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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Acharaya (US 2022/0034743 A1).
As to claim 1, Acharaya discloses a leak-proof device (Fig. 1), configured to be mounted on a coupling portion of a pipe (Fig. 3A), comprising: an absorbent layer (10), configured to be disposed on the coupling portion of the pipe; a leak detector (20) in contact with the absorbent layer (Fig. 1); and a confined layer (30), configured to surround and wrap the absorbent layer and a part of the leak detector, and be fixed to the pipe (Fig. 3A).
As to claim 2, Acharaya discloses the leak-proof device according to claim 1, wherein a length and a width of the confined layer are greater than a length and a width of the absorbent layer. Refer to Figs. 2B and 2C, and paragraphs [0036], [0037] and [0041].
As to claim 3, Acharaya discloses the leak-proof device according to claim 1, wherein the absorbent layer comprises a base portion (10) and a plurality of absorbent particles (of 25), and the plurality of absorbent particles are disposed in the base portion. Refer to Fig. 2C and [0042], [0043].
As to claim 4, Acharaya discloses the leak-proof device according to claim 3, wherein a density of the plurality of absorbent particles at a place of the base portion located closer to the coupling portion of the pipe is smaller than a density of the plurality of absorbent particles at other places of the base portion. Refer to Fig. 2C and [0042], [0043].
As to claim 5, Acharaya discloses the leak-proof device according to claim 4, wherein the base portion comprises an inner sub layer and an outer sub layer, the inner sub layer is surrounded by the outer sub layer and is located closer to the coupling portion of the pipe than the outer sub layer, and the plurality of absorbent particles are disposed in the outer sub layer. Refer to Fig. 2C and [0042], [0043].
As to claim 6, Acharaya discloses the leak-proof device according to claim 4, wherein the base portion comprises a middle section and two side sections, the middle section is located between and connected to the two side sections, the middle section is configured to correspond to an opening of the coupling portion of the pipe, and the plurality of absorbent particles are disposed in the two side sections. Refer to Fig. 2C and [0042], [0043].
As to claim 7, Acharaya discloses the leak-proof device according to claim 1, wherein the confined layer is made of an elastically deformable material. Refer to [0033].
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 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.
Claim(s) 9-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Acharaya in view of Zhang et al (CN 217985805 U).
As to claim 9, Acharaya discloses a liquid cooling system (see paragraphs [0001] and [0020]), comprising: a liquid cooling device, having a pipe; and a leak-proof device (Fig. 1), comprising: an absorbent layer (10), configured to be disposed at a place where the coupling portion of the pipe is assembled with the joint of the liquid cooling device; a leak detector (20), configured to be in contact with the absorbent layer (Fig. 1); and a confined layer (30), configured to surround and wrap the absorbent layer and a part of the leak detector and be fixed to the pipe and the joint (Fig. 3A).
Acharaya fails to expressly teach a joint, with a pipe having a coupling portion configured to be assembled with the joint.
However, Zhang et al teaches a similar liquid cooling pipe connection assembly, comprising a liquid cooling pipe device, a cooling device and a server, the connection assembly including a water absorption part and a pipe protection structure (see abstract). The liquid cooling tube (10) is provided with joints (50), inserted into the tube at each end. Refer to Fig. 5. The connection assembly can optionally cover the entire tube and connection between the tube and the joints.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Acharaya to include a joint, with a pipe having a coupling portion configured to be assembled with the joint, as taught by Zhang et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to maximize the leak detection area and improve safety and proper function of the liquid cooling device.
As to claim 10, Acharaya in view of Zhang et al discloses the liquid cooling system according to claim 9, wherein in an extension direction of the pipe, a length of the confined layer is greater than a length of the absorbent layer. Refer to Fig. 2B, and paragraphs [0036], [0037] and [0041] in Acharaya.
As to claim 11, Acharaya in view of Zhang et al discloses the liquid cooling system according to claim 10, wherein in the extension direction of the pipe, two opposite sides of the absorbent layer are respectively spaced apart from two opposite sides of the confined layer. Refer to Fig. 2B, and paragraphs [0036], [0037] and [0041] in Acharaya.
As to claim 12, Acharaya in view of Zhang et al discloses the liquid cooling system according to claim 11, wherein the pipe is a round pipe, yet fails to expressly teach that the length of the absorbent layer falls within a range from 1 to 3 times of a circumference of the pipe, and the length of the confined layer falls within a range from 1.5 to 2.5 times of the length of the absorbent layer.
