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 Objections
Claims 1, 12, 16 objected to because of the following informalities:
Re claims 1, 12, 16 (and potentially other claims), the claims should be amended to make consistent reference to “the one or more UPSs”. As drafted, the claims make inconsistent reference to “the UPSs” at times and should be corrected. It is also generally advised that Applicant review all claims to make sure that alternative limitations with respect to there being one or more UPS are clear and do not create any confusion or inconsistency (for example, if the communication channel is meant to always communicatively couple the one or more UPSs with each other and also with the catcher system, it should not be recited in the alternative). If Applicant’s preferred system has multiple UPSs in addition to the catcher UPS, then it may also be simpler to require a plurality of UPSs to begin with if desired.
Re claim 12, the claim should be amended to remove inappropriate use of “a/the”, consistently refer to elements already introduced (note there is no reason to refer to a “respective catcher system” since there is only one, and it is suggested Applicant may have intended to refer to “a respective one of the one or more UPSs and the catcher system”), and also ensure that excessive use of alternative limitations is avoided. Given that the common communication channel appears to be required in all instances in claim 12, it is recommended the claim be redrafted to first recite “wherein the power supply system comprises a common communication channel”, and then subsequently the claim may clearly recite the alternative arrangements/functions of the common communication channel.
Re claim 16, the claim should be amended to provide basic structure of the “catcher system”. An examination of the term’s normal usage appears to suggest that while the term “Catcher UPS” or similar UPS systems is known and established, the term “catcher system” by itself is not standard and may potentially be unclear in scope. Applicant’s disclosure also appears to specifically show a UPS arrangement for the catcher system. The claim should be amended to recite the basic structure, such as “providing a catcher system comprising a catcher UPS;” and any other structures or functions intended to be required. The basic structure at minimum should be provided to avoid potential clarity issues.
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) 1, 3-6, 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colombi (US2019/0393720) in view of Navarro (US2014/0097680).
Re claim 1. Colombi teaches a power supply system (see Colombi: Figs. 3-4; Note Colombi: [0026] appears to have a typographical error, and is understood as intending to state that components of architecture 300 are substantially similar to components of architecture 100 unless otherwise indicated), comprising:
one or more uninterruptible power supplies (UPSs) (UPSs <102>, see Colombi: [0026-0027], Figs. 3-4);
a catcher system comprising a catcher UPS (catcher UPS <112>, see Colombi: [0027], Fig. 3);
one or more communication channels (first communications channel <302>, see Colombi: [0027], [0042-0043], Figs. 3-4 regarding communication channels between each UPS and with catcher UPS), each communicatively coupling at least one of the UPSs with another one of the UPSs and/or with the catcher system; and
one or more loads (respective load <104> corresponding to Nth UPS, see Colombi: [0013], [0026], Fig. 3), each associated with at least one of the UPSs;
wherein each of the one or more UPSs is a multiport uninterruptible power supply (UPS) (note the term appears to be only a name, but see Colombi: Fig. 3 regarding UPS <102> having multiple ports generally)
wherein, in the first mode, power is supplied from a grid (utility connected to UPS input, see Colombi: [0018]) via a converter (power processing unit <206> of respective UPS, see Colombi: [0018], [0024], Table 1, Fig. 3 regarding UPS switch <210> switched to inverter path, STS <106> switched to corresponding UPS <102>) of the UPS,
wherein, in the second mode, power is supplied from the catcher system
wherein, in the third mode, power is supplied from the grid via the UPS bypassing the converter of the UPS (see Colombi: [0017-0018], [0024], Table 1, Fig. 3 regarding bypass path <204> connected to same utility voltage as rectifier-inverter path, and UPS switch <210> switched to bypass path, STS <106> switched to corresponding UPS <102>). See Colombi: [0012-0018], [0024-0031], [0035-0044], Figs. 3-4.
Colombi depicts and labels the corresponding STS <106> as being outside of corresponding UPS <102> (see Colombi: Fig. 3), and thus does not explicitly disclose the UPS comprising the entire multiport transfer switch (note the designation of what is and is not considered part of the “UPS” is somewhat arbitrary without further structural limitation in the claim under broadest reasonable interpretation as previously discussed), and wherein each of the one or more UPSs is configured such that power from the catcher system is exclusively supplied to the one or more loads via one or more of the UPSs. One of ordinary skill, however, would generally find it obvious to combine the separate STS associated with each UPS of Colombi into a single integral apparatus/UPS since it has been held that making integral what the prior art has disclosed as separate components would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice (see MPEP: 2144.04, V, B). One of ordinary skill would appreciate that merely incorporating the STS and UPS into a single structure/housing with corresponding ports as needed would not alter the general circuit arrangement and function of the components aside from making the connections internal to a single UPS structure. Navarro, additionally, teaches that it is known in the art of UPS power systems that it is known and desirable for a UPS to comprise/incorporate associated transfer switch components (see Navarro: [0018], [0021-0022], Figs. 1-2 regarding arrangement of Fig. 2 which incorporates transfer switches internally to the UPS providing benefit of providing a unitary, discrete assembly configured as a single unit with switches respectively being under control of the UPSs control circuit). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Navarro generally provides suggestion and motivation to incorporate associated external components such as transfer switches to be part of the UPS structure/enclosure and thus able to be internally controlled by associated UPS controller. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Colombi to incorporate the suggestions of Navarro by having each of Colombi’s UPSs <102> incorporate its respective STS <106> for purposes of providing a unitary apparatus grouping the components together for user’s convenience and predictably providing the same electrical circuit functions. Note the combination would suggest that the switches may be controlled by corresponding one or more controllers of the UPS (see Navarro: [0021]; i.e. external communication channel <304> is unnecessary/internal to the UPS). Note the combination would thereby suggest that in the second mode, power is supplied from the catcher system via the UPS because the UPS comprises the multiport transfer switch, and therefore also teaches wherein each of the one or more UPSs is configured such that power from the catcher system is exclusively supplied to the one or more loads via one or more of the UPSs (see Colombi: [0015-0016], Figs. 3-4 regarding catcher UPSs <112> only supply power to loads via connection through respective STSs <106> of each UPS <102>; see discussion above regarding UPSs <102> incorporating respective STSs <106>, and thus power is exclusively supplied to load via respective UPS incorporating the respective STS).
Re claim 3. Colombi in view of Navarro teaches the power supply system of claim 1, wherein each of the one or more UPSs is configured such that no static transfer switch (STS) for switching between the first mode and the second mode or between the third mode and the second mode is provided between a respective UPS and the one or more loads associated with the respective UPS (see Colombi: [0016-0018], [0024], Figs. 3-4 and discussion of claim 1 above regarding combination having UPSs <102> incorporating respective STSs <106>, such that there is no additional external STSs between each UPS and its load).
Re claim 4. Colombi in view of Navarro teaches the power supply system of claim 1, wherein the multiport transfer switch comprises one or more transistors and/or one or more thyristors (see Colombi: [0018], Figs. 3-4 regarding UPS switches <210> and STSs <106> comprising thyristor switches; note also a static transfer switch/STS inherently uses semiconductor components as well).
Re claim 5. Colombi in view of Navarro teaches the power supply system of claim 1, wherein the multiport transfer switch of each of the one or more UPSs is controlled by a single controller or by multiple independent controllers (see Navarro: [0021], Fig. 2, Colombi: [0031], Fig. 3, and discussion of claim 1 above regarding combination having one or more controllers in the UPS for controlling switches).
Re claim 6. Colombi in view of Navarro teaches the power supply system of claim 1, wherein the multiport transfer switch comprises a plurality of switches, wherein the plurality of switches is controlled by multiple independent controllers (see Navarro: [0021], Fig. 2, Colombi: [0016-0018], [0024], [0031], Fig. 3, and discussion of claim 1 above regarding combination having each UPS having respective switches <210>, <106> able to independently switch and forming the multiport transfer switch, and providing one or more controllers in the UPS for controlling/driving switches; it is inherent or implied that each of switches <210>, <106> requires its own respective switch driving/control circuitry, i.e. multiple independent controllers, to enable the different switching configurations of the three modes).
Re claim 12. Colombi in view of Navarro teaches the power supply system of claim 1, wherein the UPSs are communicatively coupled to each other via a common communication channel (communication channel <302>, see Colombi: [0027-0028], [0042-0043], Figs. 3-4 regarding UPSs communicatively coupled together via communication channel <302>), and/or wherein each of the one or more UPSs is communicatively coupled to the catcher system via a/the common communication channel so as to provide a redundant communication between a UPS and a respective catcher system (see Colombi: [0027-0028], [0042-0043], Figs. 3-4 regarding UPSs communicatively coupled to catcher UPS via communication channel <302> via redundant ISMs <402>), and/or wherein the common communication channel is configured for exchanging information comprising at least one of loading of each of the one or more UPSs, status, and synchronization phase angle (see Colombi: [0035-0040], Figs. 3-4 regarding UPSs exchanging loading/capacity information, component failure statuses, and synchronization information).
Re claim 13. Colombi in view of Navarro teaches the power supply system of claim 1, wherein the one or more UPSs comprise a plurality of UPSs (UPSs <102>, see Colombi: Figs. 3-4) and the power supply system is configured to communicatively couple via the one or more communication channels the plurality of UPSs among each other and with the catcher system so as to allow for the plurality of UPSs to coordinate such that, in case multiple UPSs of the plurality of UPSs fail and the catcher system cannot compensate for all failed UPSs, one or more of the failed UPS are switched to the third mode (see Colombi: [0027-0028], [0035], [0039], Figs. 3-4 regarding UPSs and catcher UPSs communicatively coupled such that they are capable of communicating and coordinating if catcher UPS is fully loaded such that other UPSs switch to bypass paths/third mode).
Re claim 14. Colombi in view of Navarro teaches the power supply system of claim 1, wherein the power supply system is configured to automatically switch between the first mode, the second mode, and the third mode so as to optimize overall system efficiency irrespectively of whether a UPS of the one or more UPSs has failed (see Colombi: [0027-0028], [0036-0038], Figs. 3-4 regarding UPSs and catcher UPSs communicatively coupled such that they are capable of communicating and coordinating the modes of the UPSs to continue operating even if some UPS components fail).
Re claim 15. Colombi in view of Navarro teaches the power supply system of claim 1, wherein the power supply system is configured to supply power to equipment of a data center, and wherein the loads are pieces of equipment of the data center (see Colombi: [0003] regarding UPS power supply system applicable to datacomm/telecom centers and corresponding loads; see also similarly Navarro: [0002]).
Re claim 16. Colombi in view of Navarro (see discussion of claim 1 above regarding details of combination) teaches a method for operating a power supply system (see Colombi: Figs. 3-4; Note Colombi: [0026] appears to have a typographical error, and is understood as intending to state that components of architecture 300 are substantially similar to components of architecture 100 unless otherwise indicated), comprising:
providing one or more uninterruptible power supplies (UPSs) (UPSs <102>, see Colombi: [0026-0027], Figs. 3-4);
providing a catcher system (catcher UPS <112>, see Colombi: [0027], Fig. 3);
providing one or more communication channels (first communications channel <302>, see Colombi: [0027], [0042-0043], Figs. 3-4 regarding communication channels between each UPS and with catcher UPS), each communicatively coupling at least one of the UPSs with another one of the UPSs and/or with the catcher system; and
providing one or more loads (respective load <104> corresponding to Nth UPS, see Colombi: [0013], [0026], Fig. 3), each associated with at least one of the UPSs;
wherein each of the one or more UPSs is a multiport uninterruptible power supply (UPS) (note the term appears to be only a name, but see Colombi: Fig. 3 regarding UPS <102> having multiple ports generally) comprising a multiport transfer switch (respective UPS switch <210> and STS <106> associated with each UPS, see Colombi: [0016], [0018], [0026], [0029], Fig. 3; see Navarro: [0018], [0021-0022], Figs. 1-2 and discussion of claim 1 above regarding obviousness of each UPS incorporating its respective STS into a single unit; note the multiport transfer switch comprising multiple connected switches is consistent with Applicant’s disclosed embodiments) operable to selectively switch between at least a first mode, a second mode, and a third mode of the UPS supplying power to the one or more loads associated with the UPS (see Colombi: [0024], Table 1, Fig. 3 regarding switch state combinations possible);
wherein, in the first mode, power is supplied from a grid (utility connected to UPS input, see Colombi: [0018]) via a converter (power processing unit <206> of respective UPS, see Colombi: [0018], [0024], Table 1, Fig. 3 regarding UPS switch <210> switched to inverter path, STS <106> switched to corresponding UPS <102>) of the UPS,
wherein, in the second mode, power is supplied from the catcher system via the UPS (see Colombi: [0016], [0024], Table 1, Fig. 3 regarding STS <106> switched to catcher UPS <112>; note the combination has UPS incorporating the STS and thus power is supplied via the UPS overall); and
wherein, in the third mode, power is supplied from the grid via the UPS bypassing the converter of the UPS (see Colombi: [0017-0018], [0024], Table 1, Fig. 3 regarding bypass path <204> connected to same utility voltage as rectifier-inverter path, and UPS switch <210> switched to bypass path, STS <106> switched to corresponding UPS <102>);
automatically detecting that at least one of the one or more UPSs has failed (see Colombi: [0036-0038], Figs. 3-4 regarding detecting one or more UPSs have failed components);
in response thereto, the one or more UPSs and the catcher system communicating so as to coordinate in which of the first mode, second mode, and third mode the one or more UPSs should operate (see Colombi: [0035-0040], Figs. 3-4 regarding communicating to coordinate which switch configuration each UPS should use based on the failure and status of other UPSs/catcher UPS in the system); and
each of the one or more UPSs controlling, using a respective controller (see Colombi: [0029-0031], Figs. 3-4, Navarro: [0021], and discussion of claim 1 above regarding each UPS having respective one or more controllers to control its respective switches/components), the respective multiport transfer switch of each of the one or more UPSs so as to switch to a determined mode unless the UPS is already operating in the determined mode (see Colombi: [0035-0040], Figs. 3-4 regarding each UPS controlling its switch configuration based on the failure and status of other UPSs/catcher UPS in the system to desired configuration). See Colombi: [0012-0018], [0024-0031], [0035-0044], Figs. 3-4; Navarro: [0018], [0021-0022], Figs. 1-2; and discussion of claim 1 above regarding similar limitations and details of combination.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colombi in view of Navarro, further in view of Krueger (US2020/0293101).
Re claims 7-8. Colombi in view of Navarro teaches the power supply system of claim 1, wherein the one or more loads comprise a single corded load having exactly one power supply terminal that is connected to one or more of the UPSs directly; wherein each power supply terminal is connected to an output of the multiport transfer switch of each of the one or more UPSs to which the power supply terminal is connected (see Colombi: [0016-0018], Figs. 3-4 and discussion of claim 1 above regarding combination having UPSs <102> incorporate respective STSs <106>, such that respectively single corded loads <104> having one power supply terminal are connected to output of multiport transfer switch <210,106> directly). Colombi in view of Navarro does not explicitly teach arrangement using PDUs and single corded loads, although one of ordinary skill in the art of backup power supplies for information technology equipment would recognize that such components and arrangement are generally well-known. Krueger, for example, teaches that it is known in the art of backup power supply systems for data centers for the load to specifically be arranged as a single corded load having exactly one power supply terminal that is connected to one or more of the UPSs directly via a power distribution unit (PDU) (see Krueger: [0028], Fig. 3A regarding loads being supplied by UPSs and/or STSs being single corded loads directly connected via PDU). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Colombi in view of Navarro to incorporate the teachings of Krueger by having the respective loads of Colombi implemented as PDU and single-corded load as recited for purposes of providing known power distribution arrangement for datacenter loads predictably allowing power to be distributed to loads at desired voltages via voltage transformation and distribution lines of PDU, and depending on desired amount of power paths/cords for the load (see Krueger: [0028], Fig. 3A). Note the combination results in the single corded load directly connected to the UPSs via PDU since the UPSs <102> incorporate the respective STSs <106> as discussed regarding claim 1.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colombi in view of Navarro, further in view of CN112542830A (specific reference is made to attached English machine translation), hereinafter CN830.
Re claims 9-11. Colombi in view of Navarro teaches the power supply system of claim 1, wherein the one or more loads comprise a power supply terminal that is connected to at least one of the one or more UPSs directly; wherein each power supply terminal is connected to an output of the multiport transfer switch of each of the one or more UPSs to which the power supply terminal is connected; wherein the one or more loads comprise at least a first load and a second load (see Colombi: [0016-0018], Figs. 3-4 and discussion of claim 1 above regarding combination having UPSs <102> incorporate respective STSs <106>, such that respectively multiple loads <104> are connected to output of multiport transfer switch <210,106> directly). Colombi in view of Navarro does not explicitly teach arrangement using PDUs and dual corded loads, although one of ordinary skill in the art of backup power supplies for information technology equipment would recognize that such components and arrangement are generally well-known. CN830, however, teaches that it is known in the art of backup power supply systems for IT equipment using a dedicated redundant/catcher UPS, wherein the one or more loads comprise a dual corded load having exactly two power supply terminals, each connected to at least one of the one or more UPSs directly via a power distribution unit (PDU); wherein each power supply terminal is connected to an output of the multiport transfer switch of each of the one or more UPSs to which the power supply terminal is connected; wherein the one or more loads comprise at least a first load and a second load, wherein the first load and the second load are dual corded loads (see CN830: [8-9], [36], Fig. 2 regarding known prior art arrangement with redundant UPS R, and dual corded loads connected directly via pair of PDUs to respective UPS and STSs switching connection between respective UPS and redundant UPS R). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Colombi in view of Navarro to incorporate the teachings of CN830 by having the respective loads of Colombi implemented as PDUs and dual corded loads as recited for purposes of providing known power distribution arrangement for datacenter loads predictably allowing power to be distributed to dual corded IT loads at desired voltages via standard distribution equipment of PDUs, and to accommodate dual supply line loads having two power inputs (see CN830: [8-9], [36], Fig. 2). Note the combination results in the dual corded loads directly connected to respective UPSs via pair of PDUs since the UPSs <102> incorporate the respective STSs <106> as discussed regarding claim 1. Note also the combination would reasonably suggest to those of ordinary skill that the UPSs may incorporate multiple STSs as shown in CN830: Fig. 2 if adapted for the dual corded load system for the same reasons discussed regarding claim 1 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding amendments to address previous Objections, see Objections above regarding issues that have still not been addressed.
Regarding remarks concerning previous rejection under 35 USC 102 in view of Colombi, Applicant is generally advised that the reasoning of the previous rejection, while not currently maintained for purposes of final rejection, would still potentially be applicable to the independent claims as drafted under broadest reasonable interpretation by the reasoning previously stated.
Regarding arguments against rejection of claim 1 in view of Colombi and Navarro, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive. Applicant appears to only discuss the disclosure of Colombi, which depicts separate UPS and STS for supplying respective load, without actually addressing the full reasoning of the previously applied rejection under 35 USC 103 in view of Navarro together with the obviousness reasoning of integrating parts.
Applicant appears to argue that combining the STSs into the UPS is not an arbitrary design choice, and generally lists Applicant’s disclosed benefits/improvements of such arrangement. However, merely stating recognized additional advantages alone is insufficient to rebut the obviousness reasoning, and Applicant does not appear to provide any further arguments as to how the recited modification would otherwise present an unexpected result or critical feature beyond what was explained as an obvious integration (see MPEP: 2144.04, V, B; and MPEP: 2145). Applicant does not appear to provide any specific reason as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious to integrate the respective UPS and STS together in the manner previously discussed.
Furthermore, the previous rejection in view of Colombi and Navarro did provide further explicit teachings and suggestion from Navarro, which presented an explicit example and discussion of benefits of combining static switches into a UPS for purposes of creating a unitary assembly. The previous prior art rejection explicitly and clearly discussed how one of ordinary skill would apply the teachings of Navarro to the circuit of Colombi to arrive at the recited limitations. Applicant appears to provide no discussion of the specific details and reasoning of the previous rejection, and makes no discussion at all of the teachings of Navarro that were applied and provided further prior-art-based motivation. Applicant’s arguments therefore do not sufficiently address or overcome the previously applied rejection.
Similar reasoning applies to independent claim 16, and Applicant appears to provide no further arguments particular to claim 16 or the other dependent claims.
In summary, it is recommended Applicant consider the cited prior art of record which appears to suggest the catcher UPS with switches enabling each load to be switched between UPS converter path, bypass path, and catcher UPS supply is known in the art, with corresponding communication and coordination control taught by Colombi. Additionally, prior art such as Navarro as well as numerous other examples demonstrate it is known for UPSs to be able to integrate further components such as the STS switches changing between catcher UPS and UPS output, and one of ordinary skill would generally consider mere integration of components into a single unit an obvious engineering choice in light of the prior art. At present, it is therefore not apparent what features of the disclosure would be considered distinguished and nonobvious over the prior art. Applicant is generally advised that claim language is given broadest reasonable interpretation, such that Applicant should ensure sufficient structure/function is recited to avoid unintended broad interpretation (e.g. the boundaries of what is considered a “UPS” may not be particularly limiting without specifying housing/ports/integrated function/etc., as is exemplified in the alternative rejection under 35 USC 102).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A SHIAO whose telephone number is (571)270-7265. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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.
/DAVID A SHIAO/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
/REXFORD N BARNIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights