Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/022,953

HUMIDITY ADJUSTING DEVICE AND HUMIDITY ADJUSTING METHOD

Final Rejection §101§112
Filed
Feb 23, 2023
Priority
Aug 31, 2020 — nonprovisional of PCTJP2020032905
Examiner
BUSHEY, CHARLES S
Art Unit
1776
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
NTT, Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allowance Rate
753 granted / 997 resolved
+10.5% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+21.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
1023
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.1%
-38.9% vs TC avg
§103
58.4%
+18.4% vs TC avg
§102
11.7%
-28.3% vs TC avg
§112
25.1%
-14.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 997 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §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 . 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 18-20 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. In claim 18, line 4, “a manhole” should apparently be changed to --the manhole--, since the element was already introduced by language bridging lines 3 and 4 of the claim. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-7, and 9-12 are allowed. The prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest the humidity adjustment device of independent claim 1, wherein a humidity sensor placed at a height above the floor of a manhole is used to acquire humidity information of the space part of the manhole, a temperature sensor being placed at a first position inside the manhole to acquire the space part temperature of the manhole, and another temperature sensor placed at a second position above the first position, on a ceiling surface of the manhole, to acquire an inner wall temperature of the manhole, and adjusting the humidity of the manhole by reducing the discharge of moisture within the manhole to prevent dew condensation from forming on the ceiling surface of the manhole by using the humidity and temperature information from the humidity and temperature sensors. Claims 2-7, and 9-12 would be allowable based upon their dependency on allowable independent claim 1. Claim Objections Claims 18-20 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 1-3. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). In the instant application, the only difference between claims 1-3 and 18-20, respectively, is found in the introductory preamble of the claims, wherein claims 1-3 refer to a humidity adjustment device, and claims 18-20 refer to a system for adjusting humidity, while the claims are word for word identical after the introductory phrase. Wherein a device and a system are each interpreted as an apparatus, they are considered to be of identical scope, and would be rejected under 35 USC 101 under statutory double patenting, if filed in different applications. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-13 of the amendment, filed April 13, 2026, with respect to the prior art rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of the claims under 35 USC 102 and 103, as presented in the previous Office action have been withdrawn. Applicant's arguments filed April 13, 2026 pertaining to the duplicate claim objections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See paragraph 5 above. The rejection of claims 18-20 under 35 USC 112(b) set forth herein were necessitated by applicant’s amendments to the claims as filed on April 13, 2026. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES S BUSHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1153. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30-5:00. 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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. /C.S.B/5-2-26 /CHARLES S BUSHEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 23, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 12, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §101, §112
Apr 07, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 07, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 13, 2026
Response Filed
May 06, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §101, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12638226
DEVICE FOR MIST GENERATION IN A REFRIGERATING AND/OR FREEZING APPLIANCE
3y 1m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12636624
ULTRAFINE-BUBBLE CAVITATOR
2y 1m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12629641
SINGLE USE FLEXIBLE SPARGER
2y 7m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12624847
HUMIDIFIER WET-PACK ASSEMBLY
2y 4m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12620608
FUEL CELL HUMIDIFIER
4y 1m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+21.8%)
2y 8m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 997 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

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

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month