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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks (pages 1-7), filed 07/22/2026, with respect to claim 1-18 and 21-22 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The art rejection of claims 1-18 and 21-22 has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the preamble recites “A computing system, the system comprising”. To reduce redundancy, the preamble should recite “A computing system comprising:”.
Claims 2-14 depending from claim 1 are objected for the same reasons as mentioned above.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the electronic device" in lines 15-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the computing device" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the electronic device" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the electronic device" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3-14, 16-18 and 21 depending from claims 1 or 15 are rejected for the same reasons as mentioned above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 15 and 22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-14, 16-18 and 21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1-14, the prior art fails to specifically teach a computing system, the system comprising: a plurality of high-voltage conductive dots positioned on the substrate; a plurality of low-voltage conductive dots positioned on the substrate wherein a closest contact to each low-voltage conductive dots of the plurality of low-voltage conductive dots is a high-voltage conductive dot of the plurality of high-voltage conductive dots; and a logic device electrically coupled to the plurality of high-voltage conductive dots and the plurality of low-voltage conductive dots, the logic device being configured to measure a change in current across at least one high-voltage conductive dots of the plurality of high-voltage conductive dots and at least one low-voltage conductive dot of the plurality of low-voltage conductive balls, wherein a first high-voltage conductive dot of the plurality of high-voltage conductive dots is associated with a first electronic component of the electronic device and a second high-voltage conductive dot of the plurality of high-voltage conductive dots is associated with a second electronic component of the electronic device, in combination with all the limitations of the claims.
Regarding claims 15-18 and 21, the prior art fails to specifically teach a method of leak detection in a computing system, the method comprising: the substrate including a plurality of high-voltage conductive dots positioned on the detection surface and a plurality of low-voltage conductive dots positioned on the detection surface forming a leak detection array on the detection surface; wherein the drop of conductive fluid forms an electrical connection on the detection surface between at least one high-voltage conduct dot of the plurality of high-voltage conductive dots and at least one low-voltage conductive dot of the plurality of low-voltage conductive dots; measuring a change in electrical signal across the at least one high-voltage conductive dot and the at least one low-voltage conductive dot caused by the electrical connection; and sending a command to the computing device to turn off the computing device to prevent damage to the electronic device due to the conductive fluid, in combination with all the limitations of the claims.
Regarding claim 22, the prior art fails to specifically teach a computing system, comprising: a leak detection system for detecting leaks of the cooling fluid from the liquid cooling system, comprising: a substrate, wherein the substrate is proximate to a cold plate of the electronic device; a plurality of high-voltage conductive dots positioned on the substrate; a plurality of low-voltage conductive dots positioned on the substrate, wherein a closest conductive dot to each low-voltage conductive dot of the plurality of low-voltage conductive dots is a high-voltage conductive dot of the plurality of high-voltage conductive dots; and a logic device electrically coupled to the plurality of high-voltage conductive dots and the plurality of low-voltage conductive dots, the logic device being configured to measure a change in current across at least one of the plurality of high-voltage conductive dots and at least one of the plurality of low-voltage conductive dots, in combination with all the limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gao (US PGPUB 2022/0312645) teaches a leak detection and prevention system.
Eriksen (US PGPUB 2014/0251583) teaches a leak detection system for a liquid cooling system.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO VELEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8597. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-3:30pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571)272-7924. 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.
/ROBERTO VELEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights