US 11041778

I'll search for authoritative information on this specific patent number, including any litigation activity.

US 11,041,778 B1 — Analyst Summary

Grounding note: The following is drawn from the authoritative full text of US 11,041,778 B1 that you supplied (Google Patents, fetched 2026‑09‑24). Where I could not verify something with a reliable source, I say so explicitly.

1. Bibliographic data

Note on the assignee: the page lists "Cooler Master Co Ltd"; the definitive assignee name in the chain of title appears in the assignment record as Cooler Master Co., Ltd.

2. Abstract (verbatim)

"A configurable leak detection system comprising a leak detection device and at least a leak detection covering comprising a leak detection region having a first and second electrode and at least an attachable region is provided. The first and second electrodes are disposed spaced apart and fixed in firm contact with the covering. The system is attached onto liquid cooling systems, bases, and/or fluid conduits. When liquid is leaked onto the covering, the liquid is absorbed therein, until the dampened region extends over some point on each of the first and second electrodes. An electrical current is conducted, providing a low resistance path therebetween. An impedance change is detected, an alert means is generated, and the leak detection device is reset. More than one configurable leak detection system is attached onto systems, bases and/or fluid conduits via the at least an attachable region, and then electrically coupled together."

3. Plain-language overview of the independent claim(s)

A caveat first: the document text you supplied contains a "Definitions" section and a Summary that track the claim language closely, but the scrape does not include an explicit numbered claims listing. The overview below is keyed to the Summary/Definitions text, which mirrors claim 1. I cannot confirm from the supplied material the total claim count or the exact wording of every independent claim. Downloading the USPTO/Google Patents PDF is advisable to verify verbatim claim language.

Independent claim 1 (as mirrored in the Summary) — in plain language:

• What it is: A leak-detection system that is meant to be wrapped/fitted onto a "vessel" holding pressurized fluid (e.g., a liquid-cooling base, heat exchanger, or fluid conduit).
• Two parts: (a) at least one leak detection covering (the fabric-like sleeve/blanket), and (b) a leak detection device (the electronics box).
• The covering has two functional zones:
  • a leak detection region built from a first insulating material layer with an inner surface and outer surface; a first electrode fixed on the inner surface; and a second electrode fixed on the inner surface, aligned with the first and separated by a gap;
  • at least one attachable region with attachable material that lets the covering be fastened to the vessel.
• Ends of the electrodes are named: the proximal ends form a coupling end; the distal ends form a configuration end (used for daisy-chaining coverings together).
• The leak detection device contains electrical circuitry plus an input device end, an output device end, and an alert means (visual and/or audible). The covering's coupling end plugs into the input end.
• How it works: the device monitors for impedance changes between the first and second electrodes. If leaked conductive liquid bridges the gap and lowers resistance, an impedance change is detected and an alert is generated.

Other independent claims appear to be contemplated by the Definitions section, covering at least these distinct inventive concepts (each of which reads as its own claim-level statement):

1. A version adding a second insulating material layer opposed to the first, whose second inner surface is fixed to and in firm contact with both electrodes and the first outer surface — i.e., electrodes sandwiched between two insulating layers.
2. A version where the attachable material is stretchable (e.g., 2‑way/4‑way stretch) so the covering is slip-on fastened in one step.
3. A version where the covering can be turned inside-out / outside-in to rotate which insulating surface contacts the vessel.
4. A version specifying the attachment mechanism as button, toggle, zipper, Velcro, or fabric ties/laces (or combinations).
5. A version where the covering is a single-plane shape and the electrodes change direction; sub-variants include a T-shape with two or more attachable regions, and two or more coverings electrically coupled at their configuration and coupling ends.
6. A version where the covering is single-plane, multi-plane, or curved (or combinations) and the electrode pattern may or may not change direction.
7. Material claims: insulating layers hydrophilic and electrically non-conductive; made of plastic microfiber and/or natural cellulose fiber; impregnated with an aqueous-soluble salt (e.g., NaCl, KCl) to boost conductivity on wetting; and/or made of a liquid-responsive material giving a visible indication of leak location (color-change chemical or naturally staining material).
8. Electrode claims: wire-shaped or flat-strip-shaped; made of copper, aluminum, or other conductive metal (or combinations).
9. Alert claim: visual and/or audible alerts via corresponding devices (the specification mentions LED light sources, speakers, a computer monitoring system, and a relay for shut-off/reset).

4. Litigation / PTAB / CAFC search results

• CAFC 2026 dockets: I found no Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docket in 2026 involving US 11,041,778 (or any apparent appeal involving this patent). I cannot confirm an absence with certainty, but no search result tied this patent to a Federal Circuit proceeding.
• District court litigation: No litigation naming US 11,041,778 as an asserted patent surfaced in my searches. This is a negative hit and should not be treated as conclusive.
• PTAB: A third-party aggregation (IP Verse, last updated 2026‑08‑30) lists Cooler Master's PTAB activity, all as petitioner, against Asetek Danmark and Aavid Thermalloy (e.g., IPR2024‑01497, IPR2023‑00667/668, IPR2019‑00144/145/146, IPR2019‑00333/334/337/338). None of those proceedings appear to involve US 11,041,778. The patent issued 2021‑06‑22, so any IPR would be governed by the AIA one-year bar running from service of an infringement complaint; nothing found.
• Other administrative activity: No reissue, reexamination, or terminal disclaimer data was found for this patent. Cooler Master's patent portfolio page (onscope) and a Google Patents citation listing (US10365178B2 / US11761843B2, Pica Product Development) show the '778 patent cited in the leak-detection art, but no litigation.

5. Important disambiguation warning

One search hit (patenthub.cn) surfaces "申请号 / application number US11041778" in connection with snowmobile patent US 7,150,336 B2 ("Multi-component isolation unit for a snowmobile," filed 2005‑01‑22). This is not the same identifier. That entry refers to US application 11/041,778, which is a different alphanumeric string from US Patent 11,041,778. Under the strict no-auto-correction rule, I am flagging this literally rather than merging the records: US Patent No. 11,041,778 (Cooler Master, leak detection) and US Application No. 11/041,778 (snowmobile isolation unit) are distinct identifiers that appear visually similar after punctuation differences.

Similarly, search results returned US 10,871,417 B2 (Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics, "Leak detection system with electronics component") — a different patent in the same technical space, not to be confused with the '778 patent.

6. Confidence assessment

Recommendation: To close the two remaining gaps with certainty, pull the official USPTO PatentCenter record for application 16/917,945 (for the verbatim claim set and any post-grant filings) and the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board / CAFC docket search tools under the literal string "11041778" and "16/917,945."

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 11041778 specifically.

Let me search more specifically across litigation databases.

Let me check a few more targeted sources to confirm.

Findings: Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 11,041,778

No litigation asserting U.S. Patent No. 11,041,778 ("Configurable leak detection system," Cooler Master Co., Ltd.) was found in the sources searched.

I searched broadly (Unified Patents, CourtListener/RECAP, USPTO PTAB and ITC records, and news/litigation reporting) for the exact patent number. The only hits that matched the string "11041778" were unrelated:

• A Czech insolvency claim document (unrelated invoice number).
• A Chinese patent database entry in which "US11041778" appears as an application number for an unrelated snowmobile patent (US 7,150,336, Desmarais). Note: this is a different numbering scheme and is not U.S. Patent 11,041,778.

I found no complaint, no ITC investigation, no IPR/PGR, and no CAFC appeal in which U.S. Patent No. 11,041,778 is identified as an asserted or challenged patent.

Important distinction — related Cooler Master litigation that does exist (but does NOT involve the '778 patent)

Cooler Master has been active in patent litigation, but the patents asserted were different:

1. ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1394 — Certain Liquid Coolers for Electronic Components in Computers, Components Thereof, Devices for Controlling Same, and Products Containing Same

   • Complainants: Cooler Master Co., Ltd.; CMI USA, Inc.; CMC Great USA, Inc.
   • Respondents: SilverStone Technology Co., Ltd.; SilverStone Technology, Inc.; Enermax Technology Corp.; Enermax USA; Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd.; Guangdong Apaltek Liquid Cooling Technology Co., Ltd.
   • Patents asserted: U.S. 10,509,446; U.S. 11,061,450; U.S. D856,941 (design)
   • Instituted March 21, 2024 (89 Fed. Reg. 20247-48); Final ID finding violation March 21, 2025; Commission found violation and issued a limited exclusion order and CDO (July 2025).
   • The '778 patent is not among the asserted patents.

2. Parallel district court suit (C.D. Cal.) — Cooler Master suit against SilverStone, Enermax, and Apaltek asserting the same three patents (10,509,446; 11,061,450; D856,941). (Reported by Tom's Hardware/TechPowerUp.) Again, not the '778 patent.

3. Asetek Danmark A/S v. CMI USA, Inc. / Cooler Master — U.S. 8,240,362 and 8,245,764 (the reverse posture; Cooler Master was a defendant). Unrelated to the '778 patent.

Caveat on confidence

Litigation databases are not perfectly exhaustive, and a very recent complaint (e.g., filed in the last few days/weeks, or a low-profile case) may not yet be indexed and would therefore not appear in my search. I also note that the '778 patent faces a related-family activity signal worth flagging: Cooler Master has recently filed continuation-family applications on leak/piping detection (e.g., US 2026/0063495 A1 and US 2026/0063496 A1, "Piping Assembly"), which suggests active prosecution in this space — but prosecution is not litigation.

Bottom line: Based on the sources available to me, there is no known litigation, ITC action, or PTAB proceeding involving U.S. Patent No. 11,041,778. If you need certainty, the most reliable checkpoints would be a direct PACER/Docket Navigator/Unified Patents Portal query on the exact number, and the USPTO Patent Center "Litigation" tab for this patent.

Disclaimer: This is a search-based summary, not a legal opinion. I have not conducted an exhaustive, docket-verified clearance search, and litigation status can change without notice.

I'll verify the structured data against public sources before reporting.

Let me search more specifically for AIA trials involving this patent number.

A couple more targeted checks, including the false-positive serial-number trap I noticed.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 11,041,778: 0. The USPTO Open Data Portal returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding naming this patent, and my independent web checks surfaced none. With zero proceedings there is no invalidated-claims status, no settlement, no institution denial, and no FWD to point to — the correct breakdown is simply 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denied. The defensive posture this gives a defendant is the opposite of "hardened by survival": the patent's claims have never been tested at the PTAB, so there is no free roadmap, no petitioner estoppel working in your favor, and no adjudicated invalidity to lean on. Its asserted strength is entirely untested.

I want to be explicit about the limits of this answer: I ran searches against PTAB decision repositories, Docket Alarm, and general web sources, and found no AIA trial for this patent number. I did not have time to complete every query I intended (I hit a tool-step ceiling), so treat this as "no evidence of PTAB activity" rather than a certified negative. The structured ODP block in the prompt is the canonical list and it is empty, which is the stronger of the two signals.

No proceedings to report

There is no {PROCEEDING_NUMBER} — {Petitioner} v. {Patent Owner} entry to populate. Per the constraints, I will not invent one.

Strategic summary

Claim status: all claims UNTESTED. No claim of US 11,041,778 has been canceled, confirmed, or even construed by the PTAB. The patent issued 2021-06-22 from Application 16/917,945 (filed 2020-07-01) to Cooler Master Co., Ltd., with inventors Chu Yi Kuo, Wen Hong Chen, and Chun Hsien Chen. It claims a configurable leak detection system with a leak detection covering (a first insulating material layer, first and second electrodes spaced by a gap, and an attachable region) plus a leak detection device that senses impedance changes between the electrodes and generates an alert. Because there has been no AIA review, every claim — including all dependent claims and the T-shaped/curved-surface/multi-covering alternatives — remains live.

Estoppel landscape: no § 315(e)(2) estoppel exists against anyone. Estoppel is petitioner-specific and arises only from a proceeding that reaches a final written decision. With no IPR/PGR, no party is estopped from raising any § 102/§ 103 ground, and no prior art is "burned" for you. If you are a defendant weighing an IPR, you have a clean slate: any printed publication or patent qualifying as prior art is available, with no risk that a prior petitioner's institution decision or FWD narrows what you may argue in district court. Conversely, if you file an IPR and lose on the merits, § 315(e)(2) will bar you and your privies from re-litigating those grounds in the co-pending litigation — a real downside given the patent's untested status.

Pattern signals. Two flags worth separating, because they are easy to conflate:

• Cooler Master is a frequent petitioner, not a frequent respondent. Cooler Master Co., Ltd. filed IPRs against Asetek Danmark A/S patents — e.g., IPR2023-00668 on U.S. 8,245,764 (joinder to Shenzhen Apaltek's IPR2022-01317; institution granted), and IPR2020-00522/-00523/-00524 (filed 2020, concluded 2021, taken up on appeal to the Federal Circuit). In that litigation, Cooler Master is the alleged infringer. See the institution decision at Docket Alarm, IPR2023-00668 Paper 8. None of that involves US 11,041,778; Cooler Master owns that patent, and the '778 patent is on the other side of the table.
• No defensive aggregator in the chain. I found no Unified Patents (or similar) filing targeting this patent, and no evidence the patent has been asserted at all. The absence of PTAB activity is itself a meaningful signal: patents that get widely asserted — especially by NPEs against deep-pocketed defendants in the E.D. Tex. / W.D. Tex. venues — almost invariably attract IPR petitions within the § 315(b) one-year window. Zero petitions here suggests either very narrow assertion activity or an assertion posture that hasn't yet matured (or hasn't been publicly indexed).

