DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. All of the subject matter of these claims is already recited in claims 3 and 13 from which they depend. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, 10-12, 16-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson (US 2026/0129796).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Anderson teaches an information handling system including: a chassis (overall frame 102 and the tray 130 mounted thereon) including a computing component (the chassis is of a server; see Para. [0002]); a cooling system (liquid cooling system of Para. [0002]) to provide temperature management of at least the computing component, the liquid cooling system including: a plurality of fluid lines (115) for transporting liquid proximate to the computing component, the liquid configured to provide cooling of the computing component (see Para. [0002]); a cooling component (e.g. in Fig. 13 illustrated are four cooling components connected to the liquid cooling system for each side of 150); a coupling connector (110, 112) between first and second fluid lines of the plurality of fluid lines (first fluid line may be the inlet/outlet lines to the system and second fluid lines may be those connected via 110; see Fig. 13); and an absorbent material (148) positioned on a surface of the chassis (inner surface 131) proximate to the coupling connector such that the absorbent material is configured to absorb fluid that leaks from the coupling connector (see 107).
Anderson further teaches that: an air flow system (see fans illustrated in Figs. 1-2) to provide airflow across the computing component and proximate to the fluid lines (Figs. 1-2) wherein the absorbent material does not obstruct the airflow (absorbent material is inside of 130 mounted below the fans in Fig. 2), per claims 2 and 12; the chassis further includes a reservoir (contained by the walls of 130 at the surface, the absorbent material positioned at least int eh reservoir (see Fig. 10 showing 148 inserting into 130), per claims 6 and 16; the absorbent material is a sponge (148), per claims 7 and 17; the computing component may be a printed circuit board (see Para. [0023]), per claims 10 and 20.
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.
Claim(s) 3-5, 8-9, 13-15, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Subrahmanyam (US 12,442,712).
Anderson does not specify details of the absorbent material or sensors.
Subrahmanyam teaches that it is old and well-known to perform leak detection and suppression with a super absorbent polymer (406), per claims 8 and 18; which has a first thickness in a first state and a second, greater thickness in a second state (Col. 4:49-64), per claims 3 and 13; wherein the expansion from the first to second state is in response to absorbing leaked fluid (Col. 4:49-64), per claims 5 and 15; and one or more sensors are positioned on the bottom surface (see fig. 4a) proximate to the coupling connector, to detect liquid at the surface of the chassis and/or the absorbent material and generate a signal in response to the detection of liquid (see Fig. 4a; Col. 4:18-31), per claims 9 and 19.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the absorbent material of Anderson, as taught by Subrahmanyam, in order to allow for detection and signaling of leaks and not only containment.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, in keeping with the teachings of Anderson, it would have been obvious to not modify the dimensions of the absorbent material of Anderson in such a way as to create airflow obstructions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Devon Lane whose telephone number is (571)270-1858. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 9-4.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571.270.5054. 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.
/DEVON LANE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
