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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “in response to a variation of a level of the immersive cooling liquid being above a level threshold, the floating unit actuates the lever assembly to provide visual indication that a leak is occurring” discloses a contingent limitation in a system claim. The MPEP states that “the broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur” (see MPEP 2111.04). However, the phrases “a floating unit positioned” and “a lever assembly mounted”, refer to the method steps of the unit being “positioned” and the assembly being “mounted”. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (see MPEP 2173.05(p)). In this case, the claim recites an apparatus and also the actions of positioning unit and mounting the assembly by an operator, for example, which creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs (see MPEP 2173.05(p)). Since the claim does not appear to disclose a particular structure of the floating unit being configured to actuate a corresponding structure of the lever assembly, in response to the contingent precedent being met, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed system would simply include the floating unit and the lever assembly. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Claims 2-9 are rejected as being dependent on the rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase “in response to a variation of a level of the immersive cooling liquid being above a level threshold, the floating unit to provide visual indication that a leak is occurring” appears to disclose a contingent limitation and not the required steps that must be performed. The MPEP states that “the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met” (see MPEP 2111.04). For examination purposes, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed method would only include the method steps that must be performed and not the contingent limitations, which only includes the steps of “positioning a floating unit” and “mounting a lever assembly”. In this case, the method “for detecting presence of leaks” does not appear to disclose a step for “detecting presence of leaks”. The claim is incomplete for omitting essential steps of “detecting presence of leaks”, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps (see MPEP § 2172.01). Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Claims 11-13 are rejected as being dependent on the rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao (Pat. No. US 11,602,080) (hereafter Gao) in view of Liang et al. (Pat. No. US 10,852,176) (hereafter Liang).
Regarding claim 1, Gao teaches a leak detection system for a rack-mounted assembly, the leak detection system comprising:
a floating (i.e., fluid sensors can include a float device) (see Column 3, lines 41-55) unit (i.e., sensors 118, 120, 122, 124, 126, 128) (see Fig. 1) positioned so as to be in contact (i.e., fluid sensor cable can position itself in that channel between the sidewalls so that the sensor is sufficiently immersed in the fluid to detect its presence during a fluid leak) (see Column 4, line 53, to Column 5, line 7) with a surface of immersive cooling liquid contained in the rack-mounted assembly (i.e., server chassis 140 has an outlet port 142 that is inserted into and resides in opening 104 of the detection channel 101 when the server chassis is installed in the IT rack) (see Fig. 1); and
a lever assembly mounted on the rack-mounted assembly and operatively coupled to the floating unit (i.e., a fluid sensor cable that is attached to a cover of an opening can position itself in that channel of the outlet port between the sidewalls and so that the sensor is sufficiently immersed in the fluid to detect its presence during a fluid leak) (see Column 4, line 6, to Column 5, line 18),
wherein, in response to a variation of a level of the immersive cooling liquid being above a level threshold (i.e., fluid sensor cable can position itself in that channel between the sidewalls so that the sensor is sufficiently immersed in the fluid to detect its presence during a fluid leak. In such a manner, the accuracy of the fluid sensor can be increased, and the placement of the fluid sensors can indicate which of the server chassis are leaking) (see Column 4, line 6, to Column 5, line 18), the floating unit to provide visual indication that a leak is occurring (i.e., fluid sensor can include a fluid sensing cable or spot detectors that detect fluid based on electricity—when a fluid makes contact with two electric potentials, then the fluid conducts electricity which causes current to flow through the sensor, which indicates presence of a fluid) (see Column 3, lines 41-55); but does not explicitly teach that the floating unit actuates the lever assembly to provide visual indication that a leak is occurring.
Regarding the lever assembly, Liang teaches that the floating unit (i.e., float 5) (see Fig. 5) actuates the lever assembly (i.e., backet 4) (see Fig. 5-6) to provide visual indication (i.e., displaying a “water full” prompt on the display screen to remind the user that the water is full) (see Column 5, lines 7-16) that a leak (i.e., the provided water fullness alarm device can also be applied to other appliances that have a need to collect and discharge water during their operation) (see Column 4, lines 6-21) is occurring (i.e., float 5 floats up as the water level rises, the second end of the bracket 4 rotates about the rotating axis of the bracket 4 itself) (see Column 5, lines 18-28). In view of the teaching of Liang, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the lever assembly in order to provide a redundant and independently powered sensor to alert the operator when the server chassis is full or overflowing.
Regarding claim 10, Gao teaches a method for detecting presence of leaks in a datacenter rack-mounted assembly containing immersive cooling liquid, the method comprising:
positioning a floating (i.e., fluid sensors can include a float device) (see Column 3, lines 41-55) unit (i.e., sensors 118, 120, 122, 124, 126, 128) (see Fig. 1) so as to be in contact (i.e., fluid sensor cable can position itself in that channel between the sidewalls so that the sensor is sufficiently immersed in the fluid to detect its presence during a fluid leak) (see Column 4, line 53, to Column 5, line 7) with a surface of immersive cooling liquid contained in the rack-mounted assembly (i.e., server chassis 140 has an outlet port 142 that is inserted into and resides in opening 104 of the detection channel 101 when the server chassis is installed in the IT rack) (see Fig. 1); and
mounting a lever assembly on the rack-mounted assembly to be operatively coupled to the floating unit (i.e., a fluid sensor cable that is attached to a cover of an opening can position itself in that channel of the outlet port between the sidewalls and so that the sensor is sufficiently immersed in the fluid to detect its presence during a fluid leak) (see Column 4, line 6, to Column 5, line 18), wherein, in response to a variation of a level of the immersive cooling liquid being above a level threshold (i.e., fluid sensor cable can position itself in that channel between the sidewalls so that the sensor is sufficiently immersed in the fluid to detect its presence during a fluid leak. In such a manner, the accuracy of the fluid sensor can be increased, and the placement of the fluid sensors can indicate which of the server chassis are leaking) (see Column 4, line 6, to Column 5, line 18), the floating unit to provide visual indication that a leak is occurring (i.e., fluid sensor can include a fluid sensing cable or spot detectors that detect fluid based on electricity—when a fluid makes contact with two electric potentials, then the fluid conducts electricity which causes current to flow through the sensor, which indicates presence of a fluid) (see Column 3, lines 41-55); but does not explicitly teach that the floating unit actuates the lever assembly to provide visual indication that a leak is occurring
Regarding the lever assembly, Liang teaches that the floating unit (i.e., float 5) (see Fig. 5) actuates the lever assembly (i.e., backet 4) (see Fig. 5-6) to provide visual indication (i.e., displaying a “water full” prompt on the display screen to remind the user that the water is full) (see Column 5, lines 7-16) that a leak is occurring (i.e., float 5 floats up as the water level rises, the second end of the bracket 4 rotates about the rotating axis of the bracket 4 itself) (see Column 5, lines 18-28). In view of the teaching of Liang, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the lever assembly in order to provide a redundant and independently powered sensor to alert the operator when the server chassis is full or overflowing.
Claims 2-9 and 11-13 are objected to as being dependent on the rejected base claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAN M. TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0307. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11:30am - 7:00pm.
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, Laura Martin can be reached on (571)-272-2160. 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.
/Tran M. Tran/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights