DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Objections
1. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
1.1. The claim-element/limitation relative to “a second UPS system” (line 11) of claim 1 should be consistent and written as “the second UPS system” in order to improve consistency and clarity of the claim language because this claim-element/limitation already has antecedent basis in claim-1 in line 7.
2. Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
2.1. The claim-element/limitation relative to “a second UPS system” (line 18) of claim 7 should be consistent and written as “the second UPS system” in order to improve consistency and clarity of the claim language because this claim-element/limitation already has antecedent basis in claim-7 in line 14.
3. Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
3.1. The claim-element/limitation relative to “a second UPS system” (line 4 of page 26) of claim 15 should be consistent and written as “the second UPS system” in order to improve consistency and clarity of the claim language because this claim-element/limitation already has antecedent basis in claim-15 in line 30 of page 25.
4. Appropriate correction is required. The examiner appreciates the assistance of the Applicant(s).
Examiner’s Note
5. All the words in the language of the claims of which the specifications do not provide a definition in the form stated in the MPEP, the examiner has interpreted them by their plain meanings, pursuant to the MPEP 2111.01 “Plain Meaning” and MPEP 2173.01.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 8 and 15-17 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Johnson, JR. (Pub. No.: US 2010/0008397 hereinafter mentioned “Johnson”).
As per claim 1, Johnson discloses:
A non-transitory computer readable media having instruction encoded thereon which, when executed by a control system of an uninterruptible power supply (UPS) test system, cause the UPS test system (See MPEP 2111.02, Effect of Preamble, and II. Preamble Statements Reciting Purpose or Intended Use. However, see abstract) to:
deliver power from an output (Fig. 4, see the output conductor 417. Also see [0031]) of a first UPS system (Fig. 4, see the first UPS 410. Also see [0031]) to an inlet of a second UPS system (Fig. 4, see the input/inlet of second UPS 430 connected in parallel to the output node 402. Also see [0030]-[0031]);
receive power from an outlet of the second UPS system at an inlet of the first UPS system to an inlet of a second UPS system (Fig. 4, the second UPS 430 outputs/provides a synthetic power load via implicit outlet to the implicit inlet of the first UPS 410 connected in parallel to the output node 402. Also see [0031]); and
maintain a magnitude of the power delivered from the output of the first UPS system to the inlet of a second UPS system at a desired level (Fig. 4, the UPS controller circuit 416 controls the power that is outputted by the first UPS 410 via output node 402 that goes to the second UPS 430, thus, maintaining the power at desire-appropriate level. Also see [0030] and [0022]).
As per claim 2, Johnson discloses the computer readable media of claim 1 as described above.
Johnson further discloses:
wherein the instructions further cause the control system to maintain the magnitude of the power delivered from the output of the first UPS system to the inlet of the second UPS system (Fig. 4, the UPS controller circuit 416 controls the power outputted by the first UPS 410 via output node 402 that goes to the second UPS 430, thus, maintaining the power at desire-appropriate level. Also see [0030] and [0022]) by drawing power from an external source (Fig. 4, see the AC Source 10. Also see [0030]) into one of the inlet of the first UPS system or the inlet of the second UPS system (see [0030]).
As per claim 7, Johnson discloses:
A method (See MPEP 2111.02, Effect of Preamble, and II. Preamble Statements Reciting Purpose or Intended Use. However, see abstract) comprising:
delivering power from an output (Fig. 4, see the output conductor 417. Also see [0031]) of a first UPS system (Fig. 4, see the first UPS 410. Also see [0031]) to an inlet of a second UPS system (Fig. 4, see the input/inlet of second UPS 430 connected in parallel to the output node 402. Also see [0030]-[0031]);
receiving power from an outlet of the second UPS system at an inlet of the first UPS system (Fig. 4, the second UPS 430 outputs/provides a synthetic power load via implicit outlet to the implicit inlet of the first UPS 410 connected in parallel to the output node 402. Also see [0031]); and
maintaining a magnitude of the power delivered from the output of the first UPS system to the inlet of a second UPS system at a desired level (Fig. 4, the UPS controller circuit 416 controls the power that is outputted by the first UPS 410 via output node 402 that goes to the second UPS 430, thus, maintaining the power at desire-appropriate level. Also see [0030] and [0022]).