One false-positive trap to avoid. Some patent aggregators list "US11041778" as an application serial number for a snowmobile patent (application 11/041,778, filed 2005-01-22, which issued as U.S. 7,150,336). That is a different number in a different field — application serial 11/041,778 versus patent 11,041,778 — and it is unrelated to Cooler Master's leak detection patent. Do not let a docket or vendor system keyed on the bare digit string import that snowmobile art into your invalidity analysis.

Recommended next steps

• Treat the "no PTAB activity" finding as a starting point, not a conclusion. The ODP ingest may lag recent filings. Before relying on this, re-run a docket check directly at USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB E2E) and USPTO PatentCenter for Application 16/917,945, and confirm no proceeding has been filed since the ingest date. A recently filed petition would not change today's bottom line (no FWD, no estoppel), but it changes your timing calculus.
• Check the family. Cooler Master filed counterpart applications on this disclosure — TW110201311U (filed 2021-02-03, issued as TWM615408U) and CN202120616866.0U / CN202110325396.7A (filed 2021-03-26, published as CN215065091U and CN113959650A). Foreign invalidity outcomes, if any, are relevant context for the strength of the underlying disclosure, though they carry no estoppel or preclusive effect in the U.S.
• If you are a defendant being asserted: there is no FWD to link and no canceled claim to quote. Your options are (i) file an IPR on the clean § 102/§ 103 slate — mindful that the one-year § 315(b) clock runs from service of the complaint, and that losing at FWD triggers § 315(e)(2) estoppel — or (ii) litigate validity in district court without the PTAB, or (iii) both, with a Sotera stipulation to reduce discretionary-denial risk. Given the patent is only ~5 years old and untested, the prior art of record in the file history (Application 16/917,945) is the natural first place to look for a § 325(d) counter-argument the patent owner may raise.

Confidence note: I am confident there is no AIA trial on US 11,041,778 based on the structured ODP block plus the searches I completed. I am not able to certify the absence of any litigation involving this patent, because the relevant searches did not return on point before I exhausted my query budget. Do not rely on my negative finding about district-court assertion activity — verify that separately.

I'll research the assignment record for US 11041778. Let me start with targeted searches.

Inventors

Pattern notes: All three inventors assigned their rights to Cooler Master Co., Ltd. contemporaneously with the 2020-07-01 filing, which is the ordinary employer-assignment pattern for a corporate R&D filing — not the "inventors all depart within 12 months" distress signal. I found no evidence of inventor departures, no inventor-held continuations, and no inventor-to-third-party transfers. All three are also named on the Taiwan (TWM615408U) and China (CN215065091U / CN113959650A) family members, consistent with an in-house R&D team rather than independent inventors.

Original assignee

Cooler Master Co., Ltd. (Taipei, Taiwan) — named as original and current assignee on the face of US 11041778.

• Business: Long-established manufacturer of PC thermal hardware — liquid-cooling loops, pumps, radiators, cold plates, chassis, and peripherals. The patent itself is squarely in that line ("configurable leak detection system" for closed-loop liquid cooling).
• Shipped a product embodying the claims? Highly likely — Cooler Master is one of the largest retail/OEM suppliers of AIO and custom liquid-cooling kits. I could not, however, tie the claims to a specific SKU from the sources available, so treat the product-embodiment point as strongly indicated but not documentarily verified.
• Status: Operating company; no bankruptcy, dissolution, or acquisition event appears in the patent record. Note a corporate-family wrinkle: historically some Cooler Master assets sit under Cooler Master Development Corporation (e.g., Espacenet INPADOC shows a CHANGE OF NAME from Cooler Master Co., Ltd. to Cooler Master Development Corporation recorded for an older patent at reel 032088/0149, effective 2013-02-20). That reorganisation was not recorded against US 11041778, which still lists Cooler Master Co., Ltd. as both original and current assignee.

Assignment timeline

Data-availability caveat (stated plainly): I was able to confirm only one assignment of record for US 11041778. The reel/frame number and the correspondent of record were not retrievable from the sources I could reach — I did not have direct query access to the Assignment Center database (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov / assignment.uspto.gov), and the indexed surfaces (Google Patents legal events, the patent text) expose the assignment event without the reel/frame or correspondent fields. I am not fabricating those numbers.

• 2020-07-01 (executed) / recorded 2020-07-01 — Reel not retrievable / unverified (Google Patents legal-events entry: "Assigned to COOLER MASTER CO., LTD. — ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
  • Conveyance: Assignment (inventor-to-employer, of record at filing)
  • Assignor: Kuo, Chu Yi; Chen, Wen Hong; Chen, Chun Hsien (joint inventors)
  • Assignee: Cooler Master Co., Ltd. (Taiwan)
  • Correspondent: not surfaced in any source I could reach — the Assignment Center correspondent field is the one I could not pull down
  • Context: Initial inventor-to-employer assignment at filing — not a third-party acquisition, not a reorg, not a transfer-to-asserter.

No other post-issuance assignments appear. After the 2021-06-22 grant, the record shows only: priority claims to TW110201311U (2021-02-03) and CN202120616866.0U / CN110325396.7A (2021-03-26), and a legal status of Active, anticipated expiration 2040-07-01. Crucially, the Google Patents assignee field still reads "Cooler Master Co Ltd" for both "Original Assignee" and "Current Assignee." That equivalence is itself the finding: the patent has never left the original operating company. Rights-holder would need to be confirmed against the Assignment Center and USPTO ODP/PEDS directly, and I flag the reel/frame and correspondent as open items for verification rather than as negative findings.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11041778
    2020 : Filed by Cooler Master
         : Inventors assign rights to Cooler Master
    2021 : Patent issued
         : Family filings in Taiwan and China

(Only three dated ownership events exist; there is no post-issuance chain to depict. Once the reel/frame is pulled from the Assignment Center, the 2020 line can be annotated with it.)

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. No assignment to any "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" entity appears. The single recorded conveyance runs inventors → Cooler Master Co., Ltd., an operating manufacturer, and the assignee of record remains unchanged. No single-purpose LLC, no registered-agent service address, no Delaware/Texas shell.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. Neither the original nor the current assignee (Cooler Master Co., Ltd.) appears on the Acacia / Marathon / IV / IPNav / Wi-LAN / Conversant / Vringo / Pendrell / Innovatio / MPHJ / Lumen View / Round Rock / Spangenberg lists, nor did any Cooler Master entity surface as a high-frequency plaintiff in the Unified Patents or RPX material I could reach.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear / not assessable. There is only one link in the chain, so recurrence is structurally impossible to test, and the correspondent name was not retrievable. A single appearance would not be a finding anyway; treat this as an open verification item, not a signal.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present. One assignment in total, executed at (or before) filing; no successive LLC hops, no shared-address clustering, no chain of any kind, let alone one compressed into <24 months.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. No infringement suit naming US 11041778 has been identified, and the only assignment is the initial employer assignment dated to the filing itself (2020-07-01) — five years before today and with no known assertion to "enable."

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. No Chapter 7/11 record, no assignment in bankruptcy, no sale-of-portfolio event involving Cooler Master appears in the record.

7. Privateering — Not present. No transfer out of Cooler Master to a third party at all, so no operating-company-to-NPE funnel exists.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. Termination is at the original operating company, which is a neutral holding, not a defensive-aggregator neutralisation.

Net: zero affirmative NPE signals. The one record is the mundane inventor-to-employer assignment every corporate filing has.

Verdict

Insufficient data — more precisely, "only the original assignment."

The chain consists of a single recorded conveyance, 2020-07-01, from inventors Kuo / Chen / Chen to the operating manufacturer Cooler Master Co., Ltd., which remains the assignee of record today (still "Current Assignee," patent Active, expiry 2040-07-01). Because the reel/frame and correspondent fields could not be retrieved, I cannot certify the record is complete — but nothing in the available evidence supports any NPE reading, and every one of the eight troll-pattern signals is either absent or structurally inapplicable. This is an ordinary corporate-owned, product-side patent for liquid-cooling leak detection, held by a company that ships cooling hardware; the "insufficient data" call reflects the missing Assignment Center fields, not suspected hidden transactions.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search US 11041778 / application 16/917,945) and https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html — the reel/frame and correspondent of record for the 2020 assignment are the two fields to pull, and if a post-2021 assignment exists that Google Patents has not indexed, it will surface there.

Two honest limits on this analysis: (a) I could not query the Assignment Center database directly in this session, so my record list derives from the patent document's legal-events data rather than the primary reel/frame index; (b) the correspondent-of-record detail you specifically asked me to capture is exactly the field I could not obtain — I have flagged it rather than guessed it.

I'll search for this specific patent and its citation records.

Let me dig into the citation records directly.

I have partial forward-citation data. Let me retrieve the actual "References Cited" list from the patent document itself.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 11,041,778 B1

0. Scope check and a necessary limitation up front

I attempted to pull the verbatim "References Cited (56)" list — i.e., the examiner/applicant citations printed on the face of US 11,041,778 B1 — from USPTO/Google Patents sources. I could not confirm that list within this session's tool budget, and I will not reconstruct it from memory. Here is exactly what is and is not available, so the analysis below can be read with the right grain of salt:

Also flagging the task/system date discrepancy (task says April 26, 2026; system date says 2026‑09‑29). It does not affect any date computation below, which is driven entirely by the patent's own filing/publication dates.

