporting status/report messaging (DeBoer [0049]) and describes controller operation in which, after sending commands, the controller performs a status check at a later time using a sequencer/queue (DeBoer [0050]), which corresponds to scheduled/periodic polling for status. Applying these teachings to Chamberlain’s tower-top switching/breakout arrangement would have been obvious to enable reliable remote monitoring and control of RRH power switching devices from a base location by transmitting status requests/commands and receiving corresponding responses containing stored status. DeBoer also teaches providing status information to a user through a system controller user interface including display(s) (DeBoer [0035], [0038], [0052]) and user input via the UI controlling switching devices via controller communications routines (DeBoer [0038], [0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chamberlain’s RRH power-cabling system that uses remotely controlled switches to selectively connect/disconnect power to individual RRHs, by implementing the tower-top switching/protection using DeBoer’s remotely actuated (motor/actuator-driven) switching/protective devices together with DeBoer’s controller-based status acquisition and reporting (i.e., issuing status requests/commands, receiving status responses, storing/maintaining status, and presenting status to a user via a display). This combination is a straightforward substitution and integration of known remote-controlled power switching and monitoring techniques into Chamberlain’s remote RRH power distribution architecture to achieve the predictable result of enabling both remote power control and remote status/monitoring for otherwise inaccessible tower-top equipment.
Regarding claim 8, Chamberlain in view of DeBoer teaches the power supply system of claim 7, wherein the command signal transmitted to the TPU requests status data (DeBoer teaches controller communications in which commands are decoded and the device sends status / sends report, i.e., status is requested/obtained through messaging over a communications interface (DeBoer [0049]). Applying this to Chamberlain’s tower-top switching unit yields a TPU that receives a command signal requesting status data and returns responsive status data messages.) for one or more of: i. a number of the motorized circuit breakers, ii. a current state of each of the motorized circuit breakers (DeBoer teaches maintaining up-to-date status data for switching devices and reporting that status (“send status / send report”), and also explicitly senses the position/status of a switching element (e.g., sensor sensing relay status) (DeBoer [0044], [0047]–[0049]). When Chamberlain’s remotely controlled switching elements are implemented/managed using DeBoer’s status/reporting scheme, the requested status data would at least include the existence/count of controlled switching devices and the current state (open/closed, on/off, tripped/not tripped) of each device, since those are fundamental status items for remotely controlled protection/switching.), iii. −48 voltage value of each of the plurality of DC circuits input to the TPU (Chamberlain teaches RRH powering using nominal −48V DC and power/return conductors, and discusses the delivered voltage/voltage drop behavior in the cabling connection (Chamberlain [0003], [0006]–[0008]). DeBoer teaches metering and use of sensing devices (e.g., current transformer/meter) in the distribution panel environment (DeBoer [0029], [0034]). It would have been obvious to include/report the −48V input voltage of the DC circuits at the tower-top unit as part of “status data” requested/returned, because voltage is a conventional operational health metric in remote DC power distribution feeding loads, and DeBoer already provides the framework for collecting and reporting measured electrical status.), iv. an ambient temperature of the TPU (DeBoer teaches device operation parameters that vary with temperature (e.g., pulse width increases by temperature/age/usage), evidencing the relevance of temperature to reliable operation and maintenance of remotely operated switching devices (DeBoer [0048]). Thus, it would have been obvious to request/report ambient temperature at the tower-top unit as part of status data, to support reliable remote diagnostics and control in an inaccessible location.), and v. a status of other tower devices (Chamberlain’s tower-top breakout/switching arrangement is an equipment node proximate the RRHs, and DeBoer teaches that a distribution system may include multiple different device types (relay, meter/current transformer, dimmer, etc.) with common controller communications and status/reporting (DeBoer [0034], [0049], [0052]). Therefore, it would have been obvious that the tower-top unit would also report the status of other associated tower devices under the same remote monitoring/control framework, since the same “send status / send report” mechanism can convey status for multiple device types connected to the controller.).
Regarding claim 10, Chamberlain in view of DeBoer teaches the power supply system of claim 7, wherein responsive to the designated motorized breaker failing to respond to the command signal, receiving and displaying an alarm or error message from the TPU on the display device or over a network connection to notify the operator (DeBoer teaches a remote controller-to-device communications scheme in which the remote operated device executes switching commands and maintains status data, and the controller performs a status check at a later time (via a sequencer/queue) after issuing commands to verify whether the commanded action occurred, while the device runs routines/state-machine functions that keep status data up to date and support command handling and status/reporting (DeBoer [0047]–[0050]). DeBoer further teaches a communications handler that supports device-to-controller messaging such as “send status” and “send report,” based on sensed device status (e.g., sensor 484 sensing relay status) and maintained status data (DeBoer [0044], [0047]–[0049]). Thus, when the post-command status check indicates the designated breaker/device did not respond (e.g., the commanded state is not achieved or expected status is not returned), it would have been obvious to include an error/fault indication as part of the status/report response messaging (i.e., an alarm or error message), since such fault reporting is a predictable and conventional extension of remote status/report communications in remotely controlled power switching systems. DeBoer also teaches presenting status information to the user through a controller user interface including a display (touch screen/LCD), so displaying an alarm/error message on the display device upon receipt/determination of the fault condition would have been obvious (DeBoer [0035], [0038], [0052]). Additionally, DeBoer teaches that the controller includes an Ethernet controller/communications interfaces, and Chamberlain emphasizes remotely managing power to tower-top RRHs in hard-to-access locations, making remote notification to an operator a routine design objective; accordingly, providing the alarm/error notification over a network connection (in addition to the local display) would have been obvious (DeBoer [0038]; Chamberlain [0041]–[0044], [0047]–[0057]).).
Regarding claim 11, Chamberlain discloses a power supply system for a plurality of remote radio heads (RRHs) (Chamberlain is directed to delivering DC power from a base-located power supply to a plurality of remote radio heads mounted at the top of a tower (Chamberlain abstract, [0005]–[0006])), the power supply system comprising:
a power cable from a power system, the power cable comprising a plurality of DC circuits (Chamberlain discloses a trunk power cable for delivering DC power to multiple RRHs and explains that conventional trunk power cable may include a plurality of pairs of insulated power supply conductors and insulated return conductors, each pair supplying power to a respective RRH (Chamberlain [0006], [0047]-[0057]).);
a base protection unit (BPU) located at a base location and coupled to one end of the power cable (Chamberlain teaches a base equipment enclosure at the base of the tower housing a power supply (and a controller), with the trunk power cable routed from the base enclosure up the tower (Chamberlain fig. 3; [0005] and [0049]–[0050]).); and
a top protection unit (TPU) located proximate to the plurality of RRHs on a structure and coupled between a second end of the power cable and the plurality of RRHs to power the plurality of RRHs (Chamberlain teaches a breakout enclosure at/near the top of the tower close to the RRHs, where the trunk cable terminates and is connected out to RRHs via breakout cords/jumper cables (Chamberlain [0006], [0013], and [0042]).), the TPU comprising:
a power distribution circuit connecting individual ones of the plurality of DC circuits to groups of the plurality of RRHs (Chamberlain teaches that within the breakout enclosure electrical connections distribute the trunk conductors to a plurality of connectors/pigtails/jumper cables feeding the RRHs (Chamberlain [0042], [0047]-[0051], and [0059]–[0060]). That corresponds to the claimed power distribution function (distribution from the incoming DC supply/return to multiple RRH feeds, including distribution to sets/groups via multiple connectors/jumpers).);
a set of switches coupled between the power distribution circuit and the plurality RRHs (Chamberlain teaches a plurality of remotely-controlled switches interposed between the trunk power cable/breakout distribution and respective RRHs (Chamberlain [0012], [0042], [0047]-[0048], and [0066]-[0069]).), wherein a particular one of the switches is set to “Off”, a corresponding one of the RRHs is turned off, and when the particular one of the switches is set to “On”, the corresponding one of the RRHs is turned on (Chamberlain teaches that the power supply switches transition between a “pass” state and a “block” state, selectively interrupting or allowing delivery of the DC power signal to a specific RRH. (Chamberlain [0044]–[0048], [0066]–[0069]).).
However, Chamberlain does not expressly disclose wherein the switches are motorized circuit breakers; the BPU includes a user interface having a display device; and a memory to store respective states of the set of motorized circuit breakers.
In an analogous art, DeBoer teaches remote control and monitoring of electrical distribution switching/protection devices using a controller, communications, and a user interface (DeBoer {0013], [0015]–[0016], [0035]–[0038]), which is reasonably pertinent to remotely powering/controlling tower-mounted RRHs. DeBoer teaches a “remote-operated circuit breaker system” where a circuit breaker contains a motor for actuating the switch unit, i.e., a motor-actuated (motorized) breaker (DeBoer [0008]–[0009]). DeBoer further teaches that switching devices/remote operated devices include control circuitry with a microcontroller and associated memory, and that status data is maintained and communicated (e.g., “send status,” “send report”), including sensing switch status (sensor 484) and keeping status data up to date for reporting (DeBoer [0044]–[0049]). DeBoer also teaches a controller/system controller having a microprocessor connected to memory devices and a user interface including a display (touch screen/LCD) for user interaction/status presentation (DeBoer [0035], [0038], [0052]). Accordingly, DeBoer teaches using motor-actuated breakers as controllable switching/protective devices and maintaining/storing device state/status information in memory for reporting/management (DeBoer [0008]–[0009], [0044]–[0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Chamberlain’s remotely-controlled RRH power switches in the tower-top distribution/breakout unit as motorized circuit breakers as taught by DeBoer, and to store the respective breaker states in memory, because both references address remote management of electrical power delivery to multiple loads using remotely actuated switching/protective devices, and substituting DeBoer’s known motor-actuated breaker implementation for Chamberlain’s remotely-controlled switches would have yielded predictable results (breaker-grade switching/protection and remote actuation) while DeBoer’s teachings regarding maintained status/state information in memory would predictably support storing the respective states of the breakers for system monitoring/operation.
Regarding claim 12, Chamberlain in view of DeBoer teaches the power supply system of claim 11, wherein the TPU further comprises a processor; and a memory storing instructions (DeBoer teaches that each remotely operated device includes a control circuit comprising a microcontroller and associated memory, where the memory stores software/routines that execute in response to commands (DeBoer [0044]–[0046]). DeBoer further teaches a communications handler that decodes commands and performs functions such as open/close and sending status/report (DeBoer [0049]). Thus, the combination of Chamberlain and DeBoer teaches (or at least renders obvious) a TPU implementation including a processor and memory storing instructions for performing commanded operations and maintaining/reporting status in a remotely controlled power switching context.), which when executed by the TPU cause the processor to: continually poll and store status data at set intervals (DeBoer teaches a status loop function whose objectives include keeping status data up to date to respond to status requests and running the device state machine for operations. (DeBoer [0047]). DeBoer also teaches maintaining data for send status / send report operations (DeBoer [0049]). DeBoer further teaches sensing device status (e.g., sensor 484 sensing relay status) to support reporting (DeBoer [0044], [0047]–[0049]). These teachings collectively evidence periodic/ongoing acquisition and storage of device status information (i.e., “poll and store status data”) suitable for later retrieval/reporting.), wherein the status data includes one or more of a number and state of the motorized circuit breakers (DeBoer teaches multiple switching devices/remote operated devices and maintaining their states/status for reporting (send status/report), including detecting relay/breaker status (DeBoer [0044], [0047]–[0049]).), voltage of one or more of the plurality of DC circuits (DeBoer expressly teaches an electrical distribution system that may include metering and devices such as a meter or a current transformer as remote operated devices, which are monitored/controlled by the controller (DeBoer [0029], [0034]). Such metering devices render obvious storing measured electrical parameters (including voltage) as part of maintained status for reporting.), and TPU temperature (DeBoer teaches that operational parameters (e.g., pulse width for opening) vary with temperature and that the controller manages sequencing/state machine behavior accordingly (DeBoer [0048]). In view of DeBoer’s explicit temperature dependence in control behavior, it would have been obvious to include temperature as part of maintained status data for reporting/maintenance in the remotely controlled switching unit.); receive a command signal from the BPU, wherein the command signal includes one of: a request for one or more types of status data, to set or query a motorized circuit breaker state, and to initiate a TPU reboot (Chamberlain teaches a base-located controller that communicates with remotely controlled power switching devices located near the RRHs (tower-top), sending control signals to selectively connect/disconnect power (Chamberlain [0047]–[0049], [0053]–[0057]). DeBoer teaches a device-side communications handler that decodes commands and performs commanded functions such as open and close, as well as status/report messaging (DeBoer [0049]). Applied to Chamberlain’s base-to-tower architecture, DeBoer’s command decoding and command-driven operations teach receiving a command signal that (i) requests status data and (ii) sets/queries the switching state (open/close) of a designated remotely controlled protective switching device (here, the motorized breaker of claim 11 as implemented per DeBoer’s motor-actuated remote breaker teaching in [0008]–[0009]). As to “initiate a TPU reboot,” DeBoer expressly teaches a start up routine executed when the control circuit resets (DeBoer [0046].) Because DeBoer’s device firmware is structured around reset/startup behavior, it would have been obvious to implement (and to command) a reset/reboot function in the remotely controlled tower-top controller/device to recover from faults—particularly in Chamberlain’s expressly remote RRH installations (Chamberlain [0041]–[0044]; DeBoer [0046]).); responsive to determining that a particular motorized circuit breaker tripped, store a state of the particular motorized circuit breaker (DeBoer teaches sensing and maintaining device state/status (e.g., sensor 484 sensing relay status) and keeping the status data up to date for responding to status requests (DeBoer [0044], [0047]–[0049]). In a remotely controlled breaker context, a “tripped” condition is a particular state of the breaker/switching element; thus, responsive to determining the breaker has tripped, storing the state is taught/obvious from DeBoer’s maintained state/status data for reporting.); and responsive to receiving the command signal, execute and validate the received command signal, wherein the received command signal comprises one of: a first command to retrieve requested status data from the memory, a second command to set the state of a designated motorized circuit breaker, or a third command to query the state of the designated motorized circuit breaker (DeBoer teaches a communications handler that decodes commands and performs corresponding operations (open/close) and can send status/report information (DeBoer [0049]). DeBoer also teaches controller practices that include sequencing/status checking after commands (e.g., status check at a later time using a sequencer/queue) (DeBoer [0050]). These teachings collectively correspond to executing a received command and verifying/validating it by checking the resulting state/status and/or retrieving the requested information. Thus a first command to retrieve requested status from memory corresponds to DeBoer’s send status/report response based on maintained status data, a second command to set the state corresponds to DeBoer’s open/close command execution; and a third command to query the state corresponds to DeBoer’s send status/report functionality.).
Regarding claim 15, Chamberlain in view of DeBoer teaches the power supply system of claim 12, wherein responsive to the receiving the second command to set the state of a designated motorized circuit breaker to “On”, updating the memory to match an expected state for the designated motorized circuit breaker (DeBoer teaches that a remote operated device includes a microcontroller with associated memory storing software, and that software runs a state machine/status loop to keep status data up to date and to respond to send status/send report requests (DeBoer [0045]–[0049]). DeBoer further teaches receiving and decoding commands (including open/close) and executing those commands via device routines (e.g., close contacts function / sequencer tasks) (DeBoer [0048]–[0049]). Thus, DeBoer teaches updating stored state/status data in memory upon command execution so that subsequent status/report responses reflect the commanded ON state of the designated breaker (DeBoer [0047]–[0049]).).
Regarding claim 16, Chamberlain in view of DeBoer teaches the power supply system of claim 12, further comprising responsive to the TPU powering on and booting up, the TPU sets all motorized circuit breakers to “Off” (DeBoer teaches that the remote operated device includes a microcontroller and memory storing software, and that the software includes a start-up routine executed when the control circuit resets to initialize operation before entering its control/status loop (DeBoer [0045]–[0047]). DeBoer also teaches remote actuation of switching states via command processing (DeBoer [0048]–[0049]). It would have been obvious to implement the TPU’s boot/reset routine in Chamberlain’s tower-top power unit so that, upon power-on/reset, it drives the remotely controlled protective switching devices to a known safe default state—i.e., sets the motorized circuit breakers to “Off”—to prevent unintended energization of RRHs after restart, a common safety objective in remotely controlled power distribution (DeBoer [0045]–[0049]).)
Regarding claim 17, Chamberlain discloses a system for powering a plurality of remote radio heads (RRHs) (Chamberlain is directed to delivering DC power from a base-located power supply to a plurality of remote radio heads mounted at the top of a tower (Chamberlain abstract, [0005]–[0006], [0041]-[0044], [0047]-[0057])), the system comprising:
a first trunk cable and a second trunk cable, each comprising a first DC circuit and a second DC circuit (Chamberlain teaches trunk/power cabling that carries multiple DC circuits/feeds for distribution to RRHs at the structure/top location, including plural DC circuits used for powering RRHs/sections (Chamberlain [0006], [0047]–[0057]).);
a base protection unit (BPU) located at a base location and coupled to one end of both the first trunk cable and the second trunk cable (Chamberlain teaches a base equipment enclosure at the base of the tower housing a power supply (and a controller), with the trunk power cabling routed from the base enclosure up the tower (Chamberlain fig. 3; [0005] and [0047]–[0051]).), the BPU comprising:
a base communication module configured to transmit a command signal to implement the command to turn on or off a designated RRH of the plurality of RRHs (Chamberlain teaches a switch controller located remotely from the RRHs/switches that communicates with and sends control signals to the respective per-RRH switches to selectively cause a particular RRH’s power path to pass or block power (i.e., to turn on/off a designated RRH). Chamberlain [0048] (controller sends control signals to switches), and [0042] (power to any individual RRH can be cut off from remote location such as base of tower)); and
a first top protection unit (TPU) and a second TPU, each located proximate to the plurality of RRHs, the first TPU connected to a second end of the first trunk cable, and the second TPU connected to a second end of the second trunk cable to power the plurality of RRHs (Chamberlain teaches top-of-structure/tower-top protection/switching units located proximate to RRHs and connected at the far end of trunk/power cabling to feed RRHs (Chamberlain [0047]–[0057]).), both the first TPU and the second TPU comprising:
a first independent DC distribution connecting the first DC circuit to a first sector of the plurality of RRHs; a first set of switches coupled between the first independent DC distribution and the first sector of the plurality RRHs; a second independent DC distribution connecting the second DC circuit to a second sector of the plurality of RRHs; a second set of switches coupled between the second independent DC distribution and the second sector of the plurality RRHs (Chamberlain teaches distributing multiple DC circuits to groups/sectors of RRHs through tower-top distribution/protection circuitry with individually controllable protective switching elements (Chamberlain figs. 2-6, [0012], [0047]–[0057], [0042], and [0066]-[0069]).); and
a top communication module that receives the command signal from the base communication module and in response, switches on or off a particular switch of the first set of circuit breakers or the second set of switches associated with the designated one of the plurality of RRHs (Chamberlain teaches a breakout enclosure including tower-top equipment receiving command signaling and performing remote switching of power to a designated RRH (on/off control of the RRH’s feed) (Chamberlain [0006], [0013], [0041]–[0044], and [0047]–[0057]).).
However, Chamberlain does not expressly disclose the base communication module comprising a user interface configured to receive a user command; wherein the switches are circuit breakers.
In an analogous art, DeBoer teaches remote control and monitoring of electrical distribution switching/protection devices using a controller, communications, and a user interface (DeBoer {0013], [0015]–[0016], [0035]–[0038]), which is reasonably pertinent to remotely powering/controlling tower-mounted RRHs. DeBoer teaches a panel-mounted control system that includes a user interface device enabling a user to define operation of switching devices using the user interface (DeBoer [0013] (control system includes user interface device; controller commands switching devices), and [0015] (touch screen UI example). Thus, the combination teaches (or renders obvious) a base-side control module with a user interface receiving a user on/off command and transmitting a control/command signal to implement that command. Furthermore, DeBoer specifically teaches a remote-operated circuit breaker system in which the circuit breaker “contains a motor for actuating the switch unit” and operates “in response to a signal received from a control unit separate from the circuit breaker” (DeBoer [0008]). DeBoer further describes the control unit being hard-wired over a control bus and separately applying/removing operating current to the circuit breaker motor to open/close the breaker (DeBoer [0009]). Therefore, DeBoer teaches “circuit breakers” suitable for being commanded to open/close, and Chamberlain teaches placement of per-load interrupters between the distribution/breakout and the RRHs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Chamberlain’s remotely-controlled RRH power switches using circuit breakers as taught by DeBoer because Chamberlain already addresses the need to remotely interrupt power to individual RRHs from a remote/base location (Chamberlain [0042], [0048]), and DeBoer teaches a known, predictable remotely commanded solution—motor-actuated circuit breakers controlled by a separate controller (DeBoer [0008]–[0009])—that performs the same fundamental function (remote open/close of a power path) while also providing the well-known breaker advantages (protective trip capability and standardized branch protection hardware). The substitution is a predictable variation using known equivalents to achieve the expected result of remotely switching power to a designated RRH.
Regarding claim 18, Chamberlain in view of DeBoer teaches the system of claim 17, further comprising: communication links between the BPU and each of the first TPU and the second TPU, wherein the communication links are implemented using a serial communications system (Chamberlain teaches communication links between the base unit and each tower-top unit for transmitting commands to control power delivery/switching for remote loads. DeBoer expressly teaches implementing controller-to-device links using a serial communications system, including a serial interface line/trace and master–slave communications over the serial line for command/status messaging (DeBoer [0040], [0049]–[0051]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to implement Chamberlain’s base-to-top communication links using DeBoer’s serial communications system to provide a known, straightforward communication medium for transmitting commands and receiving status between a controller and multiple remote power switching/protection modules.).
Regarding claim 19, Chamberlain in view of DeBoer teaches the system of claim 18, wherein the serial communications system comprises RS-485 (DeBoer expressly teaches that the controller includes an RS-485 interface circuit (i.e., RS-485 serial communications) (DeBoer [0038]). It would have been obvious to implement those serial links using RS-485 as taught by DeBoer because RS-485 is a known, robust serial physical layer suitable for controller-to-remote-module communications (e.g., multi-drop capability, noise immunity, and longer cable runs), providing a straightforward implementation choice for the serial communications system without changing the underlying command/status exchange architecture.).
Regarding claim 22, Chamberlain in view of DeBoer teaches the system of claim 17, wherein the first set of circuit breakers are in series with a first set of relay switches, and the second set of circuit breakers are in series with a second set of relay switches (Chamberlain teaches powering multiple remote radio heads (RRHs) via a trunk cable and using remotely-controlled switches interposed between the trunk cable and the respective RRHs to selectively connect/disconnect power, and expressly contemplates implementing the switches as electromechanical relays (Chamberlain [0012], [0041]–[0044], [0021], [0066]–[0069]). DeBoer teaches a branch power distribution arrangement in which a circuit breaker supplies a downstream remote operated device (e.g., a relay) that includes a relay contact for selectively connecting the breaker’s load-side path through to the load—i.e., the breaker and relay are arranged in series in the branch circuit power path (DeBoer [0032]–[0034], [0044]). It would have been obvious to implement Chamberlain’s per-RRH relay switching using DeBoer’s known breaker-plus-relay series branch arrangement to obtain the claimed configuration in which the first set of circuit breakers are in series with a first set of relay switches and the second set of circuit breakers are in series with a second set of relay switches, because this is a known way to provide remotely controlled load switching downstream of breaker protection while retaining the same overall power-delivery architecture and functionality.).
