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 .
Election/Restrictions
The Examiner notes that the Election/Restrictions of Groups I-III sent 05/15/2025 is been reconsidered by petition filed on 08/21/2025 and the petition is being granted. Therefore, hereby withdrawn and claims 1-14 is being examined as stated below.
Claim Interpretation Under 35 USC §112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. - An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a processing device”, in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Claim limitation “a processing device” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C.112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language “a processing” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1 and 9 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
A processing device treated as meaning a central processing unit (CPU) or hardware or software control logic. See par. 18.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 5, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed recitation of a use, without setting forth any steps involved in the process, results in an improper definition of a process, i.e., results in a claim which is not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. 101. More specifically, base claims 1, 5, 9, and 11 recite mathematical calculation using a processor device to determine whether a pump speed exceed a threshold pump speed is made (mental process) on a liquid cooling system having pump and sensor which are well known subject matter. The output result of the calculation does not affect any change to the system which is well known.
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 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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being
anticipated by TOSHIHIKO et al. (JP 2005/190091, see attached translation).
In regards to claim 1, TOSHIHIKO discloses an information handling system (a computer device as an electronic device 1 and 101; Figs. 1 and 5) comprising: an information handling resource (corresponding to a CPU 2 which is a heat-generating component; par. 20); a liquid cooling system (cooling device or system of a circulation path of piping 8; pars. 20 and 29) for providing cooling of the information handling resource (2), the liquid cooling system comprising: a pump (6) configured to drive flow of a liquid coolant (a low-temperature refrigerant; par. 20) through the liquid cooling system (refer to par. 20); a pump speed sensor (corresponding to rotation speed detection means 21a; par. 31) configured to generate a pump speed signal (a signal output; par. 33) indicative of a speed (a rotation speed N) associated with the pump (6); and a processing device (control unit 21; par. 29) configured to: receive the pump speed signal (refer to par. 29); determine whether the speed (N) exceeds a threshold pump speed (a predetermined rotation speed N1/N2) indicative of a volume (amount of refrigerant) of the liquid coolant being depleted from the liquid cooling system (detects a shortage of refrigerant liquid in the cooling device; pars. 7-8 and 36); and if the speed (N) exceeds the threshold pump speed (N≥N1/N2), (the amount of refrigerant is insufficient if the pump rotation speed exceeds the set rotation speed, par. 8), take one or more remedial actions (warning process is executed, thereby reliably avoiding an overheating state via warning execution means 21c; par. 13).
In regards to claim 2, TOSHIHIKO meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, TOSHIHIKO teaches wherein the liquid cooling system (cooling device or system of a circulation path of piping 8; pars. 20 and 29) provides active cooling of the information handling resource (refer to pars. 20 and 29).
In regards to claim 3, TOSHIHIKO meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, TOSHIHIKO teaches further comprising an air mover (Fig. 6) configured to drive an airflow of air proximate to a radiator (5) of the liquid cooling system such that the liquid cooling system (8) together with the air mover provides liquid-assisted air cooling of the information handling resource (as can be seen in Figs. 1 and 6).
In regards to claim 4, TOSHIHIKO meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, TOSHIHIKO teaches wherein the one or more remedial actions comprise one or more of an audio alert, a visual alert (display device to display a warning via display unit 25; par. 14), throttling of the information handling resource, and shutdown of one or more components of the information handling system (computer device 22 is shut down; pars. 31 and 34).
In regards to claim 5, TOSHIHIKO discloses a method comprising, in an information handling system (a computer device as an electronic device 1 and 101; Figs. 1 and 6) having an information handling resource (corresponding to a CPU 2 which is a heat-generating component; par. 20) and a liquid cooling system (cooling device or system of a circulation path of piping 8; pars. 20 and 29) for providing cooling of the information handling resource (2): receiving a pump speed signal (corresponding to via rotation speed detection means 21a; par. 31) indicative of speed (N) associated with a pump (6) configured to drive flow of a liquid coolant (a low-temperature refrigerant; par. 20) through the liquid cooling system; determining whether the speed exceeds a threshold pump speed (a predetermined rotation speed N1/N2) indicative of a volume (amount of refrigerant) of the liquid coolant being depleted from the liquid cooling system (detects a shortage of refrigerant liquid in the cooling device; pars. 7-8 and 36); and if the speed (N) exceeds the threshold pump speed (N≥N1/N2), (the amount of refrigerant is insufficient if the pump rotation speed exceeds the set rotation speed, pars. 8 and 31), taking one or more remedial actions (warning process is executed, thereby reliably avoiding an overheating state via warning execution means 21c; par. 13).
In regards to claim 6, TOSHIHIKO meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 5. Further, TOSHIHIKO teaches wherein the liquid cooling system (cooling device or system of a circulation path of piping 8; pars. 20 and 29) provides active cooling of the information handling resource (refer to pars. 20 and 29).
In regards to claim 7, TOSHIHIKO meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 5. Further, TOSHIHIKO teaches wherein the information handling system further has an air mover (Fig. 6) configured to drive an airflow of air proximate to a radiator (5) of the liquid cooling system such that the liquid cooling system (8) together with the air mover provides liquid-assisted air cooling of the information handling resource (as can be seen in Figs. 1 and 6).
In regards to claim 8, TOSHIHIKO meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 5. Further, TOSHIHIKO teaches wherein the one or more remedial actions comprise one or more of an audio alert, a visual alert (display device to display a warning via display unit 25; par. 14), throttling of the information handling resource, and shutdown of one or more components of the information handling system (computer device 22 is shut down; pars. 31 and 34).
In regards to claim 9, TOSHIHIKO discloses a system for detecting depletion of a liquid from a liquid system (cooling device that that detects a shortage of refrigerant liquid in the cooling device; refer to par. 7), the system comprising: a pump speed sensor (corresponding to rotation speed detection means 21a; par. 31) configured to generate a pump speed signal (a signal output; par. 33) indicative of a speed (N) associated with a pump (6) for driving flow of liquid through the liquid system; and a processing device (control unit 21; par. 29) configured to: receive the pump speed signal; determine whether the speed exceeds a threshold pump speed (a predetermined rotation speed N1/N2) indicative of a volume (amount of refrigerant) of the liquid coolant being depleted from the liquid cooling system (detects a shortage of refrigerant liquid in the cooling device; pars. 7-8 and 36); and if the speed (N) exceeds the threshold pump speed (N≥N1/N2), (the amount of refrigerant is insufficient if the pump rotation speed exceeds the set rotation speed, pars. 8 and 31), taking one or more remedial actions (warning process is executed, thereby reliably avoiding an overheating state via warning execution means 21c; par. 13).
In regards to claim 10, TOSHIHIKO meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 9. Further, TOSHIHIKO teaches wherein the one or more remedial actions comprise one or more of an audio alert, a visual alert (display device to display a warning via display unit 25; par. 14), throttling of an electronic component cooled by the liquid system, and shutdown of one or more components of an electronic system (computer device 22 is shut down; pars. 31 and 34) cooled by the liquid system.
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 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 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.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TOSHIHIKO et al. (JP2005/190091) in view of SHABBIR et al. (US 20190340139).
In regards to claim 11, TOSHIHIKO discloses an information handling system (a computer device as an electronic device 1 and 101; Figs. 1 and 6) having an information handling resource (corresponding to a CPU 2 which is a heat-generating component; par. 20) and a liquid cooling system (cooling device or system of a circulation path of piping 8; pars. 20 and 29) for providing cooling of the information handling resource (refer to par. 29): receive a pump speed signal (a signal output; par. 33) indicative of speed associated with a pump (6) configured to drive flow of a liquid coolant (a low-temperature refrigerant; par. 20) through the liquid cooling system; determine whether the speed exceeds a threshold pump speed (a predetermined rotation speed N1/N2) indicative of a volume (amount of refrigerant) of the liquid coolant being depleted from the liquid cooling system (detects a shortage of refrigerant liquid in the cooling device; pars. 7-8 and 36); and if the speed (N) exceeds the threshold pump speed (N≥N1/N2), (the amount of refrigerant is insufficient if the pump rotation speed exceeds the set rotation speed, pars. 8 and 31), take one or more remedial actions (warning process is executed, thereby reliably avoiding an overheating state via warning execution means 21c; par. 13).
TOSHIHIKO fails to explicitly teach an article of manufacture comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable medium; and computer-executable instructions carried on the computer-readable medium, the instructions readable by a processor, the instructions, when read and executed, for causing the processor to, in an information handling system.
SHABBIR teaches an article of manufacture comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable medium; and computer-executable instructions carried on the computer-readable medium, the instructions readable by a processor, the instructions, when read and executed, for causing the processor to, in an information handling system (refer to par. 10).
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 TOSHIHIKO such that an article of manufacture comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable medium; and computer-executable instructions carried on the computer-readable medium, the instructions readable by a processor, the instructions, when read and executed, for causing the processor to, in an information handling system as taught by SHABBIR in order to store a data structure that includes a mapping between physical regions of the information handling system and connectors of the information handling system that are located within those physical regions (refer to par. 10 of SHABBIR).
In regards to claim 12, TOSHIHIKO as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 11. Further, TOSHIHIKO teaches wherein the liquid cooling system (cooling device or system of a circulation path of piping 8; pars. 20 and 29) provides active cooling of the information handling resource (refer to pars. 20 and 29).
In regards to claim 13, TOSHIHIKO as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 11. Further, TOSHIHIKO teaches wherein the information handling system further has an air mover (Fig. 6) configured to drive an airflow of air proximate (near) to a radiator (5) of the liquid cooling system such that the liquid cooling system (8) together with the air mover provides liquid-assisted air cooling of the information handling resource (as can be seen in Figs. 1 and 6).
In regards to claim 14, TOSHIHIKO as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 11. Further, TOSHIHIKO teaches wherein the one or more remedial actions comprise one or more of an audio alert, a visual alert (display device to display a warning via display unit 25; par. 14), throttling of the information handling resource, and shutdown of one or more components of the information handling system (computer device 22 is shut down; pars. 31 and 34) cooled by the liquid system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTHA TADESSE whose telephone number is (571)272-0590. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5:00pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. 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.
/M.T/
Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763