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 Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites “PPS plastic” in Line 1, whereby the examiner will interpret PPS as put forth in instant specification to mean polyphenylene sulfide as in Par. [0083], and therefore will read the claim limitation as --polyphenylene sulfide (PPS) plastic--, since the acronym should be defined before first usage.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “first gaps” and the “second gaps” as claimed in claims 3 and 4, respectively, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Furthermore, the “first and second ridges” as claimed in claims 1-5, and the “third ridge” as claimed in claims 7-8, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 11 is 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 11 recites the limitation "porous substrates" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the examiner will interpret claim 11 as depending from claim 9.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the substrate" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the examiner will interpret claim 11 as --the porous substrates of the first and second membrane sheets comprise PPS plastic--.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 18 recites “drafted walls” in Line 1, whereby the examiner will interpret said limitation as put forth in Par. [0091], such that drafted refers to tapered walls.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Robb et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2010/0019400 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Robb et al. discloses a humidifier comprising:
a stack of unit cells, each of the unit cells comprising a separator having a perimeter frame and first and second major faces (See Annotated Fig. 7, also see e.g. Par. [0045]-[0046], also see Figs. 8-11),
a first membrane sheet bonded to the perimeter frame on the first major face of the separator and a second membrane sheet bonded to the perimeter frame on the second major face of the separator (see e.g. Par. [0046] first/second substantially planar membrane layer(s) refs. 722 and 724, etc., such that said first/second membrane sheet(s) are at least bonded to the perimeter frame on the first/second major face(s) so that the first pair of sealing bar(s) refs. 720 are adhered to peripheral edges of the first membrane layer ref. 722 and the second membrane layer ref. 724, etc., also see Figs. 7-9);
wherein:
the perimeter frame and the first and second membrane sheets (i.e., at least first/second substantially planar membrane layer(s) refs. 722 and 724 as discussed above) define a cavity in an interior of the perimeter frame (See Annotated Fig. 7, also see e.g. Par. [0045]-[0047] so as to form flow channel(s) ref. 718, etc., also see Figs. 8-11);
opposed first and second frame ends of the perimeter frame define passages to allow a first flow to flow through the cavity in a first direction (see Annotated Fig. 7, also see e.g. Par. [0045]-[0047] so as to form flow channel(s) ref. 718, etc., also see Figs. 8-11);
the separator includes first and second ridges that extend respectively across the first and second frame ends (see Annotated Fig. 7, also see e.g. Par. [0045]-[0047] such that the skilled artisan would appreciate that first and second ridges of the crenalated member ref. 52 at least provides first/second ridges that extend across the first and second frame ends so as to form flow channel(s) ref. 718, etc., lacking any further distinction thereof as to said frame end(s) and/or first/second ridge(s), also see Figs. 8-11); and
in the stack of unit cells the first and second ridges space the unit cells apart from one another by contact with the separators of adjacent unit cells to provide transverse passages extending through the stack of unit cells in a second direction transverse to the first direction (see Annotated Fig. 7, also see e.g. Par. [0045]-[0047] so as to form flow channel(s) ref. 716, etc., also see Figs. 8-11).
PNG
media_image1.png
958
1596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 7 (Robb)
Regarding claim 2, Robb et al. discloses the humidifier as discussed above in claim 1. Robb et al. further discloses the first and second ridges are respectively inset inwardly from outer edges of the first and second frame ends (see Annotated Fig. 7 above in claim 1, also see e.g. Par. [0045]-[0047] so as to form flow channel(s) ref. 718, etc., and lacking any further distinction thereof, also see Figs. 8-11).
Regarding claim 6, Robb et al. discloses the humidifier as discussed above in claim 5. Robb et al. further discloses in Fig. 12 identical and/or substantially identical separators (See Annotated Fig. 12), such that since said separators are identical and/or substantially identical and are merely rotated perpendicular to each other so as to have a cross-flow configuration as in Annotated Fig. 12, the skilled artisan would appreciate that the separators are each symmetrical with respect to rotations of 180 degrees about a transverse axis centered in the separators, lacking any further distinction thereof (see e.g. Pars. [0052]-[0056], also see Figs. 13-14).
PNG
media_image2.png
594
850
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 12 (Robb)
Regarding claim 12, Robb et al. discloses the humidifier as discussed above in claim 1. Robb et al. further discloses the first and second membrane sheets are bonded to the separator around a periphery of the cavity (See Annotated Fig. 7 above in claim 1, also see e.g. Par. [0046] first/second substantially planar membrane layer(s) refs. 722 and 724, etc., such that said first/second membrane sheet(s) are at least bonded to the perimeter frame on the first/second major face(s) so that the first pair of sealing bar(s) refs. 720 are adhered to peripheral edges of the first membrane layer ref. 722 and the second membrane layer ref. 724, etc., also see Figs. 7-9).
Regarding claim 13, Robb et al. discloses the humidifier as discussed above in claim 1. Robb et al. further discloses a plurality of flow field elements extending across the cavity between the first and second frame ends, the flow field elements spaced apart to define channels extending across the cavity (see Annotated Fig. 7 above in claim 1, also see e.g. Par. [0045]-[0047] such that the skilled artisan would appreciate that a plurality of flow field elements extending across the cavity between the first and second frame ends, the flow field elements spaced apart to define channels extending across the cavity, so as to form flow channel(s) ref. 718, etc., lacking any further distinction thereof as to said frame end(s) and/or first/second ridge(s), also see Figs. 8-11).
Regarding claim 14, Robb et al. discloses the humidifier as discussed above in claim 13. Robb et al. further discloses opposing surfaces of the flow field elements are coplanar with first and second major faces of the separator (see Annotated Fig. 7 above in claim 1, also see e.g. Par. [0045]-[0047] such that the skilled artisan would appreciate that opposing surfaces of the flow field elements are coplanar with first and second major faces of the separator, so as to form flow channel(s) ref. 718, etc., lacking any further distinction thereof as to said frame end(s) and/or first/second ridge(s), also see Figs. 8-11).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robb et al., as applied to claims 2 above, and further in view of Coffin et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2007/0163439 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Robb et al. discloses the humidifier as discussed above in claim 2. Robb et al. further discloses portions of the first frame ends between the first ridges and the outer edges of the first frame end are spaced apart from one another in the stack of unit cells by first gaps (see Annotated Fig. 7 above in claim 1, also see e.g. Par. [0045]-[0047] such that the skilled artisan would appreciate that portions of the first frame ends between the first ridges and the outer edges of the first frame end are spaced apart from one another so as to form flow channel(s) ref. 718, etc., and lacking any further structural distinction thereof as to said first frame end and/or first gap(s) and/or outer edge(s) and first ridge(s), also see Figs. 8-11)
However, Robb et al. does not explicitly disclose the first gaps contain adhesive that bonds the adjacent unit cells together.
Coffin et al. teaches a fuel deoxygenation system with non-metallic fuel plate assembly (Title). Coffin et al. further teaches in Par. [0048] and Fig. 4C the groove ref. 58 receives the fuel plate gasket ref. 56 to seal the fuel plate assembly ref. 44, and it should be understood that in addition to the gasket ref. 56, other sealing materials such as adhesive film and epoxy liquid may alternatively or additionally be utilized, etc., which at least provides gaps contain adhesive that bonds the adjacent unit cells together.
Coffin et al. further teaches in [0011] the non-metallic fuel plates advantageously provide an effective sealing interface between the fuel plate and oxygen permeable membrane, since compression may be applied to the plates without damaging the relatively delicate oxygen permeable membrane, etc.
Therefore, Robb et al. and Coffin et al. are analogous in the field of fuel cells, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Robb et al. that discloses the humidifier including first/second ridges, first/second gaps, unit cells, etc., to further include gaps (e.g., first/second, etc. gaps) contain adhesive that bonds the adjacent unit cells together as taught by Coffin et al. so as to provide an effective sealing interface between the fuel plate and oxygen permeable membrane, since compression may be applied to the plates without damaging the relatively delicate oxygen permeable membrane, etc.
Regarding claim 4, Robb et al. discloses the humidifier as discussed above in claim 3. Robb et al. further discloses portions of second frame ends between the second ridges and the outer edges of the second frame end are spaced apart from one another in the stack of unit cells by second gaps and the second gaps contain adhesive that bonds the adjacent unit cells together (see Annotated Fig. 7 above in claim 1, also see e.g. Par. [0045]-[0047] such that the skilled artisan would appreciate that portions of the second frame ends between the second ridges and the outer edges of the second frame end are spaced apart from one another so as to form flow channel(s) ref. 718, etc., and lacking any further structural distinction thereof as to said first frame end and/or first gap(s) and/or outer edge(s) and first ridge(s), also see Figs. 8-11).
However, Robb et al. does not explicitly disclose the second gaps contain adhesive that bonds the adjacent unit cells together.
Coffin et al. teaches a fuel deoxygenation system with non-metallic fuel plate assembly (Title). Coffin et al. further teaches in Par. [0048] and Fig. 4C the groove ref. 58 receives the fuel plate gasket ref. 56 to seal the fuel plate assembly ref. 44, and it should be understood that in addition to the gasket ref. 56, other sealing materials such as adhesive film and epoxy liquid may alternatively or additionally be utilized, etc., which at least provides gaps contain adhesive that bonds the adjacent unit cells together.
Coffin et al. further teaches in [0011] the non-metallic fuel plates advantageously provide an effective sealing interface between the fuel plate and oxygen permeable membrane, since compression may be applied to the plates without damaging the relatively delicate oxygen permeable membrane, etc.
Therefore, Robb et al. and Coffin et al. are analogous in the field of fuel cells, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Robb et al. that discloses the humidifier including first/second ridges, first/second gaps, unit cells, etc., to further include gaps (e.g., first/second, etc. gaps) contain adhesive that bonds the adjacent unit cells together as taught by Coffin et al. so as to provide an effective sealing interface between the fuel plate and oxygen permeable membrane, since compression may be applied to the plates without damaging the relatively delicate oxygen permeable membrane, etc.
Claims 5, 7-8, 15-17, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robb et al., as applied to claims 1 and 13-14 above, and further in view of Vanderwees et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2012/0181712 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Robb et al. discloses the humidifier as discussed above in claim 1. However, Robb et al. does not explicitly disclose the first and second ridges are respectively on first and second opposing faces of the separators.
Vanderwees et al. teaches a humidifier for fuel cell systems (Title). Vanderwees et al. further teaches the first and second ridges are respectively on first and second opposing faces of the separators (see Annotated Figs. 4-5, such that as taught in Par. [0062] with the exception of the location of sealing grooves ref. 71, etc., the wet and dry plates ref. 14 and 16 are identical, etc., also see Figs. 2A-B, 3A-B, 7, 9-10, e.g. Pars. [0076]-[0077], [0082], etc.).
Vanderwees et al. further teaches in Par. [0006] there remains a need for improvement in the structure of fuel cell humidifiers, in order to address the challenges mentioned above in an effective and cost-efficient manner, etc., such as the challenges as taught in Par. [0005] to maintain tightly packed cell spacing, the plates need to be very thin, yet also provide for effective flow channels for the exchange gases to communicate with the interspaced membranes and gas diffusion layers, and moreover, the compressive forces and means to assemble and hold the plate flow channels and membranes together, must be low enough to avoid either damaging the fragile membrane/diffusion layer media, or of inducing variability in the spacing of the plate-membrane cells, etc.
Therefore, Robb et al. and Vanderwees et al. are analogous in the field of humidifiers, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Robb et al. that discloses the humidifier including the separator(s), first/second ridge(s), first/second face(s), etc., to further include the first and second ridges are respectively on first and second opposing faces of the separators as taught by Vanderwees et al. in order to address the challenges mentioned above in an effective and cost-efficient manner such as providing effective flow channels for the exchange of gases to communicate with the interspaced membranes and gas diffusion layers, etc.
PNG
media_image3.png
848
1274
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figures 4-5 (Vanderwees)
Regarding claim 7, Robb et al. discloses the humidifier as discussed above in claim 5. Robb et al. further discloses a third ridge (See Annotated Fig. 7 above in claim 1), such that the skilled artisan would appreciate that Robb et al. at least provides first/second/third ridges, and since there is no further structural distinction as to said ridges, the claim limitation is met, lacking any further distinction thereof as claimed.
However, Robb et al. does not explicitly disclose a third ridge on the first frame end on the second face of the separator, wherein an outer edge of the third ridge is aligned with an inner edge of the first ridge.
Vanderwees et al. teaches a humidifier for fuel cell systems (Title). Vanderwees et al. further teaches a ridge on the first frame end on the second face of the separator, wherein an outer edge of the ridge is aligned with an inner edge of a ridge (See Annotated Figs. 16A-B, such that the skilled artisan would appreciate that said also see e.g. Pars. [0071]-[0074], [0077]-[0078], [0082], [0091]-[0092], [0094], [0107]).
Vanderwees et al. further teaches in Par. [0006] there remains a need for improvement in the structure of fuel cell humidifiers, in order to address the challenges mentioned above in an effective and cost-efficient manner, etc., such as the challenges as taught in Par. [0005] to maintain tightly packed cell spacing, the plates need to be very thin, yet also provide for effective flow channels for the exchange gases to communicate with the interspaced membranes and gas diffusion layers, and moreover, the compressive forces and means to assemble and hold the plate flow channels and membranes together, must be low enough to avoid either damaging the fragile membrane/diffusion layer media, or of inducing variability in the spacing of the plate-membrane cells, etc.
