Patent Application 18315847 - SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR LEAK AND EVAPORATION

Title: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR LEAK AND EVAPORATION DETECTION IN LIQUID-COOLED INFORMATION HANDLING SYSTEMS

Application Information

Invention Title: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR LEAK AND EVAPORATION DETECTION IN LIQUID-COOLED INFORMATION HANDLING SYSTEMS
Application Number: 18315847
Submission Date: 2025-05-23T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2023-05-11T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2023-05-11T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 165
National Sub-Class: 080300
Examiner Employee Number: 88814
Art Unit: 3763
Tech Center: 3700

Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 0
103 Rejections: 1

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

US 0103307🔗

Office Action Text

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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, corresponding with claims 1-4, in the reply filed on 05/15/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the application can be examined and searched without serious burden even though it includes claims to independent or distinctive inventions. This is not found persuasive because the groups identified in the restriction requirement were: Group I drawn to an information handling system, classified in HO5K7/20836; Group ll drawn to a method comprising, in an information handling system having an information handling resource and a liquid cooling system, classified in GO6F2200/201; Group lll drawn to a system for detecting depletion of a liquid from a liquid system, classified in HO5K7/20272; Group IV drawn to an article of manufacture comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable medium, classified in F24H4/04, which are classified in separate classifications, establishing that there would be a search burden in accordance with section 808 of the MPEP. Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 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 §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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FARKAS et al. (US 2020/0103307) in view of Gross et al. (US 20100315223).
In regards to claim 1, FARKAS discloses an information handling system (102; Fig. 1) comprising: an information handling resource (device 116; par. 35); a liquid cooling system (118) for providing cooling of the information handling resource (116), the liquid cooling system (118) comprising: a pump (134) configured to drive flow of a liquid coolant (water) through the liquid cooling system (refer to par. 34);
FARKAS fails to explicitly teach a pump speed sensor configured to generate a pump speed signal indicative of a speed associated with the pump; and a processing device configured to: receive the pump speed signal; determine whether the speed exceeds a threshold pump speed; and if the speed exceeds the threshold pump speed, take one or more remedial actions.
Gross teaches a pump speed sensor (refer to par. 54) configured to generate a pump speed signal (providing control signals; par. 54) indicative of a speed associated with the pump (refer to par. 75 which states that fan 116 can be replaced with pumps for a liquid coolant; Fig. 1A); and a processing device (controller 126; par. 52) configured to: receive the pump speed signal (via signal line 128; refer to par. 52); determine whether the speed exceeds a threshold pump speed (a threshold value; par. 56); and if the speed exceeds the threshold pump speed (increasing beyond a threshold value; par. 56), take one or more remedial actions (controller 126 generates one or more alerts; refer to pars. 19, 52 and 56).
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 FARKAS to include a pump speed sensor that generate a pump speed signal indicative of a speed associated with the pump; and a processing device that receive the pump speed signal; determine whether the speed exceeds a threshold pump speed; and if the speed exceeds the threshold pump speed, take one or more remedial actions, as taught by Gross in order to avoid inaccuracies that can adversely impact the cooling capability and the temperature regulation in the system that includes the pump or the fan (refer to par. 6 of Gross).
In regards to claim 2, FARKAS meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, FARKAS teaches wherein the liquid cooling system (118) provides active cooling of the information handling resource (refer to pars. 21 and 28).
In regards to claim 3, FARKAS meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, FARKAS teaches further comprising an air mover (108) configured to drive an airflow of air proximate (near) to a radiator (136) of the liquid cooling system (118) such that the liquid cooling system (118) together with the air mover (136) provides liquid-assisted air cooling of the information handling resource (refer to par. 29; Fig. 1).
In regards to claim 4, FARKAS meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Gross teaches wherein the one or more remedial actions comprise one or more of an audio alert, a visual alert, throttling of the information handling resource, and shutdown of one or more components of the information handling system (controller 126 generates one or more alerts; refer to pars. 19, 52 and 56).
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