Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/586,748

COMPUTING SYSTEM WITH EXTERNAL DISCONNECTS

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Feb 26, 2024
Examiner
HOFFBERG, ROBERT JOSEPH
Art Unit
2835
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Amd Design, LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
656 granted / 908 resolved
+4.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
946
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
38.0%
-2.0% vs TC avg
§102
26.2%
-13.8% vs TC avg
§112
30.5%
-9.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 908 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . 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. Objections to the Claims, Specification and Drawings There is a lack of correspondence between the claimed subject matter, the detailed written description, the summary of invention and the drawings as to Claim 17, lines 3-5 requires “fluid is operable to flow from the one or more inlet cooling disconnects into the liquid cooling system to the one or more PCIE cards” (emphasis added) which requires the fluid to flow through the one or more PCIE cards 3,4. The PCIE cards 3,4 are within modules 108 (left module 109, right module 110). The specification in para. [0020] discloses “[t]he computing device 100 can include a housing 12 that is operable to receive a plurality of computing components including a liquid cooling system operable to lower the temperature of the computing components” and para. [0021] discloses “[l]eft module 109 and the right module 110 can include separate connections to the liquid cooling system.” While it is clear that the fluid flows through the left module 109 and right module 110, does the fluid actually flow through the PCIE cards 3,4 that are respectively with the left and right modules 109,110 as required by claim 17? Claim 18, lines 3-5 requires “fluid is operable to flow from the rear-to-cooling disconnect into the liquid cooling system to the one or more processing units” (emphasis added) which requires the fluid to flow through the computing components 1,2. The computing components 1,2 are adjacent to rear side 16 of housing 12. The specification in para. [0020] discloses “[t]he computing device 100 can include a housing 12 that is operable to receive a plurality of computing components including a liquid cooling system operable to lower the temperature of the computing components” and para. [0021] discloses “the computing components can include one or more processing units 1, 2.” While it is clear that the fluid flows through the liquid cooling system that is within the housing 12, does the fluid actually flow through the one or more processing units 1, 2 as required by claim 18? Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 219 and 221(fig, 2C). The drawings are objected to because: in figs 2A, 2B, and 2C, reference numeral “10” should be “100”; and In fig. 3, remove “10”. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “a liquid cooling system” (claims 1, 14, and 19), the “fluid is operable to flow . . . to the one or more PCIE cards “ (claim 17) and the “fluid is operable to flow . . . into the liquid cooling system to the one or more processing units” (claim 18) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections Claims 11, 12, 19, 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 16, “the processing unit” should be “the one or more processing units”; and Claim 11, lines 1-4 requires “one or more drip bibs coupled with the front outlet manifold . . ., each of the one or more drip bibs including a tray operable to receive the fluid that leaks from the at least one front inlet disconnect . . . “ (emphasis added). The Examiner believes that Applicant intended “the front outlet manifold” instead of “the at least one front inlet disconnect” since claim 11 is dealing with the outlet portion of the invention; and Claim 19, line 3, “plurality of rear inlet disconnects” should be “a plurality of rear inlet disconnects”; and Claim 19, lines 7 and 10-11, the Examiner believes “the computing device” should be “the housing”. 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 1-20 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, line 11, “the liquid cooling system” lacks antecedent basis; Claim 2, line 2; and Claim 8, lines 2-3 require “a liquid cooling system” and Claim 1, line 11 requires “the liquid cooling system.” Are these the same or different liquid cooling systems? Claim 14, line 2 and lines 10-11 each require “a rack manifold.” Are these the same or different rack manifolds? Claim 17, line 3 and Claim 14, line 11 each requires “fluid.” Are these the same or different fluids? Claim 18, line 3 and Claim 14, line 11 each requires “fluid.” Are these the same or different fluids? Claim 19, lines 7 and 10 each require “a front side.” Are these the same or different front sides? Claim 19, lines 6 and 9 each requires “flow.” Are these the same or different flows? Based upon the disclosure, “flow” of line 6 is “a first flow” and “flow” of claim 19, line 9 has antecedence “flow” of line 9 being “the second flow” which has antecedence in “[a second] flow” of claim 19, line 9; Claim 20, line 2 and Claim 19, line 6 each require “flow.” Are these the same or different flows? Based upon the disclosure, “flow” of claim 20 is “a second flow” that is different from “[a first] flow” of claim 19; and Claim 20, lines 3-4 and Claim 19, line 3 each require “a rear side.” Are these the same or different rear sides? Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objection(s) and 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 1, 14 and all claims dependent thereof are allowable over the art of record because the prior art does not teach or suggest that a structure comprising of a housing; a plurality of rear inlet disconnects extending from a rear side of the housing, the plurality of rear inlet disconnects including a rear-to-front disconnect and a rear-to-cooling disconnect; a front inlet manifold coupled with the housing and including at least one front inlet disconnect operable to be fluidly coupled with one or more inlet cooling disconnects extending from a front side of the housing via corresponding one or more inlet conduits, wherein the one or more inlet cooling disconnects are operable to be fluidly connected with [a] liquid cooling system; an inlet transmission tube coupled with an outside surface of the housing, the inlet transmission tube in fluid communication with the rear-to-front disconnect and operable to direct the fluid from the rear-to-front disconnect to the front inlet manifold. Claim 19 and all claims dependent thereof are allowable over the art of record because the prior art does not teach or suggest that a method comprising [a] plurality of rear inlet disconnects extending from a rear side of a housing of a computing device, wherein the plurality of rear inlet disconnects includes a rear-to-front disconnect and a rear-to-cooling disconnect; directing [a first] flow of a fluid received by the rear-to-front disconnect to a front inlet manifold coupled with a front side [of the housing] of the computing device via an inlet transmission tube coupled with an outside surface of the housing; and directing [the first] flow of the fluid from the front inlet manifold to the liquid cooling system for one or more front computing components positioned adjacent to [the] front side [of the housing] of the computing device through at least one front inlet disconnect fluidly coupled with one or more inlet cooling disconnects extending from the front side of the computing device via corresponding one or more inlet conduits. The aforementioned limitations in combination with all remaining limitations of the respective claims are believed to render said claims 1, 14, and 19 and all claims dependent thereof patentable over art of record. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 12,382,611 discloses a liquid cooling system for plug-in modules. US 12,309,958 discloses a liquid cooling system for processing units on a rear side of a housing, and plug-in modules on a front side of the housing. US 2025/0248005 discloses a pair of conduits spanning a housing running form a front to a rear of the housing. US 12,408,306 and CN 111290587 disclose fluid conduits along sidewalls of a housing. US 11,157,050 disclose conduits spanning form a front to a rear. US 7,515,418 and 10,609,839 discloses a conduit spanning from a rear to a front of a housing. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J HOFFBERG whose telephone number is (571) 272-2761. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 9 AM - 5 PM. 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, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached on (571) 272-3740. 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. RJH 1/2/2026 /ROBERT J HOFFBERG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 26, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Apr 02, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12591097
COMMUNICATION SOCKET
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588157
MODULAR POWER SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575065
A HEAT SINK APPARATUS FOR AN INTERFACE MODULE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12548985
SWITCHGEAR DEVICE WITH GROUNDING DEVICE AND RELATED METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12538458
COLD PLATE SYSTEM INTERFACE FOR LIQUID COOLED DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+11.6%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 908 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month