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 .
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-4, 8-10, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regards to claims 2 and 8, the claims recite “…a transceiver cage that extends from the extension device chassis and that defines a transceiver housing…”. It is unclear whether the transceiver cage is itself acting as a housing for a transceiver or if the presence of the cage is structurally significant to a separate element that is independently responsible for housing the transceiver. The limitations are indefinite because they create confusion regarding the structure of the claimed devices.
Examiner’s note: For the purposes of further examination, examiner has interpreted the transceiver cage and transceiver housing as being equivalent from a structural perspective.
Claims 4 and 10 inherit the indefiniteness of claims 2 and 8 on which they depend.
With regards to claims 3, 9, and 16, the claims recite “…a plurality of immersion fluid slots that are defined by the transceiver cage…”. It is unclear if the immersion fluid slots are defined in a surface of the transceiver cages or if the transceiver cages play a role in establishing the structure of the slots without having the slots defined in the surfaces of the cages. The limitations are indefinite because they create confusion regarding the structure of the claimed devices.
Examiner’s note: For the purposes of further examination, examiner has interpreted the fluid slots as being defined in a surface of the transceiver cage.
With regards to claim 14, the claim recites the limitations “…connecting, by a computing device connector on an extension device chassis of a transceiver connector extension device, to a computing device that is provided in an immersion fluid…” and “…connecting, by a transceiver connector that is located on a second end of the extension device chassis that is opposite the first end, to a transceiver device…”. Both limitations appear to independently state that an element respective element is connected to a second respective element via a third respective element, but - in the case of both limitations - define the second and third elements without defining the first (I.E - in the case of the first limitation - do not state what is being connected to the computing device via the computing device connector). The claim is indefinite because the limitations create confusion regarding the defining steps of the claimed method.
Examiner’s note: For the purposes of further examination, examiner has interpreted the transceiver connector extension device as the element being connected via the computing device connector.
Claims 15-20 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 14 on which they depend.
With regards to claim 15, the claim recites “…housing, by a transceiver cage that extends from the extension device chassis, the transceiver device in a transceiver housing defined by the transceiver cage…”. It is unclear whether the transceiver cage is itself acting as a housing for a transceiver or if the cage is structurally significant - without itself housing the transceiver - to a separate element that is independently responsible for housing the transceiver. The limitations are indefinite because they create confusion regarding the structure of the claimed devices.
Examiner’s note: For the purposes of further examination, examiner has interpreted the transceiver cage and transceiver housing as being equivalent from a structural perspective.
Claims 16 inherits the indefiniteness of claim 15 on which it depends.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-12, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Puffer (US 20220350089 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Puffer discloses a transceiver connector extension device, comprising:
an extension device chassis (Puffer/Fig2/Extension device chassis 108);
a computing device connector that is located on a first end of the extension device chassis and that is configured to connect to a computing device (Fig2/Computing device connector 109, Computing device 102; Paragraph 19/Lines 1-3) that is provided in an immersion fluid (Fig6/Immersion fluid 201); and
a transceiver connector that is located on a second end of the extension device chassis that is opposite the first end (Fig2/Transceiver connector 180), and that is configured to connect to a transceiver device (Fig2/Transceiver device 110), wherein the extension device chassis is provided with a length that is configured, when the computing device connector is connected to the computing device that is provided in the immersion fluid and the transceiver device is connected to the transceiver connector, to position a cable coupled to the transceiver device out of the immersion fluid (Fig2/Cable 116; Paragraph 68/Lines 12-14).
With regards to claim 2, Puffer discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising: a transceiver cage that extends from the extension device chassis and that defines a transceiver housing that is configured to house the transceiver device when the transceiver device is connected to the transceiver connector (Fig2/Transceiver housing [Unlabeled - component outlined below]).
PNG
media_image1.png
753
356
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 3, Puffer discloses the system of claim 2, further comprising: a plurality of immersion fluid slots that are defined by the transceiver cage and that are configured to allow immersion fluid to enter the transceiver housing when the computing device connector is connected to the computing device that is provided in the immersion fluid (Paragraph 69/Lines 8-14).
With regards to claim 4, Puffer discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the transceiver cage includes a first portion that is configured to be located in the immersion fluid when the computing device connector is connected to the computing device that is provided in the immersion fluid, and a second portion that is configured to be located out of the immersion fluid when the computing device connector is connected to the computing device that is provided in the immersion fluid (Fig2 [Second portion is configured to be located out of an immersion fluid]).
With regards to claim 5, Puffer discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising: a storage device that is housed in the extension device chassis, that is coupled to the computing device connector (Fig2/Storage device 174). Puffer does not explicitly state that the storage device of claim 5 stores extension device chassis length information that is configured for use in modifying pre-emphasis settings in the computing device. However, the storage of particular information represents a use of the storage device. It has been held that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)); that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)); and that if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). See MPEP § 2111.02, II and MPEP § 2114, II.
With regards to claim 7, Puffer discloses an Information Handling System (IHS), comprising:
an Information Handling System (IHS) chassis that is immersed in an immersion fluid (Fig2/IHS Chassis 100; Fig6/Immersion fluid 201);
a port that is accessible on the IHS chassis (Fig2/Port 170);
a processing system that is housed in the IHS chassis and coupled to the port (Fig1; Processing system 203);
a transceiver connector extension device that includes:
an extension device chassis (Fig2/Extension device chassis 108) including an IHS connector that is located on a first end of the extension device chassis and that is connected to the port (Fig2/IHS connector 109); and
a transceiver connector that is located on a second end of the extension device chassis that is opposite the first end (Fig2/Transceiver connector 109);
a transceiver device that is connected to the transceiver connector (Fig2/Transceiver device 110); and
a cable that is coupled to the transceiver device (Fig2/Cable 116; Paragraph 68/Lines 12-14), wherein the extension device chassis is provided with a length that positions the cable out of the immersion fluid (Fig2/Cable 116; Paragraph 68/Lines 12-14).
With regards to claim 8, Puffer discloses the IHS of claim 7, further comprising: a transceiver cage that extends from the extension device chassis and that defines a transceiver housing that houses the transceiver device (Fig2/Transceiver housing [Unlabeled - component outlined below]).
PNG
media_image1.png
753
356
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 9, Puffer discloses the IHS of claim 8, further comprising: a plurality of immersion fluid slots that are defined by the transceiver cage and that allow immersion fluid to enter the transceiver housing (Paragraph 69/Lines 8-14).
With regards to claim 11, Puffer discloses the IHS of claim 7, further comprising: a storage device that is housed in the extension device chassis, that is coupled to the IHS connector (Fig2/Storage device 174). Puffer does not explicitly state that the storage device of claim 11 stores extension device chassis length information. However, the storage of particular information represents a use of the storage device. It has been held that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)); that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)); and that if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). See MPEP § 2111.02, II and MPEP § 2114, II.
With regards to claim 12, Puffer discloses the IHS of claim 7, wherein the processing system is configured to: retrieve, via the port and the IHS connector, the extension device chassis length information; and modify, using the extension device chassis length information, pre-emphasis settings (Paragraph 20/“…microprocessor…”).
With regards to claim 14, Puffer discloses a method for preventing immersion fluid cable damage using a transceiver connector extension device, comprising:
connecting, by a computing device connector on an extension device chassis of a transceiver connector extension device, (Puffer/Fig2/Extension device chassis 108) to a computing device that is provided in an immersion fluid (Fig6/Immersion fluid 201);
connecting, by a transceiver connector that is located on a second end of the extension device chassis that is opposite the first end, to a transceiver device (Fig2/Transceiver device 110);
coupling, by the transceiver connector extension device to the computing device, a cable that is coupled to the transceiver device, wherein the extension device chassis is provided with a length that positions the cable coupled to the transceiver device out of the immersion fluid (Fig2/Cable 116; Paragraph 68/Lines 12-14).
With regards to claim 15, Puffer discloses the method of claim 14, further comprising: housing, by a transceiver cage that extends from the extension device chassis, the transceiver device in a transceiver housing defined by the transceiver cage (Fig2/Transceiver housing [Unlabeled - component outlined below]).
PNG
media_image1.png
753
356
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 16, Puffer discloses the method of claim 15, further comprising: allowing, by a plurality of immersion fluid slots that are defined by the transceiver cage, immersion fluid to enter the transceiver housing (Paragraph 69/Lines 8-14).
With regards to claim 17, Puffer discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the transceiver cage includes a first portion that is located in the immersion fluid, and a second portion that is located out of the immersion fluid (Fig2/Portions of the cage that are immersed and not immersed respectively whilst the cage and fluid are first placed into contact with one another).
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu (US 20240134135 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Liu discloses a transceiver connector extension device, comprising:
an extension device chassis (Liu/Fig3/Extension device chassis 1);
a computing device connector (Fig3/Computing device connector [As indicated below/Left]) that is located on a first end of the extension device chassis and that is configured to connect to a computing device that is provided in an immersion fluid (Fig1); and
a transceiver connector that is located on a second end of the extension device chassis that is opposite the first end (Fig3/Transceiver connector [As indicated below/Right]), and that is configured to connect to a transceiver device, wherein the extension device chassis is provided with a length that is configured, when the computing device connector is connected to the computing device that is provided in the immersion fluid and the transceiver device is connected to the transceiver connector, to position a cable coupled to the transceiver device out of the immersion fluid (Fig1).
PNG
media_image2.png
272
526
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 6, Liu discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the device connector is a male Quad Small Form-factor Pluggable (QSFP) connector, and the transceiver connector is a female QSFP connector (Liu/Paragraph 4; Fig3 [Male element of connector]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 7, 13-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 20240134135 A1).
With regards to claim 7, Liu discloses;
a transceiver connector extension device that includes:
an extension device chassis (Liu/Fig3/Extension device chassis 1) including an IHS connector that is located on a first end of the extension device chassis (Fig3/Computing device connector [As indicated below/Left]); and
a transceiver connector that is located on a second end of the extension device chassis that is opposite the first end (Fig3/Transceiver connector [As indicated below/Right]);
a transceiver device that is connected to the transceiver connector (Fig3/Transceiver device 12); and
a cable that is coupled to the transceiver device, wherein the extension device chassis is provided with a length that positions the cable out of the immersion fluid (Fig1). Liu does explicitly state that the transceiver connector extension system is connected to an information handling system via a port wherein the information handling system is immersed in immersion fluid and includes a processor. However, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use/include features such as an information handling system with a processor for the purpose of processing and handling the information entering/exiting the transceiver device.
PNG
media_image2.png
272
526
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 14, Liu discloses a method for preventing immersion fluid cable damage using a transceiver connector extension device, comprising:
connecting, by a computing device connector (Fig3/Computing device connector [As indicated below/Left]) on an extension device chassis of a transceiver connector extension device (Liu/Fig3/Transceiver connector extension device chassis 1);
connecting, by a transceiver connector (Fig3/Transceiver connector [As indicated below/Right]) that is located on a second end of the extension device chassis that is opposite the first end, to a transceiver device (Fig3/Transceiver device 12);
coupling, by the transceiver connector extension device, a cable that is coupled to the transceiver device, wherein the extension device chassis is provided with a length that positions the cable coupled to the transceiver device out of the immersion fluid (Fig1/Cable [Unlabeled - visible to the left of the device as pictured]) Liu does not explicitly state that the connection of line 3 of the claim is being made to a computing device that is provided in an immersion fluid. However, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art to connect the transceiver connector extension device to features such as a computing device for the purpose of processing the information entering/exiting the transceiver device.
PNG
media_image2.png
272
526
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regards to claims 13, and 20, Liu discloses the device and method of claims 7 and 14 respectively wherein the device connector is a male Quad Small Form-factor Pluggable (QSFP) connector, and the transceiver connector is a female QSFP connector.
(Liu/Paragraph 4; Fig3 [Male element of connector]).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puffer (US 20220350089 A1) as applied to claim 14 above.
With regards to claim 18, Puffer discloses the method of claim 14, but does not explicitly state the steps of storing, by a storage device that is housed in the extension device chassis and that is coupled to the computing device connector, extension device chassis length information. However, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice for a person having ordinary skill in the art to use/include features such as a computing device for the purpose of storing information.
With regards to claim 19, Puffer discloses the method of claim 14, but does not explicitly state that the extension device chassis length information is being retrieved by the computing device via the computing device connector; and that pre-emphasis settings are being modified by the computing device using the extension device chassis length information. However, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art to configure the computing device to retrieve information regarding the connector it is connected to and modify setting based on this information.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With regards to claim 10, the prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest the IHS of claim 8, wherein the transceiver cage includes a first portion that is located in the immersion fluid, and a second portion that is located out of the immersion fluid in addition to the accompanying features of the independent claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art was relied upon in the rejection set forth above.
Conclusion
This prior art, made of record, but not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure since the following references have similar structure and/or use similar structure and/or similar optical elements to what is disclosed and/or claimed in the instant application:
Ahuja (US 20240172393 A1) [Figs 5-6 and 17a-b]
Clatanoff (US 20200379164 A1) [Figs1&5]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marc E Manheim whose telephone number is (703)756-1873. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30am - 5pm E.T., Monday - Tuesday and Thursday - Friday.
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, Thomas A Hollweg can be reached at (571) 270-1739. 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.
/MARC E MANHEIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights