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
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9-10, 14, & 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ramamurthy et al., US20150121113 (hereinafter referred to as Ramamurthy).
In regards to claim 1, Ramamurthy teaches a power supply system (system 300; [Fig. 3]), comprising: a rack shelf (rack 210, 220, or 222; [Fig. 2]); and at least one card (smart power supply, power supply 314; [0018] & [Fig. 3]) that is configured to be installed in the rack shelf (in one rack; [0018]), the at least one card having at least one fault managed power circuit (fault detection [0019]) therein.
In regards to claim 2, Ramamurthy teaches wherein the rack shelf comprises a plurality of openings (inherent openings to install the sensors into the rack; [0018]), and wherein the at least one card is dimensioned to be received (components installed in a different rack; [0018]) in a respective opening of the plurality of openings.
In regards to claim 9, Ramamurthy teaches wherein a first card of the at least one card comprises a plurality of fault managed power circuits (monitored to detect faults; [0018]).
In regards to claim 10, Ramamurthy teaches the power supply system of claim 1, further comprising a controller (controllers; [0006]) configured to control operation of the fault managed power circuits (invoke a failure policy; [0006]).
In regards to claim 14, Ramamurthy teaches a power supply system (system 300; [Fig. 3]), comprising: a rack shelf (rack 210, 220, or 222; [Fig. 2]) comprising a plurality of openings (inherent from multiple cards being installed such as a power supply, controller, and sensors); and a plurality of fault managed power cards (inherent from multiple sensors and a smart power supply with fault detection; [0018]) installed in respective openings in the rack shelf (in one rack; [0018]), each fault managed power card comprising at least one fault managed power circuit (inherent for a smart power supply to have a fault detection circuit; [0018]).
In regards to claim 17, Ramamurthy teaches the power supply system of claim 14, further comprising a controller (controllers; [0006]) configured to control operation of the fault managed power circuits (invoke a failure policy; [0006]), wherein the controller comprises a communication interface (communication protocol, IEEE-488; [0029]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy et al., US20150121113 (hereinafter referred to as Ramamurthy), in view of Hatakenaka, US20180270944 (hereinafter referred to as Hatakenaka).
In regards to claim 3, Ramamurthy does not teach wherein a total number of the openings of the rack shelf exceeds a number of cards installed in the rack shelf.
Hatakenaka teaches wherein a total number of the openings of the rack shelf exceeds a number of cards installed in the rack shelf (Examiner’s Note: Fig. 2 shows a rack with cards installed. The openings are anywhere a card is installed and the empty space in the middle.).
Therefore, 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 Ramamurthy in order to incorporate wherein a total number of the openings of the rack shelf exceeds a number of cards installed in the rack shelf as taught by Hatakenaka. The motivation for doing so would be allowing more airflow between cards for cooling.
In regards to claim 15, Ramamurthy does not teach wherein a total number of the plurality of openings exceeds a total number of the plurality of fault managed power cards installed in the rack shelf.
Hatakenaka teaches wherein a total number of the plurality of openings exceeds a total number of the plurality of fault managed power cards installed in the rack shelf (Examiner’s Note: Fig. 2 shows a rack with cards installed; the fault managed power cards would be a subset of the cards installed. The openings are anywhere a card is installed and the empty space in the middle.).
Therefore, 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 Ramamurthy in order to incorporate wherein a total number of the plurality of openings exceeds a total number of the plurality of fault managed power cards installed in the rack shelf as taught by Hatakenaka. The motivation for doing so would be allowing more airflow between cards for cooling.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy et al., US20150121113 (hereinafter referred to as Ramamurthy), in view of Leizerovich et al., US20230232496 (hereinafter referred to as Leizerovich).
In regards to claim 4, Ramamurthy teaches wherein each of the at least one cards is configured to receive a first power signal (distribute DC-power; [Abstract]) from the rack shelf.
Ramamurthy does not teach wherein each of the at least one cards is configured to provide a second power signal to at least one respective telecommunications component.
Leizerovich teaches wherein each of the at least one cards is configured to provide a second power signal (external power source; [Abstract]) to at least one respective telecommunications component (small cell access node; [Abstract]).
Therefore, 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 Ramamurthy in order to incorporate wherein each of the at least one cards is configured to provide a second power signal to at least one respective telecommunications component as taught by Leizerovich. The motivation for doing so would be to power the small access node as one of the DC loads as taught by Ramamurthy.
In regards to claim 5, Ramamurthy teaches wherein the first power signal is a DC power signal (distribute DC-power; [Abstract]).
In regards to claim 6, Ramamurthy does not teach wherein the second power signal is provided to at least one small cell base station.
Leizerovich teaches wherein the second power signal is provided to at least one small cell base station (small cell access node; [Abstract]).
Therefore, 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 Ramamurthy in order to incorporate wherein the second power signal is provided to at least one small cell base station as taught by Leizerovich. The motivation for doing so would be to power the small access node as one of the DC loads as taught by Ramamurthy.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy et al., US20150121113 (hereinafter referred to as Ramamurthy), in view of Lumanog, US20230299583 (hereinafter referred to as Lumanog).
In regards to claim 7, Ramamurthy does not teach wherein the at least one card comprises a high resistance midpoint ground (HRMG) device or circuit
Lumanog teaches wherein the at least one card comprises a high resistance midpoint ground (HRMG) device or circuit (high resistance midpoint ground system; [0111]).
Therefore, 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 Ramamurthy in order to incorporate wherein the at least one card comprises a high resistance midpoint ground (HRMG) device or circuit as taught by Lumanog. The motivation for doing so would be to provide ground fault protection to the smart power supply ([0018], Ramamurthy).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy et al., US20150121113 (hereinafter referred to as Ramamurthy), in view of Miller et al., US20180159319 (hereinafter referred to as Miller).
In regards to claim 8, Ramamurthy does not teach wherein the at least one card comprises a surge suppression device or circuit
Miller teaches wherein the at least one card comprises a surge suppression device or circuit (surge suppression tray; [Abstract]).
Therefore, 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 Ramamurthy in order to incorporate wherein the at least one card comprises a surge suppression device or circuit as taught by Miller. The motivation for doing so would be to apply the surge suppression tray as one of the sensors taught by Ramamurthy ([0018], Ramamurthy).
Claim(s) 11-13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy et al., US20150121113 (hereinafter referred to as Ramamurthy), in view of Sarti, US20170094829 (hereinafter referred to as Sarti).
In regards to claim 11, Ramamurthy does not teach wherein the rack shelf is two rack units in height.
Sarti teaches wherein the rack shelf is two rack units in height (2 OU; [0022] & [Fig. 3]).
Therefore, 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 Ramamurthy in order to incorporate wherein the rack shelf is two rack units in height. The motivation for doing so would be engineering design choice in order to fit the power supplies and sensors.
In regards to claim 12, Ramamurthy does not teach wherein the at least one card comprises a first connector, and wherein the rack shelf comprises a second connector configured to mate with the first connector.
Sarti teaches wherein the at least one card comprises a first connector (connector on back of card for blind mating; [0031]), and wherein the rack shelf comprises a second connector (connector inside and on the back of the rack for blind mating; [0031]) configured to mate with the first connector (Examiner’s Note: It is inherent in blind-mating for there to be 2 connectors that plug into one another. In the context of a rack unit, one connector is in the rack and the other is on the removable card.).
Therefore, 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 Ramamurthy in order to incorporate wherein the at least one card comprises a first connector, and wherein the rack shelf comprises a second connector configured to mate with the first connector as taught by Sarti. The motivation for doing so would be a standard rack mounting connection scheme to the bus.
In regards to claim 13, Ramamurthy does not teach wherein the rack shelf and/or the at least one card comprises a barrier interlock.
Sarti teaches wherein the rack shelf and/or the at least one card comprises a barrier interlock (separation bar 157; [Fig. 3]).
Therefore, 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 Ramamurthy in order to incorporate wherein the rack shelf and/or the at least one card comprises a barrier interlock as taught by Sarti. The motivation for doing so would be to provide electrical separation between input and output cards or between power and signal cards.
In regards to claim 16, Ramamurthy and Sarti discloses the claimed invention except for “wherein an input to the power supply system is on a rear or back surface of the rack shelf, and the outputs from the power supply system are on or proximate to a front or forward surface of the rack shelf”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have moved the system input and output connections from the side of the rack cabinet to the back for the system input and the front for the system output(s) since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim(s) 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy et al., US20150121113 (hereinafter referred to as Ramamurthy), in view of Leizerovich et al., US20230232496 (hereinafter referred to as Leizerovich) and in further view of Sarti, US20170094829 (hereinafter referred to as Sarti).
In regards to claim 21, Ramamurthy teaches a power supply system (system 300; [Fig. 3]), comprising: a shelf (rack 210, 220, or 222; [Fig. 2]) providing fault managed power (fault detection [0019]) (smart power supply, power supply 314; [0018] & [Fig. 3]) tied to a second side of a bus (48-volt DC power; [0022]).
Ramamurthy does not teach the power supply system comprising: an AC to DC converter having an input tied to a main power supply and an output tied to a first side of the bus; and configured to supply power to a cluster of small cell base stations.
Leizerovich teaches the power supply system comprising: the bus (external power source; [Abstract]) configured to supply power to a cluster of small cell base stations (small cell access node; [Abstract]).
Leizerovich does not teach the power supply system comprising: an AC to DC converter having an input tied to a main power supply and an output tied to a first side of the bus.
Therefore, 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 Ramamurthy in order to incorporate the power supply system comprising: the bus configured to supply power to a cluster of small cell base stations as taught by Leizerovich. The motivation for doing so would be to power the small access node as one of the DC loads as taught by Ramamurthy.
Sarti teaches the power supply system comprising: an AC to DC converter (a power circuit, in each PSU of each of the multiple pairs, configured to rectify an AC phase from an external multi-phase AC power source; [Abstract]) having an input tied to a main power supply and an output tied to a first side of the bus.
Therefore, 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 Ramamurthy & Leizerovich in order to incorporate the power supply system comprising: an AC to DC converter having an input tied to a main power supply and an output tied to a first side of the bus as taught by Sarti. The motivation for doing so would be an engineering design requirement to receive supply power from an AC source.
In regards to claim 22, Ramamurthy teaches the power supply system of claim 21, further comprising: a DC to DC converter (DC-to-DC converter) on the second side of the bus (inherent, the bus is the 12-volt DC power and the second side would be the output side of the bus) and configured to boost a voltage of a power signal on the bus to a higher voltage input to the shelf (12-volt DC power boosted to 48-volt DC power; [0022]).
In regards to claim 23, Ramamurthy teaches the power supply system of claim 22, further comprising a backup battery (battery 312; [Fig. 3]) tied to the bus.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANTHA L FAUBERT whose telephone number is (703)756-1311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM - 5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Crystal Hammond can be reached at 5712701682. 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.
SAMANTHA LYNETTE FAUBERT
Examiner
Art Unit 2836
/CRYSTAL L HAMMOND/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
