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 previously elected with traverse Invention II (Claims 19-33) in the reply filed on 11/29/2025.
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the submission dated 5/2/2026 are as follows:
Claims 1-33 are pending;
Claims 1-18 are withdrawn from consideration;
Claims 19-33 are being examined.
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 three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Currently, no claim limitation invokes 112(f).
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 19-26 and 29-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tung (US2022/015872A1) in view of Nelson (US6002133A, as previously cited).
Re Claim 19. Tung discloses a condensation dehumidification device (120) for an immersion cooling system (100) (Figure 1; Paragraph 27),
the condensation dehumidification device comprising:
a dehumidification tank 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 dehumidification tank 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 dehumidification tank is adapted to be selectively (via valve 142) in communication with or not in communication with the immersion cooling system (Figure 1; Paragraph 27);
a dehumidification portion (122, comprising dehumidifying material 124) comprising: a dehumidification base (122) disposed in the dehumidification tank (Figures 1-2; Paragraph 27); and one or more dehumidification packs (124) on the dehumidification base (Figures 1-2; Paragraph 27),
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).
Tung teaches a stationary dehumidification base (122) comprising a dehumidification pack (124) but fails to specifically teach a dehumidification base moveably disposed in the dehumidification tank.
However, Nelson teaches a dehumidification assembly (100) comprising a dehumidification base (112) moveably disposed in the tank (200); and one or more dehumidification packs (140,150) on the dehumidification base (Figures 1-3A; Abstract; Column 6 line 51 to Column 7 line 41; Column 8 lines 53-67).
Therefore, in view of Nelson's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the dehumidification base of Tung moveable in order to allow for easier servicing of the dehumidification material without disassembling the entire assembly (Nelson Abstract which states “The gas removal assembly is selectively retractable from the housing assembly to permit periodic servicing (e.g., replacement of CO.sub.2 absorbent) without requiring disassembly or recalibration of the spectrometer”).
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).
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tung (US2022/015872A1) in view of Nelson (US6002133A, as previously cited) in view of Enright (US2023/0082410A1, as previously cited).
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 13-15 of the reply that Tung fails to teach the new limitation of “a dehumidification portion comprising: a dehumidification base moveably disposed in the dehumidification tank, and one or more dehumidification packs on the dehumidification base”. Tung teaches a dehumidification portion (122, comprising dehumidifying material 124) comprising: a dehumidification base (122) disposed in the dehumidification tank (Figures 1-2; Paragraph 27); and one or more dehumidification packs (124) on the dehumidification base (Figures 1-2; Paragraph 27). Tung teaches a stationary dehumidification base (122) comprising a dehumidification pack (124) but fails to specifically teach a dehumidification base moveably disposed in the dehumidification tank. However, Nelson teaches a dehumidification assembly (100) comprising a dehumidification base (112) moveably disposed in the tank (200); and one or more dehumidification packs (140,150) on the dehumidification base (Figures 1-3A; Abstract). Therefore, in view of Nelson's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the dehumidification base of Tung moveable in order to allow for easier servicing of the dehumidification material without disassembling the entire assembly (Nelson Abstract which states “The gas removal assembly is selectively retractable from the housing assembly to permit periodic servicing (e.g., replacement of CO.sub.2 absorbent) without requiring disassembly or recalibration of the spectrometer”). Therefore, the applicants’ argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 TRAVIS 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
Prosecution Insights