Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/526,715

HUMIDITY CONTROL SYSTEM FOR EFEM USING DESICCANT

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Dec 01, 2023
Examiner
SHUMATE, ANTHONY R
Art Unit
1773
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Yest Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allow Rate
490 granted / 704 resolved
+4.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
725
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
35.7%
-4.3% vs TC avg
§102
27.6%
-12.4% vs TC avg
§112
27.5%
-12.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 704 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . DETAILED ACTION Summary This is the initial Office action based on the 18526715 application filed 12/01/23 Claim(s) 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 are pending and claim(s)1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 have been fully considered 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. Claim(s) 3,6,8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim(s) 3 has the phrase, “wherein the number of the plurality of block bodies is adjustable whereby the kind or the number of the humidity control equipments accommodated in a specific block body is adjustable,” which (in the context of the claim) is unclear what is included and excluded by the scope of claim language; Particularly, unclear how "wherein the number of the plurality of block bodies is adjustable" is done by "the kind or the number of the humidity control equipments accommodated in a specific block body is adjustable" Claim(s) 6 has the phrase, “temperature/humidity sensor,” which (in the context of the claim) is unclear what is included and excluded by the scope of claim language; Particularly, unclear if referring to "and", "or" or "ratio" Claim(s) 8 has the phrase, “a degree, by which the driving motor rotates the desiccant rotor when a humidity measured by the selected humidity sensor is more than a reference humidity value,” which (in the context of the claim) is unclear what is included and excluded by the scope of claim language; Particularly, it is unclear if “humidity sensor” is required, or optional in the claim. Also, it is unclear if (and how) the control device interacts with the driving motor Though one or more of the claim(s) are indefinite, for the sake of compact prosecution, the examiner has done his best to ascertain their meaning for the following 35 USC § 102 and/or 35 USC § 103 rejection(s) 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(s) 1, 2, 3, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 10-2106625 KR B1 (herein known as KIM) in view of KR 102369463 B1 (herein known as JO ) With regard to claim 1, KIM sufficiently teaches a dehymidifying (humidity control) system for an EFEM using absorbent (desiccant), the humidity control system comprising:, especially at abstract, page 9, figures the equipment front end module (EFEM) including a transfer chamber 600 being a space, in which a "wafer" (processing target object) is transferred into a processing module 500, especially at abstract, pages 7,9, figures a absorbent (desiccant) equipment installed in the EFEM to be separable, and capable of control a humidity of the transfer chamber, especially at fig 5, abstract, pg 9; Apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP § 2114 & § 2173.05(g)) wherein the desiccant equipment includes a plurality of block bodies 700 within scope of coupled to or separated from each other, and being transportable individually, especially at fig 3, abstract, pg 9; in an alternative, assuming that KIM does not specifically teach a plurality of block bodies transportable It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (or at the time the invention was made; if pre-AIA ) to provide of KIM with a plurality of block bodies transportable of KIM since it has been held that making an old device portable or movable without producing any new and unexpected result involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 PART V-A) KIM sufficiently teaches wherein each of the plurality of block bodies accommodates a humidity control equipment, especially at figs 3,5, abstract, pg 9 a desiccant rotor 730 including an adsorbent capable of adsorb moisture of air that is to be supplied to the transfer chamber, and being rotated by a driving motor 760, especially at figs 3,5, abstract, pg 9; KIM does not specifically teach adsorbent But, JO sufficiently teaches adsorbent, especially at abstract It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (or at the time the invention was made; if pre-AIA ) to substitute KIM with absorbent with adsorbent of JO because the substitution of one type of desiccant for another that are both used for the same purpose (i.e. moisture) would be well within the scope of the skilled artisan. (See MPEP 2141 III,B) KIM sufficiently teaches a regenerative heater 740 capable of heat the air and cause the heated air to remove the moisture absorbed to the absorbent, especially at figs 3,5, abstract, pg 9 With regard to claim 2, KIM does not specifically teach wherein a kind of the humidity control equipments allocated to and accommodated in each of the plurality of block bodies are adjustable, But, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (or at the time the invention was made; if pre-AIA ) to provide of KIM with wherein a kind of the humidity control equipments allocated to and accommodated in each of the plurality of block bodies are adjustable of KIM since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 (V-D)) With regard to claim 3, KIM of does not specifically teach wherein the number of the plurality of block bodies is adjustable whereby the kind or the number of the humidity control equipments accommodated in a specific block body is adjustable, But, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (or at the time the invention was made; if pre-AIA ) to provide of KIM with wherein the number of the plurality of block bodies is adjustable whereby the number of the humidity control equipments accommodated in a specific block body is adjustable of KIM since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 (V-D)) With regard to claim 4, KIM discloses the claimed invention except for the specific arrangement and/or content of indicia (printed matter) set forth in the claim(s). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (or at the time the invention was made; if pre-AIA ) to incorporate of KIM with the mark of KIM since it would only depend on the intended use of the assembly and the desired information to be displayed. Further, it has been held that when the claimed printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate it will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401, (CAFC 1983). The fact that the content of the printed matter placed on the substrate may render the device more convenient by providing an individual with a specific type of mark does not alter the functional relationship. Mere support by the substrate for the printed matter is not the kind of functional relationship necessary for patentability. Thus, there is no novel and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter e.g., mark, and the substrate e.g., mark, which is required for patentability. Allowable Subject Matter Claim(s) 5,7 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY R SHUMATE whose telephone number is (571)270-5546. The examiner can normally be reached on M,T,Th,F. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin Lebron can be reached on (571)272-0475. 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. /ANTHONY SHUMATE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 01, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595431
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PURIFYING GAS AND USE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589363
CROSSLINKED FACILITATED TRANSPORT MEMBRANE FOR HYDROGEN PURIFICATION FROM COAL-DERIVED SYNGAS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589361
APPARATUS FOR ENRICHING THE CONCENTRATION OF TRACE COMPONENTS IN AIR FLOW
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12576368
GAS SEPARATION MEMBRANE, GAS SEPARATION MODULE, GAS SEPARATION APPARATUS, AND POLYIMIDE COMPOUND
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12551854
Membrane Supporting Structures
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

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

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
70%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+14.2%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 704 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow 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