As per claim 8, Johnson discloses the method of claim 7 as described above.
Johnson further discloses:
wherein maintaining the magnitude of the power delivered from the output of the first UPS system to the inlet of the second UPS system (Fig. 4, the UPS controller circuit 416 controls the power outputted by the first UPS 410 via output node 402 that goes to the second UPS 430, thus, maintaining the power at desire-appropriate level. Also see [0030] and [0022]) includes drawing power from an external source (Fig. 4, see the AC Source 10. Also see [0030]) into one of the inlet of the first UPS system or the inlet of the second UPS system (see [0030]).
As per claim 15, Johnson discloses:
A UPS test system (See MPEP 2111.02, Effect of Preamble, and II. Preamble Statements Reciting Purpose or Intended Use. However, see abstract) comprising:
a first uninterruptible power supply UPS system (Fig. 4, see the first UPS 410. Also see [0031]); and
a second UPS system (Fig. 4, see the second UPS 430 connected in parallel to the output node 402. Also see [0030]-[0031]); and
a controller (Fig. 4, see the UPS controller circuit 416 that controls the power that is outputted by the first UPS 410 via output node 402 that goes to the second UPS 430, thus, maintaining the power at desire-appropriate level. Also see [0030] and [0022]) configured to cause the UPS test system (Fig. 4, see the apparatus 1. Also see [0020], abstract and claim-10) to perform a method comprising:
delivering power from an output (Fig. 4, see the output conductor 417. Also see [0031]) of the first uninterruptible power supply UPS system (Fig. 4, see the first UPS 410. Also see [0031]) to an inlet of the second UPS system (Fig. 4, see the input/inlet of second UPS 430 connected in parallel to the output node 402. Also see [0030]-[0031]);
receiving power from an outlet of the second UPS system at an inlet of the first UPS system (Fig. 4, the second UPS 430 outputs/provides a synthetic power load via implicit outlet to the implicit inlet of the first UPS 410 connected in parallel to the output node 402. Also see [0031]); and
maintaining a magnitude of the power delivered from the output of the first UPS system to the inlet of a second UPS system at a desired level (Fig. 4, the UPS controller circuit 416 controls the power that is outputted by the first UPS 410 via output node 402 that goes to the second UPS 430, thus, maintaining the power at desire-appropriate level. Also see [0030] and [0022]).
As per claim 16, Johnson discloses the system of claim 15 as described above.
Johnson further discloses:
wherein the controller is further configured to maintain the magnitude of the power delivered from the output of the first UPS system to the inlet of the second UPS system (Fig. 4, the UPS controller circuit 416 controls the power outputted by the first UPS 410 via output node 402 that goes to the second UPS 430, thus, maintaining the power at desire-appropriate level. Also see [0030] and [0022]) by drawing power from an external source (Fig. 4, see the AC Source 10. Also see [0030]) into one of the inlet of the first UPS system or the inlet of the second UPS system (see [0030]).
As per claim 17, Johnson discloses the system of claim 15 as described above.
Johnson further discloses:
wherein the controller is further configured to maintain the magnitude of the power delivered from the output of the first UPS system to the inlet of the second UPS system (Fig. 4, the UPS controller circuit 416 controls the power that is outputted by the first UPS 410 via output node 402 that goes to the second UPS 430, thus, maintaining the power at desire-appropriate level. Also see [0030] and [0022]) by one of controlling operation of a generator (Fig. 4, see the AC Source 10. Also see [0030]) configured to deliver power to the inlet of the first UPS system (see [0030]) or by drawing utility power into the inlet of the first UPS system.
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 of this title, 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.
7. Claim(s) 3-6, 9-14 and 18-20 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Sebald et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0124682 hereinafter mentioned as “Sebald”).
As per claim 3, Johnson discloses the computer readable media of claim 1 as described above.
Johnson further discloses:
wherein the instructions further cause the control system to provide an alert signal (see [0026] and/or [0028]) responsive to detection of an operational parameter of a component of the first UPS system (see [0021]) while the first UPS system is maintaining the magnitude of the power delivered from the output of the first UPS system to the inlet of the second UPS system (Fig. 4, the UPS controller circuit 416 controls the power that is outputted by the first UPS 410 via output node 402 that goes to the second UPS 430, thus, maintaining the power at desire-appropriate level. Also see [0030] and [0022]).
Johnson discloses the alert signal responsive to detection of an operational parameter of a component of the first UPS system but does not explicitly disclose that said parameter being outside of a predefined specification.
However, Sebald further disclose:
wherein the instructions further cause the control system to provide an alert signal (see [0037], [0006] and abstract. The claimed “alert signal” is the indication transmission of the potential faulty of Sebald) responsive to detection of an operational parameter of a component of the first UPS system being outside of a predefined specification (see [0036]-[0037], [0042] and abstract. The claimed “outside of a predefined specification” is the measured test parameter being beyond the threshold value Sebald being beyond of the UPS or circuit/component).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to the parameter of Johnson being “outside of a predefined specification”, as it is disclosed by Sebald, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system, methods and measurements by and identifying and indicating that the UPS module is at potential fault (Sebald, Paragraphs [0037] and [0006]), while preventing a diagnostic run from rendering off-line the UPS system (Sebald, Paragraph [0004]).
Furthermore, Johnson states that “Although specific terms are employed, they are used in a generic and descriptive sense only and not for purposes of limitation” (Johnson, Paragraph [0033]).
Furthermore, Sebald states that “Although specific terms are employed, they are used in a generic and descriptive sense only and not for purposes of limitation” (Abrahamson, Paragraph [0056]).
As per claim 4, Johnson discloses the computer readable media of claim 1 as described above.
Johnson further discloses:
wherein the instructions further cause the control system to vary the magnitude of the power (Fig. 4, the UPS controller circuit 416 controls/vary the power (no-load or full-load) that is outputted by the first UPS 410 via output node 402 that goes to the second UPS 430, thus, maintaining the power at desire-appropriate level. Also see [0030] and [0022]) delivered from the output of the first UPS system to the inlet of the second UPS system (Fig. 4, the UPS controller circuit 416 controls the power that is outputted by the first UPS 410 via output node 402 that goes to the second UPS 430, thus, maintaining the power at desire-appropriate level. Also see [0030] and [0022]) and to cause the control system to provide an alert signal (see [0026] and/or [0028]).
Johnson discloses the control system to provide an alert signal as described above but does not explicitly disclose that it is provided responsive to a change in output voltage of the first UPS system being outside of a predefined specification responsive to a change in the magnitude of power supplied.
However, Sebald further disclose:
the control system to provide an alert signal (see [0037], [0006] and abstract. The claimed “alert signal” is the indication transmission of the potential faulty of Sebald) responsive to a change in output voltage of the first UPS system being outside of a predefined specification (see [0036]-[0037], [0042], [0044] and abstract. The claimed “outside of a predefined specification” is the measured test parameter being beyond the threshold value Sebald being beyond of the UPS or circuit/component) responsive to a change in the magnitude of power supplied by the first UPS system to the inlet of the second UPS system (see [0043] and [0046]. Any change exceeding/lesser with respect to the power threshold generates the alarm/faulty-indication).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to the alert signal of Johnson being “responsive to a change in output voltage of the first UPS system being outside of a predefined specification responsive to a change in the magnitude of power supplied”, as it is disclosed by Sebald, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system, methods and measurements by and identifying and indicating that the UPS module is at potential fault (Sebald, Paragraphs [0037] and [0006]), while preventing a diagnostic run from rendering off-line the UPS system (Sebald, Paragraph [0004]).
As per claim 5, Johnson discloses the computer readable media of claim 1 as described above but does not explicitly disclose:
Johnson discloses the first UPS system is maintaining the magnitude of the power delivered from the output of the first UPS system to the inlet of the second UPS system as described above but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the instructions further cause the control system to provide an alert signal responsive to failure of a component of the first UPS system.
However, Sebald further discloses:
wherein the instructions further cause the control system to provide an alert signal (see [0037], [0006] and abstract. The claimed “alert signal” is the indication transmission of the potential faulty of Sebald) responsive to failure of a component of the first UPS system (see [0036]-[0037]. The claimed “component” is the circuit of the UPS module of Sebald).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to “wherein the instructions further cause the control system to provide an alert signal responsive to failure of a component of the first UPS system”, as it is disclosed by Sebald into Johnson, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system, methods and measurements by and identifying and indicating that the UPS module is at potential fault (Sebald, Paragraphs [0037] and [0006]), while preventing a diagnostic run from rendering off-line the UPS system (Sebald, Paragraph [0004]).
As per claim 6, Johnson discloses the computer readable media of claim 1 as described above but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the instructions further cause the control system to provide an alert signal responsive to the first UPS system being unable to maintain the magnitude of the power delivered from the output of the first UPS system to the inlet of the second UPS system.
However, Sebald further discloses:
wherein the instructions further cause the control system to provide an alert signal (see [0037], [0006] and abstract. The claimed “alert signal” is the indication transmission of the potential faulty of Sebald) responsive to the first UPS system being unable to maintain the magnitude of the power delivered from the output of the first UPS system to the inlet of the second UPS system (see [0036]-[0037] and [0031]. When one of the UPS system 105-1 is faulty, it causes it to be unable to maintain the same power delivered to the other UPS system 105).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to “wherein the instructions further cause the control system to provide an alert signal responsive to the first UPS system being unable to maintain the magnitude of the power delivered from the output of the first UPS system to the inlet of the second UPS system”, as it is disclosed by Sebald into Johnson, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system, methods and measurements by and identifying and indicating that the UPS module is at potential fault (Sebald, Paragraphs [0037] and [0006]), while preventing a diagnostic run from rendering off-line the UPS system (Sebald, Paragraph [0004]).
As per claim 9, Johnson discloses the method of claim 7 as described above.
Johnson further discloses:
checking at least one operational parameter of at least one component of the first UPS system (see [0021]) while the first UPS system is maintaining the magnitude of the power delivered from the output of the first UPS system to the inlet of the second UPS system (Fig. 4, the UPS controller circuit 416 controls the power that is outputted by the first UPS 410 via output node 402 that goes to the second UPS 430, thus, maintaining the power at desire-appropriate level. Also see [0030] and [0022]) and
providing an alert signal (see [0026] and/or [0028]) responsive to detection of the at least one operational parameter of the at least one component of the first UPS system (see [0021]) while the first UPS system is maintaining the magnitude of the power delivered from the output of the first UPS system to the inlet of the second UPS system (Fig. 4, the UPS controller circuit 416 controls the power that is outputted by the first UPS 410 via output node 402 that goes to the second UPS 430, thus, maintaining the power at desire-appropriate level. Also see [0030] and [0022]).
Johnson discloses the alert signal responsive to detection of an operational parameter of a component of the first UPS system but does not explicitly disclose that said parameter being outside of a predefined specification.
However, Sebald further disclose:
checking at least one operational parameter of at least one component of the first UPS system (see [0042] and/or [0044]) while the first UPS system is maintaining the magnitude of the power delivered from the output of the first UPS system to the inlet of the second UPS system (see [0034]) and
providing an alert signal (see [0037], [0006] and abstract. The claimed “alert signal” is the indication transmission of the potential faulty of Sebald) responsive to detection of the at least one operational parameter of the at least one component of the first UPS system being outside of a predefined specification (see [0036]-[0037], [0042] and abstract. The claimed “outside of a predefined specification” is the measured test parameter being beyond the threshold value Sebald being beyond of the UPS or circuit/component).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to the parameter of Johnson being “outside of a predefined specification”, as it is disclosed by Sebald, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system, methods and measurements by and identifying and indicating that the UPS module is at potential fault (Sebald, Paragraphs [0037] and [0006]), while preventing a diagnostic run from rendering off-line the UPS system (Sebald, Paragraph [0004]).
As per claim 10, Johnson discloses the method of claim 7 as described above but does not explicitly disclose:
Johnson further discloses:
varying the magnitude of the power (Fig. 4, the UPS controller circuit 416 controls/vary the power (no-load or full-load) that is outputted by the first UPS 410 via output node 402 that goes to the second UPS 430, thus, maintaining the power at desire-appropriate level. Also see [0030] and [0022]) delivered from the output of the first UPS system to the inlet of the second UPS system (Fig. 4, the UPS controller circuit 416 controls the power that is outputted by the first UPS 410 via output node 402 that goes to the second UPS 430, thus, maintaining the power at desire-appropriate level. Also see [0030] and [0022]) and providing an alert signal (see [0026] and/or [0028]).
Johnson discloses the control system to provide an alert signal as described above but does not explicitly disclose that it is provided responsive to a change in output voltage of the first UPS system being outside of a predefined specification responsive to a change in the magnitude of power supplied.
However, Sebald further disclose:
providing an alert signal (see [0037], [0006] and abstract. The claimed “alert signal” is the indication transmission of the potential faulty of Sebald) responsive to a change in output voltage of the first UPS system being outside of a predefined specification (see [0036]-[0037], [0042], [0044] and abstract. The claimed “outside of a predefined specification” is the measured test parameter being beyond the threshold value Sebald being beyond of the UPS or circuit/component) responsive to a change in the magnitude of power supplied by the first UPS system to the inlet of the second UPS system (see [0043] and [0046]. Any change exceeding/lesser with respect to the power threshold generates the alarm/faulty-indication).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to the alert signal of Johnson being “responsive to a change in output voltage of the first UPS system being outside of a predefined specification responsive to a change in the magnitude of power supplied”, as it is disclosed by Sebald, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system, methods and measurements by and identifying and indicating that the UPS module is at potential fault (Sebald, Paragraphs [0037] and [0006]), while preventing a diagnostic run from rendering off-line the UPS system (Sebald, Paragraph [0004]).
As per claim 11, Johnson discloses the method of claim 7 as described above but does not explicitly disclose:
Johnson discloses the first UPS system is maintaining the magnitude of the power delivered from the output of the first UPS system to the inlet of the second UPS system as described above but does not explicitly disclose:
providing an alert signal responsive to failure of a component of the first UPS system.
However, Sebald further discloses:
providing an alert signal (see [0037], [0006] and abstract. The claimed “alert signal” is the indication transmission of the potential faulty of Sebald) responsive to failure of a component of the first UPS system (see [0036]-[0037]. The claimed “component” is the circuit of the UPS module of Sebald).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to “providing an alert signal responsive to failure of a component of the first UPS system”, as it is disclosed by Sebald into Johnson, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system, methods and measurements by and identifying and indicating that the UPS module is at potential fault (Sebald, Paragraphs [0037] and [0006]), while preventing a diagnostic run from rendering off-line the UPS system (Sebald, Paragraph [0004]).
As per claim 12, Johnson discloses the method of claim 7 as described above but does not explicitly disclose:
providing an alert signal responsive to the first UPS system being unable to maintain the magnitude of the power delivered from the output of the first UPS system to the inlet of the second UPS system.
However, Sebald further discloses:
providing an alert signal (see [0037], [0006] and abstract. The claimed “alert signal” is the indication transmission of the potential faulty of Sebald) responsive to the first UPS system being unable to maintain the magnitude of the power delivered from the output of the first UPS system to the inlet of the second UPS system (see [0036]-[0037] and [0031]. When one of the UPS system 105-1 is faulty, it causes it to be unable to maintain the same power delivered to the other UPS system 105).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to “providing an alert signal responsive to the first UPS system being unable to maintain the magnitude of the power delivered from the output of the first UPS system to the inlet of the second UPS system”, as it is disclosed by Sebald into Johnson, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system, methods and measurements by and identifying and indicating that the UPS module is at potential fault (Sebald, Paragraphs [0037] and [0006]), while preventing a diagnostic run from rendering off-line the UPS system (Sebald, Paragraph [0004]).
As per claim 13, Johnson discloses the method of claim 7 as described above but does not explicitly disclose:
Johnson discloses the first UPS system is maintaining the magnitude of the power delivered from the output of the first UPS system to the inlet of the second UPS system as described above but does not explicitly disclose:
providing an alert signal responsive to an operational parameter of one of a switchboard or a circuit breaker in an electrical circuit with the first UPS system being outside of predefined specification.
However, Sebald further discloses:
providing an alert signal (see [0037], [0006] and abstract. The claimed “alert signal” is the indication transmission of the potential faulty of Sebald) responsive to an operational parameter of a circuit in an electrical circuit with the first UPS system being outside of predefined specification (see [0036]-[0037], [0042] and abstract. The claimed “outside of a predefined specification” is the measured test parameter being beyond the threshold value Sebald being beyond of the UPS or circuit, which could be switchboard or a circuit breaker).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to “providing an alert signal responsive to an operational parameter of one of a switchboard or a circuit breaker in an electrical circuit with the first UPS system being outside of predefined specification”, as it is disclosed by Sebald into Johnson, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system, methods and measurements by and identifying and indicating that the UPS module is at potential fault (Sebald, Paragraphs [0037] and [0006]), while preventing a diagnostic run from rendering off-line the UPS system (Sebald, Paragraph [0004]).
As per claim 14, Johnson discloses the method of claim 7 as described above but does not explicitly disclose:
Johnson discloses the first UPS system is maintaining the magnitude of the power delivered from the output of the first UPS system to the inlet of the second UPS system as described above but does not explicitly disclose:
providing an alert signal responsive to an operational parameter of a cooling system disposed in an enclosure with the first UPS system being outside of predefined specification.
However, Sebald further discloses:
providing an alert signal (see [0037], [0006] and abstract. The claimed “alert signal” is the indication transmission of the potential faulty of Sebald) responsive to an operational parameter of a system disposed in an enclosure with the first UPS system being outside of predefined specification (see [0036]-[0037], [0042] and abstract. The claimed “outside of a predefined specification” is the measured test parameter being beyond the threshold value Sebald being beyond of the UPS or circuit, which could be a cooling system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to “providing an alert signal responsive to an operational parameter of a cooling system disposed in an enclosure with the first UPS system being outside of predefined specification”, as it is disclosed by Sebald into Johnson, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system, methods and measurements by and identifying and indicating that the UPS module is at potential fault (Sebald, Paragraphs [0037] and [0006]), while preventing a diagnostic run from rendering off-line the UPS system (Sebald, Paragraph [0004]).
As per claim 18, Johnson discloses the system of claim 15 as described above.
Johnson further discloses:
wherein the controller is further configured to provide an alert signal (see [0026] and/or [0028]) responsive to detection of an operational parameter of a component of the first UPS system (see [0021]) while the first UPS system is maintaining the magnitude of the power delivered from the output of the first UPS system to the inlet of the second UPS system (Fig. 4, the UPS controller circuit 416 controls the power that is outputted by the first UPS 410 via output node 402 that goes to the second UPS 430, thus, maintaining the power at desire-appropriate level. Also see [0030] and [0022]).
Johnson discloses the alert signal responsive to detection of an operational parameter of a component of the first UPS system but does not explicitly disclose that said parameter being outside of a predefined specification.
However, Sebald further disclose:
wherein the controller is further configured to provide an alert signal (see [0037], [0006] and abstract. The claimed “alert signal” is the indication transmission of the potential faulty of Sebald) responsive to detection of an operational parameter of a component of the first UPS system being outside of a predefined specification (see [0036]-[0037], [0042] and abstract. The claimed “outside of a predefined specification” is the measured test parameter being beyond the threshold value Sebald being beyond of the UPS or circuit/component).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to the parameter of Johnson being “outside of a predefined specification”, as it is disclosed by Sebald, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system, methods and measurements by and identifying and indicating that the UPS module is at potential fault (Sebald, Paragraphs [0037] and [0006]), while preventing a diagnostic run from rendering off-line the UPS system (Sebald, Paragraph [0004]).
As per claim 19, Johnson discloses the system of claim 15 as described above but does not explicitly disclose:
Johnson discloses the first UPS system is maintaining the magnitude of the power delivered from the output of the first UPS system to the inlet of the second UPS system as described above but does not explicitly disclose:
provide an alert signal responsive to failure of a component of the first UPS system.
However, Sebald further discloses:
wherein the controller is further configured to provide an alert signal (see [0037], [0006] and abstract. The claimed “alert signal” is the indication transmission of the potential faulty of Sebald) responsive to failure of a component of the first UPS system (see [0036]-[0037]. The claimed “component” is the circuit of the UPS module of Sebald).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to “provide an alert signal responsive to failure of a component of the first UPS system”, as it is disclosed by Sebald into Johnson, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system, methods and measurements by and identifying and indicating that the UPS module is at potential fault (Sebald, Paragraphs [0037] and [0006]), while preventing a diagnostic run from rendering off-line the UPS system (Sebald, Paragraph [0004]).
As per claim 20, Johnson discloses the system of claim 15 as described above but does not explicitly disclose:
provide an alert signal responsive to the first UPS system being unable to maintain the magnitude of the power delivered from the output of the first UPS system to the inlet of the second UPS system.
However, Sebald further discloses:
provide an alert signal (see [0037], [0006] and abstract. The claimed “alert signal” is the indication transmission of the potential faulty of Sebald) responsive to the first UPS system being unable to maintain the magnitude of the power delivered from the output of the first UPS system to the inlet of the second UPS system (see [0036]-[0037] and [0031]. When one of the UPS system 105-1 is faulty, it causes it to be unable to maintain the same power delivered to the other UPS system 105).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to “providing an alert signal responsive to the first UPS system being unable to maintain the magnitude of the power delivered from the output of the first UPS system to the inlet of the second UPS system”, as it is disclosed by Sebald into Johnson, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system, methods and measurements by and identifying and indicating that the UPS module is at potential fault (Sebald, Paragraphs [0037] and [0006]), while preventing a diagnostic run from rendering off-line the UPS system (Sebald, Paragraph [0004]).
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) UMEZAWA (Pub. No.: US 2019/0157903) teaches “A plurality of uninterruptible power supplies of an uninterruptible power supply system controls start or stop of shared current supply from power converters to a load based on shared current commands, which indicate command values for determining a value of shared current to be supplied from the power converters of the plurality of uninterruptible power supplies to the load” (Abstract).
b) Giuntini (Pub. No.: US 2016/0033978) teaches “A power conversion system is provided. The power conversion system includes a plurality of power conversion modules connected in parallel, all power conversion modules of the plurality of power conversion modules configured to receive a pulse-width modulation control signal, each power conversion module of the plurality of power conversion modules including a current unbalance detection circuit configured to calculate a difference between a reference current and an output current of the power conversion module, and a processing device communicatively coupled to the current unbalance detection circuit and configured to perform processing using the calculated difference” (Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVARO E. FORTICH whose telephone number is (571) 272-0944. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday from 8:30am to 5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Huy Phan, can be reached on (571)272-7924. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALVARO E FORTICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
