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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a final action in response to amendment filed on 05/04/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments directed to 101 rejection have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant first conclusory argues that claims do not recite any one of the groupings of abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagree for at least the reason that the steps identified in the rejection below (as well as the rejection shown in non-final action) can be performed completely in human mind with help of pen and paper.
Applicant then goes on to argue that the claim is directed to a practical application because it is directed to reporting liquid within an information handling system. Examiner respectfully disagree with Applicant’s conclusion. Examiner agrees that the claim is directed to presence of liquid within an information handling system. However, such system is just being used to describe the intended operating environment. This is merely generally linking the abstract idea to this field of use. Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
Regarding Applicant’s further argument drawing similarity to Diehr, examiner respectfully disagree as in Diehr, physical product is produced but here, the final product (i.e., indication) would fall into mental process. As per the physical machine, please see above regarding field of use. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument directed to 103 rejection, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of reference does not show the claimed limitation of outputting sequence of light when leak is detected, examiner respectfully disagree.
Stumpf discloses using a sensor to sense presence of liquid. The sensor involves a controller controlled LED that’s capable of being controlled to emit unique sequence based on controller’s signal. Therefore, the control of LED via controller is known. Stumpf also discloses that once leak is detected, signal is generated. Therefore, the only difference between claimed limitation and Stempf is the usage of LED output as indication. However, the functionality of controlling LED such that particular sequence is being emitted by the controlled LED is taught. Benton teaches using light outputs as indicators for sensor (IoT device) status. Benton even provides an application related to leakage detection. Therefore, the combination of Steumpf and Benton would read on the claimed invention. As such, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A prong 1
As per claim 1, examiner believes the following limitations recites an abstract idea
monitoring … for presence of liquid …;
determining when liquid is detected …; and,
reporting presence of liquid via a reporting engine … within [the information handling system] when liquid is detected …, the reporting being via [generation of a sequence of light flashes]
the sequence of light flashes being based upon a unique signal generation parameter, the unique signal generation parameter being associated with [the leak detection system contained within the information handling system].
The above limitation shows a series of steps of generating notification for detecting liquid where the generation is based on a predetermined parameter. This can be performed as mental processes by a person using pen and paper. Examiner notes that determining a sequence using pseudo random number generator can be deciding a pattern based on a series of pseudo random seed codes and therefore can be performed by a person with help of pen and paper. Therefore, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A prong 2
The additional elements of claim 1 includes physical computer hardware that is being monitored and the physical light that generates the report. These elements merely serve as the operating environment or a particular form of reporting. These are merely generally linking the abstract idea into a particular field of use, whether viewed individually or as an ordered combination. Therefore, they would not integrate the abstract idea into practical application whether viewed individually or as an ordered combination.
Step 2B
As shown above, of which the analysis is still applicable in step 2B, the additional elements are merely generally linking the abstract idea into a particular field of use, whether viewed individually or as an ordered combination. Therefore, they also would not provide significantly more than an abstract idea either. Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible.
Claims 2-6 merely describing more rules that can be performed manually with help of pen and paper using additional elements that can be similarly analyzed as claim 1. Claims 8-18 can be similarly analyzed as well. Claims 19-20 merely further limit the operating environment into a particular setup, which would be analyzed similarly as claim 1. These claims are not eligible.
Examiner notes a combined scope of claim 6 and claim 4 (or claim 5) would likely serve as a good basis claim for overcoming 101 rejections. As currently claimed, claims 6 and 4-5 are evaluated individually and they’re written as a result-oriented. These would be merely claiming a result without claiming the underlying process. A combination of these claims with a modified claim language to recite actively using the one or more characteristics in claim 4 (or how spreading sine wave into broadband signal) to ensure lack of interference (claim 6) would likely make the claim eligible as these are likely to improve technology.
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) 1, 7, 13, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stumpf (US 20220291072) in view of Benton (US 20230034481)
As per claim 1, Stempf discloses a method for reporting presence of liquid within an information handling system, comprising:
monitoring an information handing system chassis for presence of liquid within the information handing system chassis (Fig. 2 and 0013-0018);
determining when liquid is detected within the chassis of the information handing system chassis via a sensor of a leak detection system contained within the information handling system (0016-0017 See also Fig. 3 for relative positions among information handling system and detector 140); and,
reporting presence of liquid within the information handling system when liquid is detected within the information handling system chassis via a reporting engine of the leak detection system (0018, provide indication. See also Fig. 3 for relative position of the leak 150),
Stumpf discloses having LEDs and that LEDs can be used as indicators (0013), where LEDs can generate unique patterns associated with the leak detection system (0015); however, Stumpf does not explicitly disclose these LEDs that generate unique patterns can be used to create indicators.
Benton teaches using light signal to indicate status of an IOT device that can detect pipe leaks (0355, sensor uses light indicator to provide status. See 0229 for pipe leakage sensing application).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to use Stumpf’s LEDs having ability to create unique pattern with Benton’s application of using lights to show status for the purpose of communicating information to users.
Claims 7 and 13 contains limitations that are substantially similar to claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale set forth above.
As per claim 19, Stumpf further discloses the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 13, wherein:
the computer executable instructions are deployable to a client system from a server system at a remote location (see 0025 that system can includes network interface connecting to other device. See 0032 for detail on operating it as a management service using tools such as API. Examiner notes “deployable to a client system from a server system at a remote location” are intended use language where a computer with network interface would be capable of performing as such).
As per claim 20, Stumpf further discloses the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 13, wherein:
the computer executable instructions are provided by a service provider to a user on an on-demand basis (See 0032 for detail on operating it as a management service using tools such as API.).
Claim(s) 2-3, 8-9, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stumpf (US 20220291072) in view of Benton (US 20230034481), further in view of Youn (US 20100061557)
As per claim 2, Stumpf does not disclose the method of claim 1, wherein:
the unique signal generation parameter is based upon a pseudo random number code selected from a plurality of pseudo random number codes.
Youn teaches a sensor network each having a unique random key where its keys are selected from a plurality of pseudo random number codes (0014).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine Stumpf/Benton’s leak detection system with Youn’s usage of pre-generated random key pools and selecting a random key from key pool to distribute unique pattern for the purpose of distributing random numbers with reduced calculation ability (Youn: 0008).
As per claim 3, Stumpf further discloses the method of claim 2, wherein:
the plurality of pseudo random number codes are selected based upon a plurality of selection characteristics (0012, patterns can be provided at particular frequency, duty cycle, and more complex pattern as desired).
The rationale to combine would persist.
Claims 8-9, 14-15 contain limitations substantially similar to claims 2-3 and are rejected under similar rationale set forth above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 GEORGE CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM -5:00 PM Eastern.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
GEORGE CHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights