Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated Irons (US 20210389810)
With respect to claims 1, 3 Irons teaches a power distribution system, comprising: a tap-off box (see module 30) attachable to a busway (69), wherein the busway is configured to provide a three-phase input power supply (paragraph 0055), wherein the TOB configured for resolving (see Fig. 3 for example) the three-phase input power supply into 3N single-phase output circuits (see six single phase N=2 or Fig. 12, 16 where 902 supplies nine rack PDUs), where N is a positive integer (for example 2 or 3), the TOB comprising a plurality of overcurrent protector (OCP) devices (see breakers 906 further see 120), and wherein each of the 3N single-phase output circuits is connected to an OCP device (see breaker associated with each tab paragraph 85), each OCP device associated with an amperage level (16A paragraph 0088); a rack power distribution unit (rPDU) mountable (see Fig. 12-16 see PDU 950 and PDUs 952) in a server cabinet (paragraph 0099), the rPDU comprising a linear array (see linear arrangement in Fig. 13) of 3N output power sockets corresponding to the 3N single-phase output circuits; and a set of 3N conductors corresponding to the 3N single-phase output circuits (see Fig. 12 see nine branch circuits connected to nine taps), the set of 3N conductors connected to the TOB by at least one TOB connecting device (see 902) and to the rPDU by at least one rack connecting device (see PDU 952 and power inlet 954).
With respect to claim 2 Irons teaches the linear array of 3N output power sockets is a vertical stack (see vertical arrangement in Fig. 13).
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.
Claims 4-5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irons (US 20210389810) in view of Braunstien et al. (US 20080291607).
With respect to claim 4 Irons teaches the known use of a breaker and associated with an amperage however does not teach the combination of first and second OCP devices. Braunstien teaches the know use of a set of first OCP devices associated with a first amperage level (15A) and; and at least one set of second OCP devices associated with a second amperage level (20A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Irons to try the known use of different OCP amperage levels to appropriately protect different load types.
With respect to claim 5 Braunstien further teaches a third subset of the 3N output power sockets (see Drawing 7 Fig. 1-3), each set of mixed OCP devices comprising: at least one initial OCP device associated with the first amperage level; and at least one additional OCP device associated with the at least one second amperage level (see plural sets of 15A and 20A breakers grouped near each other). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Irons to try the known use of additional third set with 15A and 20A breakers for the predictable result of appropriately protecting different load types.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irons (US 20210389810) in view of Braunstien et al. (US 20080291607)
With respect to claim 6 Irons teaches the rack connecting device however does not teach details connector engagement. Braunstien teaches the connectors corresponding with different amperage levels wherein the rPDU comprises a plurality of rack-side connectors, wherein each conductor terminal of the rack connecting device is capable of engaging with a rack-side connector of the rPDU to supply operating power through the conductor to the rPDU via the rack connecting device; and wherein at least one of the plurality of conductor terminals or the plurality of rack-side connectors are configured to indicate the plurality of conductors as one of: first conductors corresponding to the set of first OCP devices and to the first amperage level. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Irons to include the known use of an engaging conductors and amperage level as seen in Braunstien for the predictable result of ensuring the correct devices are connected with the correct power connection.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irons (US 20210389810) in view of Braunstien et al. (US 20080291607) in view of McKibben (US 20150031247)
With respect to claims 7-8 Irons as modified above teaches the conductors however does not detail the engagement and compatibility of the connectors. McKibben teaches (see plural keying connectors for preventing incompatible connection paragraph 0059-60, 66) the know use of wherein conductors are incompatible with the plurality of rack-side connectors associated with the second conductors or the mixed conductors; the plurality of conductor terminals associated with the second conductors are incompatible with the plurality of rack-side connectors associated with the first conductors or the mixed conductors; and the plurality of conductor terminals associated with the mixed conductors are incompatible with the plurality of rack-side connectors associated with the first conductors or the second conductors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify Irons to include the use of a keying connectors for the benefit of increased safety (paragraph 0061).
Claims 9-10, 13-14, 16, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irons (US 20210389810) in view of Cardoso et al. (US 7,819,676)
With respect to claims 9-10 and 18 Irons teaches the power distribution system however does not teach monitoring and communication portal. Cardoso teaches a monitoring system (col. 12 lines 48-51, further see display paragraph 0056-58) configured for determining power data (col. 8 lines 56-65, current and voltage) associated with the input power supply; a communications portal (col. 3 lines 1-3, col. 4 line 20, col. 8 line 20-40) configured for at least one of 1) providing to a user power data associated with the input power supply or 2) receiving control input from the user. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Irons to include the known use of monitoring and communications arrangement for the benefit of remote monitoring and verifying safe operations.
With respect to claim 13-14 Irons teaches the power distribution system is associated with monitored single-phase output power circuit of the 3N single-phase output power circuits. Cardoso teaches the known use of monitoring of power data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Irons to apply the power data as seen in Cardoso for the predictable result of remote monitoring.
With respect to claim 16 Irons teaches the power distribution system however does not teach the monitoring system further includes at least one of a temperature sensor or a humidity sensor. Cardoso teaches the use of at least one of a temperature sensor (58) or a humidity sensor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Irons to apply the monitoring of temperature for the benefit of increased safety.
Claims 11-12, 15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irons (US 20210389810) in view of Cardoso et al. (US 7,819,676) in view of Ewing (US 20140218008)
With respect to claim 11 and 15 Irons teaches the power distribution system, however, does not teach an instantaneous power level of the input power supply; or a cumulative power level of the input power supply. Ewing teaches a cumulative power level of the input power supply (paragraph 008-9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Irons to include the use of monitoring a cumulative power level for the benefit of ensuring safe power levels and tracking power consumption for management and billing.
With respect to claim 12 Irons teaches the power distribution system, however, does not teach input power supply includes a power factor. Ewing input power supply includes a power factor (paragraph 0009). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Irons to include the know use of a monitoring power factor for the benefit of tracking and comparing efficiency of input power.
With respect to claim 17 Irons teaches the power distribution system, however, does not teach a relay operatively coupled to the monitoring system; and wherein the monitoring system is configured for at least one of activating or deactivating each output power socket via the at least one relay. Ewing teaches a relay (paragraph 0056) operatively coupled to the monitoring system; and wherein the monitoring system is configured for at least one of activating or deactivating each output power socket via the at least one relay. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Irons to include a relay to allow for outlet management or power cycle connected devices.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irons (US 20210389810) in view of Riner (US 20080102673)
With respect to claim, 19 Irons teaches the conductors however does not teach meshed conductors. Riner teaches the known use of a meshed conductor comprising a subset of the plurality of conductors disposed within a meshed sleeve (see paragraph 0031). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Irons to include the known use of a mesh for the benefit of protecting the conductors.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irons (US 20210389810) in view of Martins (US 20100084921)
With respect to claim 20 Irons teaches the use of three phase power however does not teach the use of a three-phase delta power supply and a three-phase Wye power supply. Martins teaches the known use of a three-phase delta power supply (paragraph 0021). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Irons to include the know use of a three-phase connection for the predictable result of accommodating the available service.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Fin whose telephone number is (571)272-5921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30.
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 571-272-7429. 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.
MICHAEL FIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2836
/MICHAEL R. FIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
