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 .
INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10 October 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the Examiner herein.
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Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration.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 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined herein.
INITIAL 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 section.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Holden et al., US20200340767 (“HOLDEN”).
Re claim 1, HOLDEN discloses an apparatus comprising:
a first housing portion to be coupled to a fluid manifold 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]
Re claim 2, HOLDEN discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as shown above. HOLDEN further discloses:
wherein at least one of the first or second housing portions defines a channel that extends toward the sensor [0061]
Re claim 3, HOLDEN discloses the apparatus of claim 2, as shown above. HOLDEN further discloses:
wherein the channel is ramped to enable the leaked fluid to flow toward the sensor due to gravity [0061]
Re claim 4, HOLDEN discloses the apparatus of claim 2, 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 discloses 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 discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as shown above. HOLDEN further discloses:
wherein the sensor includes a leak sensing cable [0101]
Re claim 9, HOLDEN discloses 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]
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 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over HOLDEN in view of Gao, US20220390195, (“GAO ‘195”).
Re claim 6, HOLDEN discloses 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 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 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.
Re claim 7, HOLDEN/GAO ‘195 renders obvious the apparatus of claim 6, as shown above.
HOLDEN fails to explicitly disclose wherein the snap is to compress the second seal when the first and second housing portions are coupled
However, GAO ‘195, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a similar liquid cooling system that uses a snap to compress a seal when a first and second housing portions are coupled [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 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 sealing modular housing components in a liquid cooling system. Since both HOLDEN 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 in view of OFFICIAL NOTICE.
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, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that co-molding a seal to a housing component was old and well-known in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention.
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 sealing mechanism asserted by the Examiner. One would have been motivated to do so in order to mitigate seepage or leakage of a liquid in a liquid cooling system for an electronic device (see at least HOLDEN at [0002]). 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 Examiner asserts that it is well-known to use co-molded sealing elements for housing components. Since both HOLDEN and the Examiner 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.
RELEVANT PRIOR ART
The Examiner would like to make Applicant aware of prior art references, not relied upon in this action, but pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. They are as follows:
US20220312645, Gao – leak detection and prevention for liquid cooling device.
GB2607443A, Heydari – intelligent leak sensor system for liquid cooling devices.
US20190373776, Gao – leak detection system for liquid cooling of electronic racks of a data center.
CONCLUSION
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 Monday-Friday 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