However, it is known in the art that altering/varying the relative sizes of a structure can affect the weight, sealing ability, strength, flexibility, etc. of the structure.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Acharaya in view of Zhang et al such that the length of the absorbent layer falls within a range from 1 to 3 times of a circumference of the pipe, and the length of the confined layer falls within a range from 1.5 to 2.5 times of the length of the absorbent layer, for the purpose of one or more of: controlling the weight of the structure; ensuring sufficient strength and/or flexibility; providing a structure which would have allowed sufficient sealing and engagement to occur when the joint is properly mated; to aid in the machining of the structure; and to have a structural arrangement which would have been obvious to try, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to modify Acharaya in view of Zhang et al such that the length of the absorbent layer falls within a range from 1 to 3 times of a circumference of the pipe, and the length of the confined layer falls within a range from 1.5 to 2.5 times of the length of the absorbent layer, the purpose of one or more of: controlling the weight of the structure; ensuring sufficient strength and/or flexibility; providing a structure which would have allowed sufficient sealing and engagement to occur when the joint is properly mated; to aid in the machining of the structure; and to have a structural arrangement which would have been obvious to try, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size and/or proportion of a component. A change is size and/or proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955) and/or Gardener v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
As to claim 13, Acharaya in view of Zhang et al discloses the liquid cooling system according to claim 12, except for expressly teaching that a width of the confined layer falls within a range from 1.5 to 2.5 times of the circumference of the pipe, and a width of the absorbent layer is equal to the circumference of the pipe.
However, it is known in the art that altering/varying the relative sizes of a structure can affect the weight, sealing ability, strength, flexibility, etc. of the structure.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Acharaya in view of Zhang et al such that a width of the confined layer falls within a range from 1.5 to 2.5 times of the circumference of the pipe, and a width of the absorbent layer is equal to the circumference of the pipe, for the purpose of one or more of: controlling the weight of the structure; ensuring sufficient strength and/or flexibility; providing a structure which would have allowed sufficient sealing and engagement to occur when the joint is properly mated; to aid in the machining of the structure; and to have a structural arrangement which would have been obvious to try, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to modify Acharaya in view of Zhang et al such that a width of the confined layer falls within a range from 1.5 to 2.5 times of the circumference of the pipe, and a width of the absorbent layer is equal to the circumference of the pipe, the purpose of one or more of: controlling the weight of the structure; ensuring sufficient strength and/or flexibility; providing a structure which would have allowed sufficient sealing and engagement to occur when the joint is properly mated; to aid in the machining of the structure; and to have a structural arrangement which would have been obvious to try, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size and/or proportion of a component. A change is size and/or proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955) and/or Gardener v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
As to claim 14, Acharaya in view of Zhang et al discloses the liquid cooling system according to claim 12, except for expressly teaching that a thickness of the confined layer falls within a range from 0.01cm to 0.3cm, and a thickness of the absorbent layer falls within a range from 0.5cm to a half of the circumference of the pipe.
However, it is known in the art that altering/varying the relative sizes of a structure can affect the weight, sealing ability, strength, flexibility, etc. of the structure.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Acharaya in view of Zhang et al such that a thickness of the confined layer falls within a range from 0.01cm to 0.3cm, and a thickness of the absorbent layer falls within a range from 0.5cm to a half of the circumference of the pipe, for the purpose of one or more of: controlling the weight of the structure; ensuring sufficient strength and/or flexibility; providing a structure which would have allowed sufficient sealing and engagement to occur when the joint is properly mated; to aid in the machining of the structure; and to have a structural arrangement which would have been obvious to try, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to modify Acharaya in view of Zhang et al such that the length of the absorbent layer falls within a range from 1 to 3 times of a circumference of the pipe, and the length of the confined layer falls within a range from 1.5 to 2.5 times of the length of the absorbent layer, the purpose of one or more of: controlling the weight of the structure; ensuring sufficient strength and/or flexibility; providing a structure which would have allowed sufficient sealing and engagement to occur when the joint is properly mated; to aid in the machining of the structure; and to have a structural arrangement which would have been obvious to try, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size and/or proportion of a component. A change is size and/or proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955) and/or Gardener v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
As to claim 15, Acharaya discloses the liquid cooling system according to claim 9, wherein the absorbent layer comprises a base portion (10) and a plurality of absorbent particles (of 25), and the plurality of absorbent particles are disposed in the base portion. Refer to Fig. 2C and [0042], [0043].
As to claim 16, Acharaya in view of Zhang et al discloses the liquid cooling system according to claim 15, wherein a density of the plurality of absorbent particles at a place of the base portion located closer to the coupling portion of the pipe is smaller than a density of the plurality of absorbent particles at other places of the base portion. Refer to Fig. 2C and [0042], [0043].
As to claim 17, Acharaya in view of Zhang et al discloses the liquid cooling system according to claim 16, wherein the base portion comprises an inner sub layer and an outer sub layer, the inner sub layer is surrounded by the outer sub layer and is located closer to the coupling portion of the pipe than the outer sub layer, and the plurality of absorbent particles are disposed in the outer sub layer. Refer to Fig. 2C and [0042], [0043] in Acharaya.