Regarding claim 23, Chamberlain discloses a system for powering a plurality of remote radio heads (RRHs) (Chamberlain is directed to delivering DC power from a base-located power supply to a plurality of remote radio heads mounted at the top of a tower (Chamberlain abstract, [0005]–[0006], [0041]-[0044], [0047]-[0057])), the system comprising:
a power cable comprising a plurality of DC circuits (Chamberlain discloses a trunk power cable for delivering DC power to multiple RRHs and explains that conventional trunk power cable may include a plurality of pairs of insulated power supply conductors and insulated return conductors, each pair supplying power to a respective RRH (Chamberlain [0006], [0047]-[0057]).);
a base protection unit (BPU) located at a base location and coupled to one end of the power cable (Chamberlain teaches a base equipment enclosure at the base of the tower housing a power supply (and a controller), with the trunk power cable routed from the base enclosure up the tower (Chamberlain fig. 3; [0005] and [0049]–[0050]).), the BPU comprising:
a base communication module configured to transmit a command signal to implement a command to turn on or off a designated RRH of the plurality of RRHs (Chamberlain teaches a switch controller located remotely from the RRHs/switches that communicates with and sends control signals to the respective per-RRH switches to selectively cause a particular RRH’s power path to pass or block power (i.e., to turn on/off a designated RRH). Chamberlain [0048] (controller sends control signals to switches), and [0042] (power to any individual RRH can be cut off from remote location such as base of tower)); and
a top protection unit (TPU) located proximate to the plurality of RRHs and coupled between a second end of the power cable and the plurality of RRHs to power the plurality of RRHs (Chamberlain teaches a breakout enclosure at/near the top of the tower close to the RRHs, where the trunk cable terminates and is connected out to RRHs via breakout cords/jumper cables (Chamberlain [0006], [0013], and [0042]).), the TPU comprising:
a power distribution circuit connecting individual ones of the plurality of DC circuits to groups of the plurality of RRHs (Chamberlain teaches that within the breakout enclosure electrical connections distribute the trunk conductors to a plurality of connectors/pigtails/jumper cables feeding the RRHs (Chamberlain [0042], [0047]-[0051], and [0059]–[0060]). That corresponds to the claimed power distribution function (distribution from the incoming DC supply/return to multiple RRH feeds, including distribution to sets/groups via multiple connectors/jumpers).);
a set of switches in series with respective relay switches, the set of switches coupled to the power distribution circuit, and the respective relay switches coupled between the set of switches and the plurality RRHs (Chamberlain teaches remotely-controlled power supply switches interposed between trunk cable distribution and each RRH; and explicitly notes switches may be electromechanical relays (Chamberlain figs. 3-6, [0012], [0021], [0066]–[0069]).); and
a top communication module to receive the command signal from the base communication module and in response, the TPU switches on or off a particular one of the respective relay switches to turn-off/on the corresponding RRH (Chamberlain teaches a switch controller communicates control signals to the power supply switches (including at/beside the breakout enclosure near RRHs), and the switch responds by passing/blocking power to the associated RRH. (Chamberlain [0047]–[0048], [0053]–[0057], [0066]–[0069]).).
However, Chamberlain does not expressly disclose the base communication module comprising a user interface configured to receive a user command; and wherein the switches are circuit breakers.
In an analogous art, DeBoer teaches remote control and monitoring of electrical distribution switching/protection devices using a controller, communications, and a user interface (DeBoer {0013], [0015]–[0016], [0035]–[0038]), which is reasonably pertinent to remotely powering/controlling tower-mounted RRHs. DeBoer teaches a panel-mounted control system that includes a user interface device enabling a user to define operation of switching devices using the user interface (DeBoer [0013] (control system includes user interface device; controller commands switching devices), and [0015] (touch screen UI example). Thus, the combination teaches (or renders obvious) a base-side control module with a user interface receiving a user on/off command and transmitting a control/command signal to implement that command. Furthermore, DeBoer specifically teaches a remote-operated circuit breaker system in which the circuit breaker “contains a motor for actuating the switch unit” and operates “in response to a signal received from a control unit separate from the circuit breaker” (DeBoer [0008]). DeBoer further describes the control unit being hard-wired over a control bus and separately applying/removing operating current to the circuit breaker motor to open/close the breaker (DeBoer [0009]). DeBoer teaches a branch circuit arrangement in which a circuit breaker supplies a downstream remote operated device (relay) having a relay contact that selectively connects the breaker load-side path to the load, i.e., the breaker and relay are in series in the power path (DeBoer [0030]–[0034], [0044]). Therefore, DeBoer teaches “circuit breakers” suitable for being commanded to open/close, and Chamberlain teaches placement of per-load interrupters between the distribution/breakout and the RRHs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Chamberlain’s remotely-controlled RRH power switches using circuit breakers as taught by DeBoer because Chamberlain already addresses the need to remotely interrupt power to individual RRHs from a remote/base location (Chamberlain [0042], [0048]), and DeBoer teaches a known, predictable remotely commanded solution—motor-actuated circuit breakers controlled by a separate controller (DeBoer [0008]–[0009])—that performs the same fundamental function (remote open/close of a power path) while also providing the well-known breaker advantages (protective trip capability and standardized branch protection hardware). The substitution is a predictable variation using known equivalents to achieve the expected result of remotely switching power to a designated RRH.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chamberlain (US 2017/0094718 A1) in view of DeBoer (US 2008/0077280 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Harwath (US 2014/0027153 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Chamberlain in view of DeBoer teaches the system of claim 2, but does not expressly disclose wherein the −48 DC volt cable and a return cable between the BPU and the TPU comprise aluminum conductors.
In an analogous art, Harwath explicitly teaches that cost and weight efficient aluminum power cables are known, and discusses aluminum conductors in the context of power cables (including considerations like cross-sectional area for equivalent current capacity). See Harwath [0003], [0020], and [0029]-[0031].
Therefore, it would have been to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Chamberlain’s (as modified by DeBoer) RRH power/return conductors (between the base-side equipment/power source and the tower-top equipment feeding the RRHs) using aluminum conductors, as taught by Harwath, to reduce cable weight and cost while still delivering the required DC power. This is a predictable substitution of one known conductor material (aluminum) for another (copper) in a known RRH power-cabling environment to obtain known advantages (weight/cost), with no change to the fundamental operation of the RRH power delivery system.
Claim(s) 6, 9, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chamberlain (US 2017/0094718 A1) in view of DeBoer (US 2008/0077280 A1) as applied to claim 5, 7, or 12 above, and further in view of Lu (US 2013/0261821 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Chamberlain in view of DeBoer teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the user interface comprises a display device to receive the user command from the operator locally (DeBoer teaches a controller mounted to the panel that includes a user interface device, including an integrated touch screen / LCD used by the user for configuration and control. See DeBoer [0013] (control system includes user interface device enabling user to define operation of switching devices), [0015] (touch screen display), and [0035]–[0036] (system controller operatively connected to touch screen/LCD; provides user interface application). Accordingly, the combination of Chamberlain in view of DeBoer teaches or renders obvious the limitation that the BPU receives the user command either locally at the controller/panel.), but does not expressly disclose at least one of a network management protocol and an embedded webpage provided by a webpage server for receiving the user command from the operator remotely over the network.
In an analogous art, Lu teaches a power distribution / switching controller that “hosts a web server…[and] allows device configuration” by users (i.e., a web-based interface suitable for remote command entry). See Lu [0226].
Therefore, it would have been to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chamberlain’s (as modified by DeBoer) panel/controller system (which already includes electronic control and networking capability) to additionally provide a web-server-hosted embedded webpage as taught by Lu, to allow operators to issue the same control commands remotely over a network, improving accessibility/maintainability and enabling remote operation/management without requiring local presence at the panel.
Regarding claim 9, Chamberlain in view of DeBoer teaches the power supply system of claim 7, wherein the BPU receives the user command through entries made into the display device by the operator (DeBoer teaches a controller providing a user interface including an integrated touch screen and LCD/display, used by the user to enter configuration/control information and to obtain status information (DeBoer [0013], [0015], [0035], [0038], [0052]–[0057]). Thus, DeBoer teaches receiving user inputs (i.e., “user command”) via entries made into a display device (touchscreen/display UI). Accordingly, the combination of Chamberlain in view of DeBoer teaches or renders obvious the limitation that the BPU receives the user command either locally through the display UI (touch entries).), but does not expressly disclose entered through a network management protocol or an embedded webpage.
In an analogous art, Lu teaches a power distribution / switching controller that “hosts a web server…[and] allows device configuration” by users (i.e., a web-based interface suitable for remote command entry). See Lu [0226].
Therefore, it would have been to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chamberlain’s (as modified by DeBoer) panel/controller system (which already includes electronic control and networking capability) to additionally provide a web-server-hosted embedded webpage as taught by Lu, to allow operators to issue the same control commands remotely over a network, improving accessibility/maintainability and enabling remote operation/management without requiring local presence at the panel.
Regarding claim 13, Chamberlain in view of DeBoer teaches the power supply system of claim 12, wherein the command signal from the BPU includes a user command made through entries into the display device or through a network management protocol (DeBoer teaches a controller providing a user interface including an integrated touch screen and LCD/display, used by the user to enter configuration/control information and to obtain status information (DeBoer [0013], [0015], [0035], [0038], [0052]–[0057]). Thus, DeBoer teaches receiving user inputs (i.e., “user command”) via entries made into a display device (touchscreen/display UI). Accordingly, the combination of Chamberlain in view of DeBoer teaches or renders obvious the limitation that the BPU receives the user command either locally through the display UI (touch entries).), but does not expressly disclose an embedded webpage by an operator.
In an analogous art, Lu teaches a power distribution / switching controller that “hosts a web server…[and] allows device configuration” by users (i.e., a web-based interface suitable for remote command entry). See Lu [0226].
Therefore, it would have been to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chamberlain’s (as modified by DeBoer) panel/controller system (which already includes electronic control and networking capability) to additionally provide a web-server-hosted embedded webpage as taught by Lu, to allow operators to issue the same control commands remotely over a network, improving accessibility/maintainability and enabling remote operation/management without requiring local presence at the panel.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chamberlain (US 2017/0094718 A1) in view of DeBoer (US 2008/0077280 A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Hamilton (US 6,392,993 B1)
Regarding claim 14, Chamberlain in view of DeBoer teaches the power supply system of claim 12, but does not expressly disclose wherein validating the command signal comprises inspecting a data packet comprising the command signal by verifying start bytes, verifying packet length, and verifying a checksum. Specifically, DeBoer teaches that the remote operated device includes a communications handler that “runs communications protocol over the serial line” and includes decoding command (along with send status / send report), i.e., the receiving device necessarily inspects/decodes the received command message prior to acting on it (DeBoer [0049]), which corresponds to inspecting/validating a command packet.
