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
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention II (Claims 19-33) in the reply filed on 11/29/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious search burden. This is not found persuasive because the two inventions would require different search strategies, thereby establishing a serious search burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/29/2025.
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the submission dated 11/29/2025 are as follows:
Claims 1-33 are pending;
Claims 1-18 are withdrawn from consideration;
Claims 19-33 are being examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Currently, no claim limitation invokes 112(f).
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 19-26 and 29-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tung (US2022/015872A1).
Re Claim 19. Tung discloses a condensation dehumidification device (120) for an immersion cooling system (100) (Figure 1; Paragraph 27),
the condensation dehumidification device having a first end (portion of 120 connected to 130) and a second end (portion of 120 connected to 132a) (Figure 1; Paragraph 27),
wherein the first end of the condensation dehumidification device is adapted to be selectively in communication with or not in communication with a vapor section of the immersion cooling system (130 allows for communication to the vapor section), the second end of the condensation dehumidification device is adapted to be selectively (via valve 142) in communication with or not in communication with the immersion cooling system (Figure 1; Paragraph 27), and
the condensation dehumidification device comprises (Figure 1):
a dehumidification portion (122, comprising dehumidifying material 124), wherein a position of the dehumidification portion is higher than a position of the first end (122 extends higher than 130, thus 122 is considered higher than a position of the first end) (Figure 1; Paragraphs 27, 34-35);
a condensation portion (L2 in lower portion of 120 is condensed liquid, thus the lower portion of 120 is a condensation portion), wherein a position of the condensation portion is lower than the position of the first end and higher than a position of the second end (L2 extends above 132a, and thus the condensation portion is considered higher than the second end. L2 is below 130, and thus is lower than the first end) (Figure 1; Paragraphs 27, 34-35).
Re Claim 20. Tung discloses the first end is adapted to be in communication with a pump, the pump is adapted to be in communication with an end of a first pipeline, another end of the first pipeline is adapted to be in communication with the vapor section, the first pipeline comprises a first valve, and the pump and the vapor section are selectively in communication with each other or not in communication with each other in response to that the first valve is actuated (Figure 1; Paragraphs 27, 34-35; The first end is a pipe, and thus is capable of being connected to a pump, pipeline, vapor section, and a first valve. The claims are directed towards a condensation dehumidification device and not a cooling system. Thus, the recitation of elements outside of the condensation dehumidification device are not positively recited. Therefore, the italicized portions above are not positively recited features and thus do not further limit the condensation dehumidification device).
Re Claim 21. Tung discloses the first valve is a non-return valve (Figure 1; Paragraphs 27, 34-35; As stated above, the italicized feature is not positively recited and is outside the scope of the condensation dehumidification device).
Re Claim 22. Tung discloses the first end is adapted to be in communication with an end of a third pipeline, another end of the third pipeline is adapted to be in communication with a pump, the pump is adapted to be in communication with an end of the first pipeline, another end of the first pipeline is adapted to be in communication with the vapor section, the first pipeline comprises a first valve, and the pump and the vapor section are selectively in communication with each other or not in communication with each other in response to that the first valve is actuated (Figure 1; Paragraphs 27, 34-35; The first end is a pipe, and thus is capable of being connected to the recited features. As stated above, the italicized feature is not positively recited and is outside the scope of the condensation dehumidification device).
Re Claim 23. Tung discloses the second end of the condensation dehumidification device is adapted to be in communication with a second pipeline and the immersion cooling system, the second pipeline comprises a second valve, and the second end of the condensation dehumidification device and the immersion cooling system are selectively in communication with each other or not in communication with each other in response to that the second valve is actuated (Figure 1; Paragraphs 27, 34-35; The second end is a pipe, and thus is capable of being connected to the recited features. As stated above, the italicized feature is not positively recited and is outside the scope of the condensation dehumidification device).
Re Claim 24. Tung discloses the second pipeline is adapted to be in communication with a filtration portion for filtrating a condensed fluid from the condensation dehumidification device (Figure 1; Paragraphs 27, 34-35; As stated above, the italicized feature is not positively recited and is outside the scope of the condensation dehumidification device).
Re Claim 25. Tung discloses a position of the first end is higher than a position of the second end (Figure 1; Paragraph 27).
Re Claim 26. Tung discloses a collecting portion (bottom of 120) at the second end of the condensation dehumidification device (Figure 1; Paragraph 27).
Re Claim 29. Tung discloses the condensation dehumidification device is adapted to be communicationally connected to a control system (C) and further comprises a dehumidification tank pressure sensor (150) for sensing a pressure of the condensation dehumidification device and transmitting the pressure of the condensation dehumidification device back to the control system (Figures 1 & 4; Paragraphs 42-46; Since device 120 is connected to tank 110, the pressure sensor 150 will detect the pressure in the device 120).
Re Claim 30. Tung discloses a monitoring portion (C) adjacent to the dehumidification portion (Figures 1 & 4; Paragraphs 34-35, 42-46).
Re Claim 31. Tung discloses the monitoring portion is a light-transmissive element for providing a status of the dehumidification portion (Figures 1 & 4; Paragraphs 34-35, 42-46; Paragraph 34 teaches the dehumidification portion can have a humidity indicator, wherein the visual indicator is considered a light-transmissive element).
Re Claim 32. Tung discloses the condensation dehumidification device is adapted to be communicationally connected to a control system (C), the monitoring portion is a monitor for obtaining a status of the dehumidification portion, and the monitor is communicationally connected to the control system to transmit the status back to the control system (Figures 1 & 4; Paragraphs 34-35, 42-46; The claim makes no assertion as to what the parameter of the status is, and thus the pressure indicator of 150 would satisfy the limitation).
Re Claim 33. Tung discloses the condensation dehumidification device is adapted to be communicationally connected to a control system (C) and the monitoring portion comprises: a light-transmissive element adjacent to the dehumidification portion; and a monitor adjacent to the light-transmissive element, wherein the monitor is for obtaining a status of the dehumidification portion through the light-transmissive element and transmitting the status back to the control system (Figures 1 & 4; Paragraphs 34-35, 42-46; The claim makes no assertion as to what the parameter of the status is, and thus the pressure indicator of 150 would satisfy the limitation. Paragraph 34 teaches the dehumidification portion can have a humidity indicator, wherein the visual indicator is considered a light-transmissive element. Additionally, or alternatively, the monitor can be a person that manually checks the visual humidity indicator).
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.
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tung (US2022/015872A1) in view of Enright (US2023/0082410A1).
Re Claim 27. Tung discloses the condensation dehumidification device is adapted to be communicationally connected to a control system (150) and further comprises a dehumidification tank humidity sensor for sensing a humidity of the condensation dehumidification device (Figures 1 and 4; Paragraph 34 teaches the dehumidification portion can have a humidity indicator, and thus would sense the humidity) but fails to specifically teach transmitting the humidity of the condensation dehumidification device back to the control system.
However, Enright teaches sensing humidity and transmitting the humidity to a control system (Paragraph 59, 193, 281).
Therefore, in view of Enright's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add a humidity sensor that transmits to a control system in order to provide remote monitoring of the condensation dehumidification device, as is well-understood in the art. Enright specifically teaches the benefit monitoring the sensors is “These sensor readings may be monitored by software and/or by human operators to ensure that the system is operating in a safe and correct fashion” (Paragraph 59). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the monitoring of the humidity sensor as taught by Enright.
Re Claim 28. Tung as modified by Enright teach an alarm communicationally connected to the control system, wherein the control system is for controlling the alarm to alert a warning in response to that the humidity of the condensation dehumidification device is greater than a humidity threshold (Tung Figures 1 & 4; Enright Paragraphs 59, 193, 281; Enright paragraph 193 teaches “A full set of operational monitoring and alerting functionality may be included to allow for the notification of operators in the event of any issues”. When applied to the humidity sensor, the alert would be based on the humidity being greater than some predetermined humidity threshold).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 for other relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS C RUBY whose telephone number is (571)270-5760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-5PM.
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, Jianying Atkisson 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.
/TRAVIS RUBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763