The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/6/2025 has been entered. Upon entering amendment, claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14-16 have been amended, claims 5, 11, 13, have been canceled, and claims 22-24 have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-4, 6, 8-10, 12, 14-24 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/28/2026 with respect to independent claim 15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Willets’ statement in par [18] “does not disclose a container, enclosure, or housing that contains a primary power source and multiple electrical loads, nor does it describe any physical boundary defining what components are inside or outside of such a container. A data center is a facility or environment, not a disclosed enclosure that holds specific components together in the manner required by claim 15.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the “container” in claim 15 is not defined in the claim. Further Applicant’s pg-pub disclosure in par [12] states “the container 108 may include one or more doors…the electrical loads 106 may be disposed in the container 108…” That is, Examiner’s broadest reasonable interpretation of “container” being an enclosed space used to hold items and, more particularly, Willets’ data center building/facility (shown in fig.1 as an” enclosure”) in pars [6 and 18] comprising multiple loads (i.e., the telecommunication equipment and the cooling system) would read on claim 15’s “a container comprising…multiple electrical loads”. Moreover, applicant’s argument about “the manner required in claim 15” is directed to unclaimed subject matter as there is no “manner required” in claim 15. The claim broadly refers to known components in the art (i.e., primary power source, secondary power source, and multiple loads) with some being comprised by a container, while the second power source is external. This is merely discussing locations of the components (what’s inside/outside). While the examiner did not rely on Willets for the teachings of the locations of the primary power source and the secondary power source, the examiner notes that in Willets’ fig.1, the general idea of a secondary power source (120) being located external to the container/enclosure/building facility 112 is clearly illustrated.
Furthermore, with respect to Jain, the applicant argues that “general statements in Jain that portions of a system may be located inside or outside a container do not teach or suggest the specific structural relationship recited in amended in claim 15. The Examiner’s reasoning that one of ordinary skill in the art ‘would have realized’ to place the primary power source inside a container and the secondary power source outside the container is based on hindsight and impermissible reconstruction using Applicant’s disclosure as a blueprint.” (Remarks, pg.17). In response to Applicant’s argument that the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in any sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. In re Mclaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392; 170 USPQ 209. In this particular case, Jain teaches it is known for the “container” 118 to comprise primary power source 102(1) and provides the motivation in pars [10-11, 13] to have components including a secondary source 114(1) to be located outside of the container keeping in mind that Willets already generally shows a secondary source (120) located outside of the container. The suggestion by Jain that data center components can be inside or outside is sufficient enough to address the limitations about the locations of the power sources. The examiner further notes that the physical location of electrical components is an obvious modification because it does not affect how they function. That is, the secondary power source being external or internal to the container would still retain its functionality of providing power to the load. The same rationale applies to the primary power source and the loads. Therefore, in the combination, Willets teaches that the container read on by the data center building/facility comprises multiple loads and shows in fig.1 that it is generally known for a location of a secondary power source (120) to be external to the container. Jain teaches it is known to have the “container” 118 to comprise primary power source 102(1), multiple loads (110), and provides the motivation in pars [10-11, 13] to have components including a secondary source 114(1) to be located outside of the container. Thus, the combination teaches the limitations of “a container comprising a primary power source and multiple electrical loads”, “wherein the secondary power source is external to the container”. The physical placements/locations of known components in the art are neither novel nor inventive.
Applicant further argues with respect to the amended language that “Willets does not disclose activating a primary power source or primary electrical system responsive to threshold being satisfied.” (Remarks, pgs.19-20, bridging paragraph). Willets teaches detecting that a measurement satisfies a threshold (pars [23, 24, 27, 28], i.e., responsive to the air temperature being below a threshold and the primary power source being available), connect the primary power source. Lathrop (2008/0258557), fig.1, pars [22, 23, 26, 27, 39] teaches that once the primary power source (utility) becomes reliable/acceptable again, the controller 190 closes breaker (101) to initiate routing of power from the primary power source. This reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation of “activate” the primary power source in light of applicant’s disclosure (par [0031]; “activation of the primary electrical system… by causing, via an activation signal, closing of the circuit breaker 110”). Therefore, in the combination, when Willets’ sensor determines that the air temperature satisfies a threshold by being within predetermined limits and determines the availability of the primary source, it would include: A) closing the Lathrop breaker 101 to “activate” the primary source; and B) toggling Willets’ switch 210 to connect the primary power source to the load.
The applicant argues that “there is no teaching in Willets of a coordinated transition from second power operation of a conditioning load to multi-load operation of a primary power source.” (Remarks, pg.20) The examiner respectfully disagrees. Willets in pars [4-5 and 28] clearly states that “A telecommunication site utilizes a primary AC power source for powering the telecommunications equipment as well as serving as the primary power source for the cooling system.” Moth, fig.7, illustrates Willets’ multi-load operation (310, 311) of a primary power source (302). Therefore, when Willets’ system transitions back to the primary power source, it transitions back to a multi-load operation of the primary source powering the telecommunications equipment as well as the cooling system.
The Applicant is encouraged to further distinguish the claims over the prior art to expedite prosecution.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10, 21, 24 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites in line 2 of the claim “a switching module to a plurality of power sources…” The claim should recite “a switching module connected to a plurality of power source…” Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1 and 10 each recite in the last paragraph “determining the second measurement satisfying the first threshold…” It appears that this should instead “determining the third measurement”, because the second measurement is tied to the emergency threshold, and not the first threshold.
Claim 10 recites in the preamble “…from a plurality of power source to a plurality of electrical loads…” The claim should recite “… a plurality of power sources…” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites on pg.6 in the “detecting” paragraph, “…to the plurality of electrical load…” It should be “loads”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 recites “…the container further comprises the multiple electrical loads…” This is already recited in claim 15. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 24 recites “…and a light-emitting component configure to transmit…” It should be “configured” to. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 15-17, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willets et al. (2007/0132317 A1) in view of Lathrop et al. (2008/0258557 A1) in further view of Jain (2014/0054965 A1) in further view of Moth (2011/0187197 A1).
Regarding Claim 15,
Willets (figs.2-3) teaches an electrical system, comprising:
a container (pars [6, 18]; enclosed area, e.g., an entire facility/data center building, a room, or group of rooms, which includes multiple loads. Examiner note: the broadest reasonable interpretation of “container” is an enclosed spaced used to hold items. The claim does not define the container and does not further limit it in any manner) comprising multiple electrical loads (pars [6, 18]; telecommunications equipment, cooling system, etc.);
multiple power sources (200, 212) including a primary power source (AC power source from 212) and a secondary power source (200);
a switching system, comprising:
a sensor (par [23], “temperature sensor”) configured to measure an environmental condition relating to the container (par [23]; configured to measure the air temperature proximate the telecommunications equipment, which is “relating” to the container); and
a controller (not shown, pars [23-24, 26]; Willets teaches performing determination steps including whether or not the air temperature exceeds predetermined threshold- this indicates that a “controller” obviously exists, because it compares air temperature to a threshold and makes a corresponding determination), coupled to the sensor (pars [23-24, 26]; the temperature sensor measures air temperature and the not shown controller makes the determination whether the air temperature exceeds predetermined limits- this makes the controller and the sensor coupled noting that a sensor measures parameters, but cannot make determinations. Examiner Note: for Applicant’s reference, Baldassarre (2010/0019574), fig.2, par [93]; shows controller 114 is communicatively coupled to temperature sensor 230), configured to:
cause connection of the secondary power source (200) to a load (208), of the multiple electrical loads (figs.2-3, pars [23-26]; steps 308, 310, 312, 314; responsive to the air temperature exceeding predetermined limits, switch 210 connects the secondary source 200 to cooling system load 208), that is configured to provide conditioning of the environmental condition (figs.2-3, pars [23-26], step 314; the cooling system provides conditioning of the environmental condition), wherein the secondary power source is configured to exclusively power the load (pars [13, 19, 22]; Willets teaches the secondary source 200 is dedicated and it serves no purpose other than for providing power to the load 208);
monitor, after causing connection of the secondary power source (200) to the load (208), measurements taken by the sensor (pars [23-26] and related discussion, after connection of the secondary source to the load 208 in steps 312, 314, monitor measurements taken by the sensor in steps 316, 300);
detect that a measurement, of the measurements taken by the sensor, satisfies a
threshold (figs.2-3, pars [12, 23-24, 26-28]; steps 316, 318, 300, 302; when the temperature measurement does not exceed the limits and primary source is available);
cause, responsive to the measurement satisfying the threshold, connection of the primary power source to the load (pars [12, 19, 23-26], steps 316, 318, 300, 302, 303; responsive to the temperature not exceeding the limits and primary power source being available, connect the primary source via 210 to the load 208).
Willets does not explicitly disclose activate, responsive to the measurement satisfying the threshold, the primary power source; and that connecting the primary power source to the load is responsive to activating the primary power source.
Lathrop (fig.1), however, teaches it is known in the art to activate the primary power source (201) when it becomes reliable/acceptable after being unacceptable (pars [22-23, 26-27, 39]; controller 190 closes breaker 101 when the primary power source becomes acceptable again- this reads on the BRI of to “activate” the primary power source in light of applicant’s disclosure, par [0031]- “…cause activation of the primary electrical system… e.g., by causing, via an activation signal, closing of the circuit breaker 110).