Carrying forward from the earlier sections: the numbered claims were not present in the supplied text, so I continue to key the analysis to claim 1 as mirrored in the Summary/Definitions plus the nine embodiment-level claim families (2)–(9) identified in the prior summary. I have not repeated that content.

1. Target-document verification (literal-ID discipline)

• US 11,041,778 B1 — "Configurable leak detection system"; Appl. No. 16/917,945; filed 2020‑07‑01; granted 2021‑06‑22; assignee Cooler Master Co., Ltd.; inventors Chu Yi Kuo, Wen Hong Chen, Chun Hsien Chen.
• Search-collision warning (carried forward, restated once): queries on the bare string "11041778" still return the snowmobile patent US 7,150,336 B2, whose application number is 11/041,778. Per the strict no-auto-correction rule, I treat US Patent 11,041,778 and US Application 11/041,778 as distinct identifiers. No result for application 11/041,778 is used as prior art to the patent at issue.

Critical date: Because '778's own filing date (2020‑07‑01) is the earliest date listed and there is no earlier US priority claim, the patent is governed by the AIA (first-inventor-to-file) regime, and the §102 prior-art cut-off is 2020‑07‑01. References must be patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use/on sale before that date to qualify under §102(a)(1), or be an effective §102(a)(2) U.S. application publication/patent with an earlier effective filing date.

2. Documents in the '778 citation graph that I could confirm

Key point: everything in the Pica/Saint-Gobain/EP/CN rows that post-dates 2020‑07‑01 is forward art, useful for (a) showing the field's trajectory, (b) obviousness-type double patenting / continuation strategy, and (c) later-art §103 combinations — but useless for §102 anticipation of '778.

3. Candidate §102 prior art (clearly labeled as candidates)

The references below appear in the citation tables of the closely related Pica leak-detection patents (same classification art, same interelectrode-resistance detection principle). I list them because they are the most probative §102 candidates for '778's core detection-region concept. They are not confirmed as citations on the face of '778. Where I could not verify a description beyond the citation-table row, I say so.

4. Which claims each candidate would — and would not — anticipate

Applying the claim-1 element set (from the Summary mirror) against the candidates:

Elements that the classic references do disclose (strong §102 exposure):

• first insulating material layer with an inner surface;
• first and second electrodes spaced apart by a gap, disposed on that surface;
• absorption of leaked conductive liquid bridging the gap; and
• a leak detection device detecting the impedance/resistance change and generating an alert.

References covering this cluster: US 2,372,489; US 3,938,116; US 4,270,049; JPH 09218124; US 5,824,883; US 6,038,914; US 6,445,304; US 6,639,517; US 6,677,859. For the materials sub-claims (family (7): hydrophilic/non-conductive, microfiber/cellulose, aqueous-soluble salt impregnation, liquid-responsive visible indicating) and the electrode sub-claims (family (8): wire or flat strip; copper/aluminum), the older tank/liner and mat references are the best §102 targets.

Elements that I did not see disclosed in any candidate (low §102 risk, higher §103 risk):

1. The "at least an attachable region" with attachable material configured to fasten the covering to the vessel — especially the stretchable 2‑way/4‑way slip-on variant (family (2)) and the enumerated button/toggle/zipper/Velcro/lace variants (family (4)). The classic art is laid-on mats, not slip-on sleeves, so this is the likely point of novelty.
2. The "coupling end" / "configuration end" architecture that lets coverings be daisy-chained (family (5): two or more coverings electrically coupled via configuration and coupling ends) — i.e., modular, series-extendable coverage across multiple bases or conduits.
3. The inside-out/outside-in surface rotation for convenience, aesthetics, or conductivity (family (3)).
4. The T-shaped single-plane covering with ≥2 attachable regions and the multi-base T-shape of FIGS. 2A–2D (family (5)).

Conclusion on §102: no single candidate reference I could verify appears to anticipate claim 1 in full, because none of them discloses the attachable-region-fastened-to-a-pressurized-fluid vessel limitation in combination with the electrode/covering architecture. The realistic §102 attacks are against the narrower dependent/embodiment subject matter (materials, electrode form, alert type, location-determination). The strongest obviousness attack would be US 6,639,517 (or US 4,270,049) in view of a conventional slip-on/stretch sleeve, aimed at the attachable region.

5. Confidence and gaps

To close the one real gap (the citation list), the reliable checkpoints are:

1. USPTO PatentCenter → application 16/917,945 → "Documents & Transactions" (the 1449 IDS forms and PTO‑892 list the examiner-cited references with the exact citations);
2. the granted-patent PDF front page for US 11,041,778 B1 (56) References Cited / (65) and the "Cited By" entries;
3. Global Dossier for the search reports on the TW/CN family members (TWM615408U, CN215065091U, CN113959650A), which often surface X/Y-category art not cited in the US case.

I did not fabricate names, numbers, or dates to fill the missing table; where a row is unverified I have marked it as such rather than guessing.

I'll research the prior art landscape for this patent before building the § 103 analysis. Let me start with the references of record and closely-related art.

Let me pull the specific "Prior Art" / "Cited By" data for this patent and the key closely-related sleeve/wrap references.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 11,041,778 B1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

0. Scope, governing assumptions, and a flagged gap

Flagged gap (read first): The task instructs me to "use the results from the Prior Art section of this page," but the authoritative material provided to me does not contain a prior-art reference listing. The Google Patents text I have includes only the prior art keywords — "leak detection; configurable; detection system; insulating material; covering" — and omits both the numbered claims and the cited-references table. I therefore (a) treated the keyword set and the visible citation network around the '778 page as the "prior art" signal, and (b) built the analysis on verified references in CPC G01M 3/16–3/18 and G08B 21/20. Every reference number below was actually retrieved; where I could not verify a specific document for a dependent-claim feature, I say so rather than inventing a citation. Before filing anything, confirm this chart against the IDS of Application 16/917,945 (the file history of record is also the natural § 325(d) battleground).

This builds on, and does not repeat, the earlier sections. Recall the operative posture from those: the patent issued 2021‑06‑22 from App. 16/917,945 (filed 2020‑07‑01, the sole effective filing date — the TW/CN family members all post-date it); every claim is UNTESTED; there is no AIA trial and therefore no § 315(e)(2) estoppel in place against anyone.

1. Level of ordinary skill in the art (Graham factor 3)

The claimed subject matter sits at the junction of (i) leak-sensing hardware and (ii) liquid-cooling/thermal-management packaging. A reasonable, defensible POSITA is a person with a bachelor's degree in mechanical or electrical engineering (or equivalent) and 2–4 years of experience designing leak-detection sensors or liquid-cooling hardware, or a lesser degree with more experience. This skill level matters because it is high enough to make the "configurable covering + two spaced electrodes + impedance-sensing controller" architecture a matter of routine design choice, not invention.

2. The verified prior art

Also noted in the citation network around the '778 page: US 11,761,843 B2 (Pica Product Development, "Flat flexible conductive fluid sensor cable and connector," 2019‑06‑14), i.e., the '778 is cited in the flat flexible sensor-cable family. See https://patents.google.com/patent/US10365178B2/en#9.

3. Claim 1 — element-by-element mapping

Claim 1 (as mirrored in the Summary/Definitions section of the provided text) requires:

Observation: Every element of claim 1 has an express antecedent in the combination of '178 ('417) + WO 93/17316 + a conventional alarm controller. The only element without a crisp, verbatim antecedent is (e), the naming of the two electrode ends as "coupling" and "configuration" ends — which is a labeling convention over a physical connector/terminal, not an apparatus difference. That is precisely the kind of difference a § 103 rejection is designed to reach.

4. Grounds of rejection

Ground 1 — Primary: Saint‑Gobain '178 in view of WO 93/17316 (and optionally '417)

Proposed combination: '178 as the base covering/sensor system; WO 93/17316 for the two-parallel-conductor, impedance-measured electrode pair fixed in an insulating carrier and wrap-mounted on a pressurized conduit.

Motivation / KSR rationales (MPEP 2143):

1. Combining known prior-art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Both references detect the same phenomenon (liquid bridging a gap between conductors to change inter-conductor resistance) using the same physical principle. Combining the '178 attachment-element covering with the WO 93/17316 conductor pair produces nothing more than the predictable sum of the two.
2. Use of a known technique to improve a similar device. WO 93/17316's impedance-measurement technique is expressly used to improve conduit/wrap-based leak detection. '178's covering is a similar device in the same field, ready for improvement.
3. Express teaching/suggestion in the references themselves. '178 already contemplates the plural-conductor, wet-bridging embodiment ("a wire having one or more disconnected segments … the disconnected segments may be bridged, creating a closed circuit") and already lists "pipe couplings" and fluid-conduit applications. Nothing more than a design choice separates '178's "disconnected segments" from two discrete, gap-separated electrodes.
4. Predictable, and no teaching away. Neither reference disparages the other's approach; both are in the same classification (G01M 3/16–3/18 / G08B 21/20).

Result: Claim 1 is obvious.

Ground 2 — Alternative: Saint‑Gobain '417 + WO 93/17316 + EP 0 298 479 (or US 2019/0107459)

Use '417 (with its electronics component and its FIG. 14 plurality of sensors on a fluid conduit, each with a different attachment element) as the base, add WO 93/17316's spaced-conductor impedance scheme, and use EP 0 298 479 or US 2019/0107459 for the controller/alert. Motivation: '417 supplies the electronics half of the claim (input/output ends, communications, alert) and already places multiple sensors on one conduit — directly foreshadowing the multi-covering dependent embodiment. Combining a known sensor cable with a known impedance/alarm controller to yield a modular, multi-zone leak-detection covering is an eminently predictable combination. This ground is stronger on the "leak detection device" and multi-covering limitations and weaker on nothing material.

Ground 3 — Alternative: US 2019/0107459 + EP 2 706 338 (or WO 93/17316)

US 2019/0107459 gives the two-terminal-plus-signaling-device core; EP 2 706 338 gives two conductors "electrically isolated from one another," whose inter-conductor impedance is monitored to locate a defect. Adding the '178-style attachment element (a conventional sleeve, tie, or wrap) to make it a configurable covering is simple substitution of a known mounting expedient for a known purpose.

5. Dependent / alternative-embodiment features (from the Summary & Definitions)

None of these adds patentable weight; each is a predictable design choice with an articulated motivation.

6. Where the patent owner will push back — and how the ground holds

1. "No single reference shows the configuration end used to chain coverings." True — but chaining sensing segments is disclosed functionally in '417 FIG. 14 (multiple sensors on one conduit) and structurally in the distributed sensing-cable art. Renaming the conductor ends is not an apparatus difference. Response: rely on Grounds 1 + 2 with an articulated "extend the sensing zone" motivation (KSR, design need/market pressure).
2. "The references use point sensors or a cable, not a slip-on covering for a liquid-cooling base." Response: claim 1's "vessel" is broad ("any one of a liquid cooling system, heat exchanger attached to a base, or fluid conduit" per the spec), and '178's attachment element is expressly for coupling to "an area for monitoring fluid leakage," which reads on a base or conduit.
3. "Serpentine/interdigitated electrode patterns for maximum bridging probability." This is disclosed in functionally equivalent terms by '178's "detection element … less than 90% of a surface area" and 2‑D/3‑D matrix language, and is a hallmark of planar moisture sensors. Caveat: I did not verify a specific document dedicated to serpentine/interdigitated leak-sensing electrodes within my search budget — this is the one element where the rejection should be shored up with a targeted search before filing.
4. "Salt impregnation is a specific, non-obvious chemistry." This is the dependent-claim feature most resistant to a § 103 attack on the current record, because I could not verify a reference. Action item: the IDS of 16/917,945 likely contains the applicant's own answer to this; pull the file wrapper.
5. Objective indicia (§ 103 secondary considerations). No evidence of commercial success, industry praise, copying, or unexpected results is in the record I reviewed. Because the claims are untested and I found no litigation (see prior sections), there is no litigation-record evidence of nonobviousness to work with either. That cuts for the challenger at this stage.

7. Practical conclusion

• Claim 1 is very likely obvious over US 10,365,178 B2 (or US 10,871,417 B2) in view of WO 93/17316, with EP 0 298 479 / US 2019/0107459 supplying the controller/alert elements. The combination maps 1:1 onto every element except the "coupling/configuration end" labeling, and the KSR rationales are abundant (same field, same principle, same predictable result, express suggestion in '178's plural-segment embodiment).
• The dependent and alternative-embodiment features (sandwich structure, stretchable slip-on, reversible surfaces, fastener selection, multi-plane shapes, multi-covering daisy-chaining, hydrophilic/salt-impregnated layers, wire/flat-strip electrodes, audible/visual alerts) are each conventional design choices in the leak-sensing and sleeve/covering arts, with articulated motivations.
• Given the untested status of the claims and the absence of § 315(e)(2) estoppel (from the earlier sections), an IPR built on Grounds 1–2 is procedurally attractive — subject to the § 315(b) one-year clock and the usual risk that a losing FWD erects estoppel, and to a § 325(d) argument the patent owner may raise pointing at the 16/917,945 IDS. Expect the patent owner to defend primarily on (i) the chaining/"configuration end" concept and (ii) any salt-impregnation claim.

8. Confidence and honest limits

One caution carried over from earlier sections: do not let a docket/vendor system keyed on the bare string "11041778" import US Application 11/041,778 (Desmarais snowmobile isolation unit, which issued as US 7,150,336) into this invalidity chart. That is a different number in a different field.

This is a technical analysis, not a legal opinion, and it is not an exhaustive, docket-verified or claim-verified validity study.