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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/29/2026.
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.
Claims 1-2,4-6, 10, 11, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson et al. (US 20250275100A1). Regarding claim 1, Anderson et al. discloses (figures 4-6) a system comprising a liquid manifold (107, 111) configured to implemented in a liquid coolant system for an electronic assembly; and a tray system (400) for capturing a liquid that leaks from a liquid connector assembly coupled with the liquid manifold, the tray system comprising a tray section (406) including a floor (floor of 406) and one or more tray walls (410 and wall projects from the floor), the floor being configured to extend underneath one or more component (200,300) of the liquid connector assembly; and an engagement section (402) coupled with the tray section and including one or more engagement portions (402) configured to attach to the liquid manifold (107,111) and position the tray section underneath the one or more component of the liquid connector assembly to capture the liquid.
Regarding claim 2, Anderson et al discloses (figure 5A and paragraph 38) the one or more engagement portions (402) are configured to frictionally engage a portion of the liquid coolant system.
Regarding claim 4, Anderson et al discloses (figure 5A) that the liquid coolant system includes a liquid connector manifold (107, 111) ; and the one or more engagement portions (402) are configured to engage the liquid connector manifold.
Regarding claim 5, Anderson et al. discloses (figure 5A) the one or more engagement portion (402) form at least a partial opening (404) configured to fit around the liquid connector manifold. (107, 111).
Regarding claim 6, Anderson et al discloses (figure 5A) that the partial opening (402) formed by the one or more engagement portion(402) is configured to substantially surround the liquid connector manifold (107, 111).
Regarding claim 11, Anderson et al discloses (figure 5B) the tray section (406) and the engagement section (402) are portions of a single structure. Regarding claim 10, the method of forming the device (formed by injection molding) is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the device itself. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case, the product in the product by a process claim is the same as or obvious from the tray system of Anderson et al, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior tray system was made by a different process.
Regarding claim 12, Anderson et al. discloses (figure 5b) a sponge (500) is disposed on the floor of the tray section (406).
Claims 1-3, 8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chigullapalli et al. (US 11, 994, 447). Regarding claim 1, Chigullapalli et al discloses a tray system (110) for capturing a liquid that leaks from a liquid connector assembly of a liquid coolant system for an electronic assembly, the tray system comprising a tray section (110) including a floor (120) and one or more tray walls (raised vertical walls around the floor), the floor being configured to extend underneath one or more component (20a,20b) of the liquid connector assembly; and an engagement section (122a, 122b) coupled with the tray section and including one or more engagement portions (122a,122b) configured to position the tray section underneath the one or more component of the liquid connector assembly to capture the liquid. Regarding claim 2, Chigullapalli et al discloses (figure 2) the one or more engagement portions (122a, 122b) are configured to frictionally engage a portion of the liquid coolant system. (after snap fit, the engagement portion 122a,122b frictionally engages the portion of the coolant system)
Regarding claim 3, Chigullapalli et al discloses (figure 2) the one or more engagement portions (122a, 122b) are configured to snap fit engage a portion (120a,120b) of the liquid coolant system.
.Regarding claim 8, Chiqullapalli et al discloses that the one or more engagement portions (122a,122b) are configured to stretch to fit over a portion of the liquid coolant system. (122a, 122b stretches to allow snap fit)
Regarding claim 10, Chigullapalli et al discloses (figure 3) the tray section (110a) and the engagement section (122a,122b) are portions of a single structure.
Regarding claim 11, the method of forming the device (formed by injection molding) is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the device itself. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case, the product in the product by a process claim is the same as or obvious from the tray system of Chiqullapalli et al, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior tray system was made by a different process.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Taylor Shea (CA 2483315A1). Regarding claim 1, Taylor Shea discloses (figure 8) a tray system (10) for capturing a liquid that leaks from a liquid connector assembly (joint) of a liquid coolant system , the tray system comprising a tray section (10) including a floor (12) and one or more tray walls (145), the floor (12) being configured to extend underneath one or more component of the liquid connector assembly (pipe); and an engagement section (50A) coupled with the tray section (10) and including one or more engagement portions (50A) configured to position the tray section (10) underneath the one or more component (joint) of the liquid connector assembly to capture the liquid. Regarding the limitation of “for an electronic assembly”, it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951).
Regarding claim 2, Taylor Shea discloses (figure 5) the one or more engagement portions (50A) are configured to frictionally engage a portion (22) of the liquid coolant system.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, 11, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Field et al. (US 20230171921A1). Regarding claims 1 and 20, Field discloses (figures 2-3, paragraph 44 and figure A) a system comprising, a liquid manifold configured to be implemented in a liquid coolant system for an electronic assembly; and a tray system (210) for capturing a liquid that leaks from a liquid connector assembly (208, 214) coupled with the liquid manifold, the tray system comprising a tray section (210) including a floor (floor of 210) and one or more tray walls (figure A shown below), the floor being configured to extend underneath one or more component (214) of the liquid connector assembly; and an engagement section (figure A) coupled with the tray section (210) and including one or more engagement portions configured to attach to the liquid manifold and position the tray section (210) underneath the one or more component (214) of the liquid connector assembly to capture the liquid. (see figure 3).
Regarding claim 2, Field et al further discloses (figure 3) that the one or more engagement portions are configured to frictionally engage a portion of the liquid coolant system.
Regarding claim 4, Field et al. discloses (figure A) that the liquid coolant system includes a liquid connector manifold; and the one or more engagement portions are configured to engage the liquid connector manifold.
Regarding claim 7, Field et al. discloses (figure 3 and paragraph 51) that the floor of the tray section is configured to extend at least a length of a coupling portion (222) of the one or more components of the liquid connector assembly; and the height (depth of the tray) of the tray walls is at least 5 mm.
Regarding claim 11, Field et al. discloses (figures 3, 4 and figure A) the tray section (210) and the engagement section (122a,122b) are portions of a single structure.
Regarding claim 10, the method of forming the device (formed by injection molding) is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the device itself. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case, the product in the product by a process claim is the same as or obvious from the tray system of Field et al, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior tray system was made by a different process.
Regarding claim 12, Field et al discloses (figure 4) a sponge (212) is disposed on the floor of the tray section.
PNG
media_image1.png
550
832
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: the modified figure corresponds to figure 4 with limitations shown.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chigullapalli et al. (US 11, 994, 447) in view of Nonami K. (JP 2009222337A). Chiqullapalli et al. further discloses (figures 2 and 4) that the floor of the tray (110) is configured to extend at least a coupling portion of the one or more components of the liquid connector assembly. Chigullapalli et al. (US 11, 994, 447) does not disclose a height of the tray is at least 5 mm. It appears that the higher the tray, the more liquid the tray can hold but also the larger the dimension of the overall system. Therefore, it is a tradeoff between the amount of the liquid can hold by the tray and the overall size of the system. Nonami K discloses (figure 2 and paragraph 32) a drain tray (10) that has a wall height of 20 mm (more than 5 mm) for a purpose of preventing a certain amount of liquid from overflowing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Nonami’s teaching in Chiqullapalli’s device for a purpose of preventing a certain amount of liquid from overflowing.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor Shea in view of Nonami K. (JP 2009222337A).
Regarding claim 7, Taylor Shea further discloses (figures 2 and 4) that the floor of the tray (12) is configured to extend at least a coupling portion (joint) of the one or more components of the liquid connector assembly. Taylor Shea does not disclose a height of the tray is at least 5 mm. It appears that the higher the tray, the more liquid the tray can hold but also the larger the dimension of the overall system. Therefore, it is a tradeoff between the amount of the liquid can hold by the tray and the overall size of the system. Nonami K discloses (figure 2 and paragraph 32) a drain tray (10) that has a wall height of 20 mm (more than 5 mm) for a purpose of preventing a certain amount of liquid from overflowing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Nonami’s teaching in Taylor’s device for a purpose of preventing a certain amount of liquid from overflowing. Regarding claim 9, Taylor Shea further (page 9, line 22-35 ) discloses that the one or more engagement portions (50a) are formed of at least one of silicone, rubber, neoprene or EPDM.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Anderson et al. (US 20250275100A1). Anderson substantially discloses all of applicant’s claimed invention as discussed above except for the dimension of the engagement wall such as its height is between 5 mm and 15 mm and having a length between 20 mm and 100mm. However, applicant has not disclosed that having such claimed range of dimension solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moveover, it appears that the engagement wall would perform equally well with any dimensions depending on the size of the intended liquid connector manifold that the tray system is intended to be used with. Accordingly, the size of the engagement wall is deemed to be a design consideration depending on its intended use with the size of the liquid connector manifold, which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Anderson et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ishikawa et al. (US 20150131228A1) discloses a heat exchange device.
Watanabe et al. (US 8,564,951B1) discloses an electronic apparatus and cooling module.
GU Kai -rong (CN 211146860U) discloses an anti-falling drain pipe structure.
Wu et al. (TW 202524254A) discloses a leakage gathering assembly.
An Chen (US 12615739B1) discloses a holder and containment feature.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THO V DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-4793. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 10-6PM.
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, Atkisson Jianying can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/THO V DUONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