As to claim 18, Acharaya in view of Zhang et al discloses the liquid cooling system according to claim 16, wherein the base portion comprises a middle section and two side sections, the middle section is located between and connected to the two side sections, the middle section corresponds to an opening of the coupling portion of the pipe, and the plurality of absorbent particles are disposed in the two side sections. Refer to Fig. 2C and [0042], [0043] in Acharaya.
As to claim 20, Acharaya discloses an electronic device (see paragraphs [0001] and [0020]), comprising: a liquid cooling system (paragraphs [0001] and [0020]), comprising: a liquid cooling device, having a pipe (Figs. 3A and 3B); and a leak-proof device, comprising: an absorbent layer (10), configured to be disposed at a place where the coupling portion of the pipe is assembled with the joint of the liquid cooling device; a leak detector (20), configured to be in contact with the absorbent layer (Fig. 1); and a confined layer (30), configured to surround and wrap the absorbent layer and a part of the leak detector and be fixed to the pipe and the joint; a motherboard; and a baseboard management controller, wherein the leak detector is electrically connected to the baseboard management controller via the motherboard, and the leak detector is configured to transmit a leak signal to the baseboard management controller via the motherboard when detecting that the absorbent layer absorbs a liquid leaking from the coupling portion of the pipe (refer to Figs. 9 and 10 and paragraphs [0001], and [0058]-[0059].
Acharaya fails to expressly teach a joint, with a pipe having a coupling portion configured to be assembled with the joint.
However, Zhang et al teaches a similar liquid cooling pipe connection assembly, comprising a liquid cooling pipe device, a cooling device and a server, the connection assembly including a water absorption part and a pipe protection structure (see abstract). The liquid cooling tube (10) is provided with joints (50), inserted into the tube at each end. Refer to Fig. 5. The connection assembly can optionally cover the entire tube and connection between the tube and the joints.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Acharaya to include a joint, with a pipe having a coupling portion configured to be assembled with the joint, as taught by Zhang et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to maximize the leak detection area and improve safety and proper function of the liquid cooling device.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Acharaya in view of Piller (EP 2757359 B1).
As to claim 8, Acharaya discloses the leak-proof device according to claim 1, except that each of two opposite sides of the confined layer is provided with an adhesive layer, the leak-proof device further comprises two fasteners, and the two fasteners are respectively disposed on the two opposite sides of the confined layer.
However, Piller teaches an apparatus for detecting leaks from a fluid conduit, using adhesive strips (fasteners 25) on opposite sides of the device, as shown in Fig. 1. Refer to paragraphs [0013] - [0014] and [0030].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Acharaya such that each of two opposite sides of the confined layer is provided with an adhesive layer, the leak-proof device further comprises two fasteners, and the two fasteners are respectively disposed on the two opposite sides of the confined layer, as taught by Piller, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to better secure the device to the pipe.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Acharaya in view of Zhang et al, and further in view of Piller (EP 2757359 B1).
As to claim 19, Acharaya in view of Zhang et al discloses the liquid cooling system according to claim 9, except that each of two opposite sides of the confined layer is provided with an adhesive layer so as to be adhered on the pipe and the joint, the leak-proof device further comprises two fasteners, and the two fasteners are respectively disposed on the two opposite sides of the confined layer and fasten the confined layer on the pipe and the joint.
However, Piller teaches an apparatus for detecting leaks from a fluid conduit, using adhesive strips (fasteners 25) on opposite sides of the device, as shown in Fig. 1. Refer to paragraphs [0013] - [0014] and [0030].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Acharaya such that each of two opposite sides of the confined layer is provided with an adhesive layer, the leak-proof device further comprises two fasteners, and the two fasteners are respectively disposed on the two opposite sides of the confined layer, as taught by Piller, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to better secure the device to the pipe assembly.
Examiner’s Note:
The italicized portions in the foregoing claims are functional recitations. These clauses, as well as other statements of intended use do not serve to patently distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference(s), as long as the structure of the cited reference(s) is capable of performing the intended use. See MPEP 2111-2115.
See also MPEP 2114, which states:
A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647;
Claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531; and
[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525,1528.
Any one of the systems in the cited reference(s) is capable of being used in the same manner and for the intended or desired use as the claimed invention. Note that it is sufficient to show that said capability exists, which is the case for the cited reference(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ekelund discloses a system for restoring a damaged pipeline with a wrapped assembly.
Bhatti discloses a leak detection apparatus for a liquid cooling system.
Roughley discloses a water leak detector comprising a wrapped assembly.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James M Hewitt II whose telephone number is (571)272-7084. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730am-930pm (MST), mid-day flex.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached at 571-270-3654. 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.
James M. Hewitt II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3679
/JAMES M HEWITT II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights