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 .
CLAIM STATUS
Claims 1-20 were originally filed.
Applicant’s election, without traverse, of Invention I (i.e., claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 28 November 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Claims 2 and 7 are currently canceled.
Claims 21-22 are newly added.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 11, and 15-16 are currently amended.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, and 21-22 are currently pending and have been examined herein.
RESPONSE TO APPLICANT’S AMENDMENTS/ARGUMENTS
– 35 USC § 102 –
Claims 1-5 and 8-9 were rejected under 35 USC § 102 as being anticipated by HOLDEN. Re newly amended claim 1, without conceding to the propriety of Applicant’s remarks, the Examiner finds them moot in view of the Applicant’s substantial amendments to the claimed invention and the new grounds of rejection set forth herein.
– 35 USC § 103 –
Claims 6-7 and 10 were rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Without conceding to the propriety of Applicant’s remarks, the Examiner finds them moot in view of the Applicant’s substantial amendments to the claimed invention and the new grounds of rejection set forth herein.
– Additional Remarks –
Applicant is reminded that in order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action. The reply by the applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action. The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. If the reply is with respect to an application, a request may be made that objections or requirements as to form not necessary to further consideration of the claims, be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. The Applicant’s or patent owner’s reply must appear throughout to be a bona fide attempt to advance the application or the reexamination proceeding to final action. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section1.
Should the Applicant believe that a telephone conference would expedite the prosecution of the instant application, Applicant is invited to call the Examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-9, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Holden et al., US20200340767 (“HOLDEN”) in view of Tsai, US20190239388, (“TSAI”).
Re claim 1, HOLDEN discloses an apparatus comprising:
a first housing portion to be coupled to a fluid manifold of a cooling block with a first seal positioned therebetween, the manifold corresponding to a thermal cooling loop associated with cooling of a compute device [0028-0029], [0058-0059], [0065];
a second housing portion to be coupled to the first housing portion with a second seal positioned therebetween, the first and second seals to define a substantially sealed internal volume that at least partially surrounds the manifold [0028-0029], [0058-0059], [0065]; and
a sensor in the internal volume to detect a presence of leaked fluid in the internal volume [0061]
a channel defined by at least one of the first or second housing portions, the channel including a ramped portion, the ramped portion to direct the leaked fluid to flow toward the sensor [0061]
HOLDEN fails to explicitly disclose a channel with both a level and ramped portions
However, TSAI, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a similar liquid cooling system that may be configured with a variety of different ramps, channels, and segments for flowing liquid [0039-0040]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify HOLDEN to include the particular channel configuration of TSAI. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide improved heat exchange (see at least TSAI at [0040]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, TSAI merely teaches that it is well-known to use a variety of different channel portions including ramps and segments. Since both HOLDEN and TSAI disclose similar liquid cooling systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 3, HOLDEN/TSAI renders obvious the apparatus of claim 1, as shown above. HOLDEN further discloses:
wherein the ramped portion is angled to enable the leaked fluid to flow from the level portion toward the sensor due to gravity [0061]
Re claim 4, HOLDEN/TSAI renders obvious the apparatus of claim 1, as shown above. HOLDEN further discloses:
wherein the channel is defined by a perimeter of an interface between the first and second housing portions [0073-0074]
Re claim 5, HOLDEN/TSAI renders obvious the apparatus of claim 1, as shown above. HOLDEN further discloses:
a connector positioned on at least one of the first or second housing portions, the connector to communicatively couple the sensor to a wire external to the first and second housing portions [0026]
Re claim 8, HOLDEN/TSAI renders obvious the apparatus of claim 1, as shown above. HOLDEN further discloses:
wherein the sensor includes a leak sensing cable [0101]
Re claim 9, HOLDEN/TSAI renders obvious the apparatus of claim 8, as shown above. HOLDEN further discloses:
wherein the leak sensing cable is placed at or proximate an interface between the first and second housing portions [0019]
Re claim 21, HOLDEN/TSAI renders obvious the apparatus of claim 1, as shown above. HOLDEN further discloses:
wherein the ramped portion extends along a periphery of the first and second housings [0019-0026]
Re claim 22, HOLDEN/TSAI renders obvious the apparatus of claim 8, as shown above. HOLDEN further discloses:
wherein the leak detection cable extends along a periphery of the first and second housings [0099-0103]
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over HOLDEN/TSAI in view of Gao, US20220390195, (“GAO ‘195”).
Re claim 6, HOLDEN/TSAI renders obvious the apparatus of claim 1, as shown above. HOLDEN further discloses:
a variety of couplers to connect components of the liquid cooling system (e.g., housing, fluid lines) [0077-0080]
HOLDEN fails to explicitly disclose a snap to retain the first housing portion to the second housing portion
However, GAO ‘195, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a similar liquid cooling system that uses a snap to retain a first housing portion to a second housing portion (i.e., modular sections) [0033]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify HOLDEN/TSAI to include the particular snap coupling mechanism of GAO ‘195. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide improved maintainability and modularity, allowing components to be combined and removed manually without requiring tools (see at least GAO ‘195 at [0033]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, GAO ‘195 merely teaches that it is well-known to use snaps as a coupling mechanism for housing in a liquid cooling system. Since both HOLDEN/TSAI and GAO ‘195 disclose similar liquid cooling systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over HOLDEN/TSAI in view of Eriksen et al., US20130312846 (hereinafter “ERIKSEN”).
Re claim 10, HOLDEN discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as shown above.
HOLDEN fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first seal is co-molded with the first housing portion
However, ERIKSEN, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches co-molding a seal to a housing component in a liquid cooling system [0035]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify HOLDEN/TSAI to include the sealing mechanism of ERIKSEN. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide fluid-tight seals (see at least ERIKSEN at [0035]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, the ERIKSEN teaches that it is well-known to use co-molded sealing elements for housing components. Since both HOLDEN/TSAI and ERIKSEN have disclosed elements for use in similar liquid cooling systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS M HAMMOND III whose telephone number is (571)272-2215. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 0800-1700.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached on 571-272-2375. 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. 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. For more information about the PAIR system, see: https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair.
Respectfully,
/Thomas M Hammond III/Primary Examiner, GAU 2855
1 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b)
Prosecution Insights