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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/08/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/27/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-18 and 21-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 7, 9-12, 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schick et al. (US Pat. 10,107,708) in view of McCallum et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0317954).
Regarding claim 1, Schick et al. teaches a system for detecting liquid leaks in an electronic device, the system comprising: a substrate (20); a plurality of high-voltage conductive contacts (32, as shown in fig. 3 connected to +V) positioned on the substrate (20) (as shown in fig. 1 and 3); a plurality of low-voltage conductive contacts (34, as shown in fig. 3 connected to ground) positioned on the substrate wherein a closest contact to each of the low-voltage conductive contacts is a high-voltage conductive contact (as shown in fig. 3 and 5) of the plurality of high-voltage conductive contacts (as shown in fig. 3 and 5); and a logic device (26, 28, 38 and 40) electrically coupled to the plurality of high-voltage conductive contacts (32) and the plurality of low-voltage conductive contacts (34), the logic device (26, 28, 38 and 40) being configured to measure a change in current across at least one high-voltage conductive contact (one of 32’s) of the plurality of high-voltage conductive contacts (32) and at least one low-voltage conductive contact (one of 34’s) (as disclosed in col. 6 lines 25-37) of the plurality of low-voltage conductive contact (34), wherein a first high-voltage conductive contact (one of 32’s) of the plurality of high-voltage conductive contacts (32) is associated with a first electronic component (one of 38’s) of the electronic device and a second high-voltage conductive contact (another of 32’s) of the plurality of high-voltage conductive contacts (32) is associated with a second electronic component (another of 38’s) of the electronic device.
Schick et al. fails to specifically teach where the conductive contacts are conductive dots. However, McCallum et al. teaches where the conductive contacts are conductive dots (as shown for example in fig. 2 as 224, fig. 3 as 324, fig. 4 as 425, fig. 5 as 564 and fig. 9-10 as 872).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the conductive contacts as conductive dots as taught by McCallum et al. with the invention of Schick et al. in order to provide precise omnidirectional detection of leakages.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Schick et al. and McCallum et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, Schick et al. teaches wherein the logic device (26, 28, 38 and 40) is in communication with a fluid valve (as disclosed in col. 4, lines 4-39).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Schick et al. and McCallum et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, Schick et al. teaches wherein the plurality of high-voltage conductive dots (32) and the plurality of low-voltage conductive dots (34) are arranged in a dot array wherein adjacent contacts of the dot array alternate between high-voltage conductive dots of the plurality of high-voltage conductive dots and low-voltage conductive dots of the plurality of low-voltage conductive dots (as shown in fig. 3 and 5).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Schick et al. and McCallum et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, Schick et al. teaches wherein the logic device (26, 28, 38 and 40) is further configured to measure a severity of a liquid leak (as disclosed in col. 9, lines 43-57).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Schick et al. and McCallum et al. teaches the limitations of claim 10, in addition, Schick et al. teaches wherein the logic device (26, 28, 38 and 40) measures the severity of the liquid leak at least partially based on a quantity of the high-voltage conductive dots (32) and low-voltage conductive dots (34) electrically coupled by the liquid leak (as disclosed in col. 6, lines 25-37, col. 7, lines 43-67).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Schick et al. and McCallum et al. teaches the limitations of claim 10, in addition, Schick et al. teaches wherein the logic device (26, 28, 38 and 40) measures the severity of the liquid leak at least partially based on a measured change in current between the plurality of high-voltage conductive dots (32) and plurality of low-voltage conductive dots (34) (as disclosed in col. 6, lines 25-37, col. 7, lines 43-67).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Schick et al. and McCallum et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, Schick et al. teaches wherein the substrate (20) is positioned in the electronic device (as disclosed in col. 5, lines 58-67).
Regarding claim 15, Schick et al. teaches a method, comprising: receiving a drop of a conductive fluid on a detection surface of a substrate (20) (col. 5, lines 52-67 and col. 6, lines 1-37), the substrate (20) including a plurality of high-voltage conductive contacts (32, as shown in fig. 3 connected to +V) positioned on the detection surface (as shown in fig. 1-3) and a plurality of low-voltage conductive contacts (34, as shown in fig. 3 connected to ground) positioned on the detection surface forming a leak detection array on the detection surface (as shown in fig. 1-3); wherein the drop of conductive fluid forms an electrical connection on the detection surface between at least one high-voltage conductive contact of the plurality of high-voltage conductive contacts (32) and at least one low-voltage conductive contact of the plurality of low-voltage conductive contacts (34) (as disclosed in col. 8, lines 29-46); measuring a change in electrical signal across the at least one high-voltage conductive contact (one of 32’s) and the at least one low-voltage conductive contact (one of 34’s) caused by the electrical connection (as disclosed in col. 6, lines 25-37, col. 7, lines 43-67 and col. 8, lines 29-60); and sending a command to an electronic device to turn off the electronic device to prevent damage to the electronic device due to the conductive fluid (as disclosed in col. 8, lines 29-45 and col. 9, lines 64-67 through col. 10, line 11).
Schick et al. fails to specifically teach where the conductive contacts are conductive dots. However, McCallum et al. teaches where the conductive contacts are conductive dots (as shown for example in fig. 2 as 224, fig. 3 as 324, fig. 4 as 425, fig. 5 as 564 and fig. 9-10 as 872).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the conductive contacts as conductive dots as taught by McCallum et al. with the invention of Schick et al. in order to provide precise omnidirectional detection of leakages.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Schick et al. and McCallum et al. teaches the limitations of claim 15, in addition, Schick et al. teaches wherein measuring the change in electric signal includes measuring a first electrical signal on a first circuit formed by the conductive fluid between the at least one high-voltage conductive dot (one of 32’s) and a first low-voltage conductive dot (one of 34’s) while also measuring a second electrical signal on a second circuit formed by the conductive fluid between the at least one high-voltage conductive dot (another one of 32’s) and a second low-voltage conductive dot (another one of 34’s) (as shown in fig. 3 and disclosed in col. 7, lines 50-60).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Schick et al. and McCallum et al. teaches the limitations of claim 16, in addition, Schick et al. teaches wherein the first circuit includes a first high-voltage conductive dot (one of 32’s) and the first low-voltage conductive dot (one of 34’s), and wherein the second circuit includes the first high-voltage conductive dot (the one 32) and the second low-voltage conductive dot (the one 34) (as shown in fig. 3).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Schick et al. and McCallum et al. teaches the limitations of claim 15, in addition, Schick et al. teaches wherein measuring the change in electric signal includes measuring an electrical signal on a circuit including a two high-voltage conductive dots (any two of 32's) and a low-voltage conductive dots (any of 34's) (as shown in fig. 3 and disclosed in col. 7, lines 50-60).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schick et al. (US Pat. 10,107,708) and McCallum et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0317954) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chainer et al. (US PGPUB 2016/0270267).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Schick et al. and McCallum et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Schick et al. and McCallum et al. fails to specifically teach wherein the substrate is proximate to a cold plate of the electronic device. However, Chainer et al. teaches wherein the substrate is proximate to a cold plate (318) of the electronic device.
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the substrate is proximate to a cold plate of the electronic device as taught by Chainer et al. with the invention of the combination of Schick et al. and McCallum et al. in order to remove heat from electronic components.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schick et al. (US Pat. 10,107,708) and McCallum et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0317954) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chapman et al. (US Pat. 6,639,517).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Schick et al. and McCallum et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Schick et al. and McCallum et al. fails to specifically teach wherein a voltage difference between the plurality of high-voltage conductive dots and the plurality of low-voltage conductive dots is at least 5 Volts. However, Chapman et al. teaches wherein a voltage difference between the plurality of high-voltage conductive contacts (120Volts) and the plurality of low-voltage conductive contacts (ground) is at least 5 Volts (col. 6, lines 17-23).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have a voltage difference between the plurality of high-voltage conductive dots and the plurality of low-voltage conductive dots is at least 5 Volts as taught by Chapman et al. with the invention of the combination of Schick et al. and McCallum et al. in order to have the ability to plug the device to well-known and commonly used power outlets.
Claims 4-6, 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schick et al. (US Pat. 10,107,708) and McCallum et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0317954) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Krishman et al. (US PGPUB 2016/0178475).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Schick et al. and McCallum et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Schick et al. and McCallum et al. fails to specifically teach wherein the logic device is further configured to disable at least a portion of the electronic device in response to a measured 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. However, Krishman et al. teaches wherein the logic device is further configured to disable at least a portion of the electronic device in response to a measured change in current across at least one of the plurality of high-voltage conductive contacts and at least one of the plurality of low-voltage conductive contacts (as shown in fig. 13).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the logic device further configured to disable at least a portion of the electronic device in response to a measured 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 as taught by Krishman et al. with the invention of the combination of Schick et al. and McCallum et al. in order to protect the equipment from permanent damage.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Schick et al. and McCallum et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Schick et al. and McCallum et al. fails to specifically teach wherein the logic device is further configured to disable the first electronic component independently of the second electronic component. However, Krishman et al. teaches wherein the logic device is further configured to disable the first electronic component independently of the second electronic component (as shown in fig. 13 and disclosed in para. 0040).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the logic device further configured to disable the first electronic component independently of the second electronic component as taught by Krishman et al. with the invention of the combination of Schick et al. and McCallum et al. in order to avoid ceasing and interrupting the measuring operation of the sensors.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Schick et al. and McCallum et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Schick et al. and McCallum et al. fails to specifically teach wherein the logic device is in communication with a cooling fluid pump. However, Krishman et al. teaches wherein the logic device is in communication with a cooling fluid pump (as disclosed in para. 0043).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the logic device in communication with a cooling fluid pump as taught by Krishman et al. with the invention of the combination of Schick et al. and McCallum et al. in order to cease operation when a determined leakage is harmful to the electronic device.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Schick et al. and McCallum et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Schick et al. and McCallum et al. fails to specifically teach wherein the plurality of high-voltage conductive dots and the plurality of low-voltage conductive dots are arranged in a concentric pattern wherein adjacent contacts of the concentric pattern alternate between high-voltage conductive dots of the plurality of high-voltage conductive dots and low-voltage conductive dots of the plurality of low-voltage conductive dots. However, Krishman et al. teaches wherein the plurality of high-voltage conductive contacts and the plurality of low-voltage conductive contacts are arranged in a concentric pattern wherein adjacent contacts of the concentric pattern alternate between high-voltage conductive contacts of the plurality of high-voltage conductive contacts and low-voltage conductive contacts of the plurality of low-voltage conductive contacts (interdigitated circular shape, as disclosed in para. 0029).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the plurality of high-voltage conductive dots and the plurality of low-voltage conductive dots arranged in a concentric pattern wherein adjacent contacts of the concentric pattern alternate between high-voltage conductive dots of the plurality of high-voltage conductive dots and low-voltage conductive dots of the plurality of low-voltage conductive dots as taught by Krishman et al. with the invention of the combination of Schick et al. and McCallum et al. in order to save space for additional components.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Schick et al. and McCallum et al. teaches the limitations of claim 10.
The combination of Schick et al. and McCallum et al. fails to specifically teach wherein the logic device measures the severity of the liquid leak at least partially based on a measured change in voltage between the plurality of high-voltage conductive dots and the plurality of low-voltage conductive dots. However, Krishman et al. teaches wherein the logic device measures the severity of the liquid leak at least partially based on a measured change in voltage between the plurality of high-voltage conductive contacts and the plurality of low-voltage conductive contacts (as disclosed in para. 0038).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the logic device measures the severity of the liquid leak at least partially based on a measured change in voltage between the plurality of high-voltage conductive dots and the plurality of low-voltage conductive dots as taught by Krishman et al. with the invention of the combination of Schick et al. and McCallum et al. in order to accurately determine changes related to damaging leakages.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schick et al. (US Pat. 10,107,708) and McCallum et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0317954) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of DeVries et al. (7,454,955).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Schick et al. and McCallum et al. teaches the limitations of claim 15, in addition, Schick et al. teaches wherein the plurality of high-voltage conductive dots (32’s) and the plurality of low-voltage conductive dots (34’s) are positioned on the detection surface of the substrate (20) (as shown I fig. 1-3).
The combination of Schick et al. and McCallum et al. fails to specifically teach wherein the voltage conductive dots are conductive pads. However, DeVries et al. teaches wherein the voltage conductive dots are conductive pads (54 and 56) (as shown in fig. 2 and disclosed in col. 2, lines 27-47).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the plurality of high-voltage conductive dots and the plurality of low-voltage conductive dots as conductive pads as taught by DeVries et al. with the invention of the combination of Schick et al. and McCallum et al. in order to accurately cover and sense a leakage affected area.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chainer et al. (US PGPUB 2016/0270267) in views of Schick et al. (US Pat. 10,107,708) and McCallum et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0317954).
Regarding claim 22, Chainer et al. teaches a computing system, comprising: at least one computing device (as disclosed in para. 0003); a liquid cooling system (106) configured to at least partially cool the at least one computing device based on delivering a cooling fluid (using coolant) to the at least one computing device (as disclosed in para. 0021-0023), wherein the cooling fluid is a conductive fluid (coolant is a conductor); and a leak detection system (114 and 118) for detecting leaks of the cooling fluid from the liquid cooling system (as disclosed in para. 0025).
Chainer et al. fails to specifically teach a leak detection system for detecting leaks, comprising: a substrate; 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 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. However, Schick et al. teaches a leak detection system for detecting leaks, comprising: a substrate (20); a plurality of high-voltage conductive contacts (32’s) positioned on the substrate (20); a plurality of low-voltage conductive contacts (34’s) positioned on the substrate (20), wherein a closest contact to each low-voltage conductive contact (34’s) of the plurality of low-voltage conductive contacts is a high-voltage conductive contact of the plurality of high-voltage conductive contacts (32’s) (as shown in fig. 3); and a logic device (26, 28, 38 and 40) electrically coupled to the plurality of high-voltage conductive contacts (32’s) and the plurality of low-voltage conductive contacts (34’s), the logic device (26, 28, 38 and 40) being configured to measure a change in current across at least one of the plurality of high-voltage conductive contacts (one of 32’s) and at least one of the plurality of low-voltage conductive contacts (one of 34’s) and McCallum et al. teaches where the conductive contacts are conductive dots (as shown for example in fig. 2 as 224, fig. 3 as 324, fig. 4 as 425, fig. 5 as 564 and fig. 9-10 as 872).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the leak detection system for detecting leaks, comprise: a substrate; 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 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 as taught by Schick et al. and McCallum et al. with the invention of Chainer et al. in order to quickly detect leaks that might help reduce financial loss (Schick et al. col. 1, lines 46-47) and to provide precise omnidirectional detection of leakages.
Conclusion
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