In an analogous art, Hamilton further teaches implementing command communications as packetized messages with defined packet fields used to interpret/validate received packets. Specifically, Hamilton teaches that packets are transmitted using User Datagram Protocol (UDP) and are “encapsulated within UDP packets” (Hamilton col 3 ln 19-33, col 10 ln 33 — col 11 ln 40), and further teaches a packet format including a packet type field that “contains a coded identifier that identifies the particular packet type” (Hamilton col 10 ln 33 — col 11 ln 40) and representative packet-type encodings (Hamilton col 10 ln 33 — col 11 ln 40), which corresponds to verifying start bytes/start-of-packet identifiers prior to processing. Hamilton also expressly teaches a data length field that identifies the length of the data field so that a recipient can extract the data (Hamilton col 12 ln 6-15), which corresponds to verifying packet length. Additionally, because Hamilton’s packets are expressly UDP-encapsulated (Hamilton col 3 ln 19-33, col 10 ln 33 — col 11 ln 40), receipt/acceptance of the UDP datagram inherently includes transport-layer checksum error checking as part of the standard UDP/IP receive path; thus, validating the command packet includes verifying a checksum (at least the UDP checksum) before the receiver accepts/decodes the command.
Therefore, it would have been to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the “validating” step for received command packets communicated between the BPU and the TPU as taught by Chamberlain (as modified by DeBoer) using Hamilton’s packetized UDP communications such that validation includes verifying a packet identifier/start bytes, verifying packet length via a length field, and verifying checksum integrity, as a predictable and routine way to improve robustness of remote command/control messaging without changing the underlying switching/power distribution operation (DeBoer [0049]; Hamilton col 3 ln 19-33, col 10 ln 33 — col 11 ln 40, col 12 ln 6-15).
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chamberlain (US 2017/0094718 A1) in view of DeBoer (US 2008/0077280 A1) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Claus (US 2008/0115146 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Chamberlain in view of DeBoer teaches the system of claim 17, but does not expressly disclose wherein messages, including command signals, between the BPU and each of the first TPU and the second TPU, are transmitted using a data packet of 6-10 bytes.
In an analogous art, Claus teaches transmitting command/status messaging between modules over a serial communications protocol (including RS-232 or RS-485 serial cables) using packets constructed as 8-bit bytes. (Claus [0026], [0034].) Claus further teaches an explicit packet format “consisting of” byte fields including a start indication (STX), a message identifier (MsgID), an optional service identifier (ServiceID), a class identifier (ClassID), optional data, a checksum (ChkSum), and a checksum complement (~ChkSum) (Claus [0013], [0034]–[0036]). Claus expressly teaches the data field may have a length of zero bytes (data optional) (Claus [0036]). Accordingly, Claus teaches a minimum explicit command packet including STX, MsgID, ServiceID, ClassID, ChkSum, and ~ChkSum, which totals 6 bytes, and further teaches packets with small data payloads (e.g., 1–4 data bytes) yielding 7–10 bytes (Claus [0034]–[0036]).
Therefore, it would have been to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the command-signal messaging between the base unit and the top units taught by Chamberlain (as modified by DeBoer) using Claus’s bandwidth-efficient serial packet protocol such that the command signals are conveyed in compact packets within the recited 6–10 byte range, thereby reducing overhead while preserving reliable bidirectional command/status exchange (Claus [0005]–[0007], [0013], [0026], [0034]–[0036]).
Regarding claim 21, Chamberlain in view of DeBoer and Claus teaches the system of claim 20, wherein the data packet comprises: a preamble field, a data packet length field, a TPU addressing field, a command field, a response field, and a checksum field (Claus expressly teaches a serial, bandwidth-efficient packet protocol in which packets include a start indication (e.g., STX) that marks the start of a frame (i.e., preamble) (Claus [0034]–[0035]); an optional length associated with the data (i.e., packet length field/length information) (Claus Abstract; [0036]); identifiers such as MsgID/ServiceID/ClassID that specify what the receiver is to do and what object the data pertains to (i.e., command and an addressing/selection identifier) (Claus [0035]–[0036]); explicit response/acknowledgement messaging including ACK/NAK and returned data (i.e., response field) (Claus [0037], [0042]–[0044]); and a checksum and complement used to validate packets (i.e., checksum field) (Claus [0034]–[0037], [0050]). Accordingly, in the Chamberlain (as modified by DeBoer) system where command/response packets are exchanged between a base unit and multiple top units, it would have been obvious to format those messages using Claus’s taught packet fields (start/preamble, length info, addressing/selection identifier, command identifier, response indicator/data, checksum) to provide a structured, validated serial command/response packet between the BPU and each TPU.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAJSHEED O BLACK-CHILDRESS whose telephone number is (571)270-7838. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 10am to 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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at (571) 272-3114. 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.
/RAJSHEED O BLACK-CHILDRESS/Examiner, Art Unit 2685