In the combination, responsive to when Willets system detects that the measurement satisfies a threshold (i.e., the air temperature is within predetermined limits and the primary source is available), Willets system would be modified to include: A) first closing the Lathrop breaker 101 to “activate” the primary power source; and B) then, responsive to activating the primary power source, cause/toggle the switch 210 in Willets to connect the primary source to the load.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Willets to that of Lathrop. The motivation would have been for added protection against too great a flow of current and for service disconnect capability (Lathrop, par [24]) as is well-known and well-desired in the art.
It is generally suggested by Willets’ fig.1 that a secondary power source (120) may be external to the container (112). However, the combination does not explicitly disclose the container comprising the primary AC power source and the secondary power source is external to the container.
Jain (fig.1), however, teaches it is known in the art to have the container (118) comprising the primary power source (for e.g., 102(1), pars [10-11, 13]; container 118 comprising “AC mains power source” 102(1)) and the obviousness to have the secondary power source (for e.g., 114(1) or 106) external to the container (118, pars [10-11]; Jain teaches part of the power system 100 may be located outside the container 118-“whereas part of the system 100 may be located outside of the container 118”- Thus, Jain teaches the obviousness of having the secondary power source, which is part of 100, external to the container 118).
Thus, in the combination, the container comprises the primary AC power source and the secondary source is external to the container. See also Willets’ Fig.1 that supports the secondary power source (120) being external to the container (112).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination to that of Jain. The motivation would have been the obvious placement of components/parts noting that Jain gives the motivation for one skilled in the art to arrange where the primary AC power source and the secondary power source are with respect to the container in par [10] by stating that part of the system that includes the primary power source 102(1) may be located inside the container and other parts may be located outside the container. The physical location of electrical components is an obvious modification because it does not affect how they function. A physical boundary that has no impact/effect on electrical components. In light of the prior art, one skilled in the art would have then realized that the placement of the primary source inside the container and the secondary power source be external to it would have been obvious and well-within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
The combination, particularly Willets teaches the multiple electrical loads (see Willets, par [19]; the cooling system 208 and the telecommunications equipment, such as a server, that require cooling) and suggests that the primary power source can be connected to one or more additional loads (see pars [4-5, 28]; “A telecommunications site utilizes a primary AC power source for powering the telecommunications equipment as well as serving as the primary power source for the cooling system.”) Willets, however, does not explicitly illustrate the connection of the primary power source to one or more additional loads (i.e., the telecommunications equipment/server) of the multiple electrical loads.
Moth (fig.7), however, similarly teaches multiple power sources (302, 330) and multiple electrical loads (servers 310 and cooling 311). Moth further illustrates the connection of the primary source (302) to the load (311 Note: the cooling load is the same as Willets’ cooling system load) and one or more additional loads (servers 310, pars [108-109] of the multiple electrical loads). Further, Moth illustrates the controller that would be required to control switches (par [117] and related discussion) and interact with the sensor in Willets.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combined the teachings of modified Willets to that of Moth. The motivation would have been to fill in the gaps in Willets, namely that the servers/telecommunications equipment (additional load) generating heat would obviously be connected to the primary power source along with the cooling system load as suggested by Willets and as well-known and well-understood in the art.
Regarding Claim 16,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 15 and further teaches wherein the switching system further comprises a switching module, coupled to the controller (Willets, figs.2-3, pars [19, 23-26, 28] and Moth, fig.7, pars [108-109, 117]), configured to electrically connect the multiple power source to the multiple electrical loads (Willets, figs.2-3, pars [19, 23-26, 28] and Moth, fig.7, pars [108-109, 117]; Willets teaches switch 210 electrically connects the primary power source to multiple loads. Willets teaches switch 210 connects the secondary source 200 to load 208. Moth fig.7 illustrates the switch connecting the primary power source 302 to multiple loads 310, 311).
Regarding Claim 17,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 15 and further teaches wherein the multiple power sources further include an emergency-use power source (Willets, par [22] and Moth, fig.7, UPS 312; Willets teaches the multiple power sources further include an emergency-use power source in the battery and Moth teaches the obviousness of further having emergency-use power source read on by UPS 312).
Regarding Claim 21,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 15 and further teaches wherein the container further comprises the multiple electrical loads (Willets, pars [6 and 18]; the container comprises the multiple electrical loads of the telecommunication equipment and the cooling system load) and the switching system (Willets, pars [23-26] and Jain, par [15]; Willets teaches the container comprises the temperature sensor of the switching system as the temperature is measuring the air temperature proximate to the multiple electrical loads within the container. This means that the controller of the switching system coupled to the temperature sensor is obviously also within the container. This is further supported by Jain’s container 118 comprising the controller for the transfer switch that is also within the container).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willets et al. (2007/0132317 A1) in view of Lathrop et al. (2008/0258557 A1) in further view of Jain (2014/0054965 A1) in further view of Moth (2011/0187197 A1) as applied to claim 17 and in further view of Hermans (2021/0099011 A1).
Regarding Claim 18,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 17.
The combination does not explicitly disclose the one or more additional loads include an emergency-use load, and wherein the controller is further configured: detect an interruption of the primary power source to the emergency-use load; and cause, responsive to the interruption of the primary power source, connection of the emergency-use power source to the emergency-use load.
Hermans (fig.4), however, teaches the one or more additional loads further include an emergency-use load (17) and the controller (31, 61) is further configured to detect an interruption of the primary power source to the emergency-use load (17, par [38]) and cause, responsive to the interruption of the primary power source, connection (via switching module 39, 46, 53) of the emergency use-power (13) to the emergency-use load (17, pars [38, 40-41]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination to that of Hermans. The motivation would have been to account for emergency situations by providing emergency power to emergency loads (for e.g., lighting) in the event of a failure in the power supply from the primary power source in said emergency situations.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willets et al. (2007/0132317 A1) in view of Lathrop et al. (2008/0258557 A1) in further view of Jain (2014/0054965 A1) in further view of Moth (2011/0187197 A1) as applied to claim 15 and in further view of Freer et al. (2017/0089763 A1).
Regarding Claim 19,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 15 and the combination further teaches an electrical panel in the container that is electrically connected to the multiple loads (Jain, fig.1, par [20]; breaker panels in container 118 connected to loads). The combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensor is configured to measure the environmental condition at an electrical panel.
Freer, however, teaches it is known in the art for the sensor (par [35]; 150, ambient temperature sensor) to be configured to measure the environmental condition at an electrical panel (200, par [35]) that is electrically connected to the multiple electrical loads (see for e.g., fig.9, breaker panels are connected to loads).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination to that of Freer. The motivation would have been the obvious placement of the temperature sensor in the combination of references, for e.g. at the electrical panel, to determine the temperature of the environment in which the electrical panel is employed.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willets et al. (2007/0132317 A1) in view of Lathrop et al. (2008/0258557 A1) in further view of Jain (2014/0054965 A1) in further view of Moth (2011/0187197 A1) as applied to claim 15 and in further view of Pu et al. (2022/0385102 A1).
Regarding Claim 20,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 15 and Willets further teaches wherein the load that is configured to provide conditioning of the environmental condition is an air conditioner (Willets, cooling system 208 includes at least air conditioner 220).
Willets’ air conditioner would obviously include a compressor. However, the combination does not explicitly disclose a compressor.
Pu, however, teaches the air conditioner includes a compressor (pars [84, 206, 220] and related discussion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of the combination to that of Pu. The motivation would have been to fill in the gaps in Willets and further illustrate that air conditioner(s) would obviously have a compressor as is well-understood in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-10, 12, 14, 22-24 allowed (subject to correction of the claim objections above).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to independent claim 1, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, does not explicitly disclose “compare a first measurement, of the measurements, to a dataset defining one or more operable ranges for the one or more environmental conditions, wherein each of the one or more operable ranges corresponds to a different environmental condition of the one or more environmental conditions; determine, based on the comparison, the first measurement fails to satisfy a first threshold associated with a first operable range of the one or more operable ranges; cause, via the switching module and responsive to determining that the first measurement failing measurement fails to satisfy the first threshold, connection of the second power source to the plurality of electrical loads, wherein the plurality of electrical loads includes a first electrical load is configured to provide conditioning of a first environmental condition of the one or more environmental conditions; detect, responsive to causing the connection of the second power source to the plurality of electrical loads, that a second measurement, of the measurements, fails to satisfy an emergency threshold associated with an emergency environmental condition of the one or more environmental conditions; cause, via the switching module and responsive to detecting the second measurement fails to satisfy the emergency threshold, connection of the third power source to a second electrical load of the plurality of electrical loads, wherein the third power source is configured to exclusively power the second electrical load; determine, responsive to causing connection of third power source to the second electrical load, a third measurement, of the measurements, satisfying the first threshold; and cause, via the switching module and responsive to determining the third measurement satisfying the first threshold, connection of the first power source to the first electrical load and the second electrical load.” The aforementioned limitations in combination with the rest of the limitations in claim 1 renders the claim non-obvious over the prior art of record.
Independent claim 10 recites similar limitations to those in independent claim 1 and is therefore indicated as allowable for similar reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASEM MOURAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7770. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571)272-7492. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/RASEM MOURAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
/REXFORD N BARNIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836