Therefore, Robb et al. and Vanderwees et al. are analogous in the field of humidifiers, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Robb et al. that discloses the humidifier including the separator(s), first/second/third ridge(s), first/second face(s), etc., to further include a ridge on the first frame end on the second face of the separator, wherein an outer edge of the ridge is aligned with an inner edge of a ridge as taught by Vanderwees et al. in order to address the challenges mentioned above in an effective and cost-efficient manner such as providing effective flow channels for the exchange of gases to communicate with the interspaced membranes and gas diffusion layers, etc.
PNG
media_image4.png
701
1256
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figures 16A-B (Vanderwees)
Regarding claim 8, Robb et al. discloses the humidifier as discussed above in claim 7. Robb et al. further discloses a third ridge (See Annotated Fig. 7 above in claim 1 and as discussed above in claim 7), such that the skilled artisan would appreciate that Robb et al. at least provides first/second/third ridges, and since there is no further structural distinction as to said ridges, the claim limitation is met, lacking any further distinction thereof as claimed.
However, Robb et al. does not explicitly disclose the third ridge has a height measured from a side of the perimeter frame that is less than a height of the second ridge measured from the side of the perimeter frame.
Vanderwees et al. teaches a humidifier for fuel cell systems (Title). Vanderwees et al. further teaches the ridge has a height measured from a side of the perimeter frame that is less than a height of a ridge measured from the side of the perimeter frame (See Annotated Figs. 16A-B above in claim 7, such that the skilled artisan would appreciate that since Vanderwees et al. teaches in [0073] the support ribs ref. 28 extending through the flow field ref. 32 have a height which is substantially the same as the thickness ref. T of the plate ref. 14, etc. (i.e., at least commensurate in scope with first/second ridges as discussed above), and Annotated Figs. 16A-B provide a ridge that is less than the thickness ref. T of said plate and/or side of the perimeter frame of said plate, that this at least provides a thickness less than a height of a ridge measured from the side of the perimeter frame, lacking any further distinction thereof as to said first/second/third ridges, etc., also see e.g. Pars. [0011], [0019], [0024], [0064], [0069], [0072]-[0074], [0087]).
Vanderwees et al. further teaches in Par. [0006] there remains a need for improvement in the structure of fuel cell humidifiers, in order to address the challenges mentioned above in an effective and cost-efficient manner, etc., such as the challenges as taught in Par. [0005] to maintain tightly packed cell spacing, the plates need to be very thin, yet also provide for effective flow channels for the exchange gases to communicate with the interspaced membranes and gas diffusion layers, and moreover, the compressive forces and means to assemble and hold the plate flow channels and membranes together, must be low enough to avoid either damaging the fragile membrane/diffusion layer media, or of inducing variability in the spacing of the plate-membrane cells, etc.
Therefore, Robb et al. and Vanderwees et al. are analogous in the field of humidifiers, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Robb et al. that discloses the humidifier including the separator(s), first/second/third ridge(s), first/second face(s), etc., to further include the ridge has a height measured from a side of the perimeter frame that is less than a height of a ridge measured from the side of the perimeter frame as taught by Vanderwees et al. in order to address the challenges mentioned above in an effective and cost-efficient manner such as providing effective flow channels for the exchange of gases to communicate with the interspaced membranes and gas diffusion layers, etc.
Regarding claim 15, Robb et al. discloses the humidifier as discussed above in claim 14. However, Robb et al. does not explicitly disclose adjacent ones of the flow field elements are spaced apart from one another by distances in the range of 1 to 5 mm.
Vanderwees et al. teaches a humidifier for fuel cell systems (Title). Vanderwees et al. further teaches in Par. [0072] a typical inter-rib spacing is about 1.0 to about 3.0 mm, for example 1.5 mm, etc., which at least provides a range values within the claimed range of adjacent ones of the flow field elements are spaced apart from one another by distances in the range of 1 to 5 mm, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I.) (see e.g. Pars. [0071]-[0074], [0077]-[0078], [0082], [0091]-[0092], [0094], [0107], [0129], [0134]).
Vanderwees et al. further teaches in Par. [0006] there remains a need for improvement in the structure of fuel cell humidifiers, in order to address the challenges mentioned above in an effective and cost-efficient manner, etc., such as the challenges as taught in Par. [0005] to maintain tightly packed cell spacing, the plates need to be very thin, yet also provide for effective flow channels for the exchange gases to communicate with the interspaced membranes and gas diffusion layers, and moreover, the compressive forces and means to assemble and hold the plate flow channels and membranes together, must be low enough to avoid either damaging the fragile membrane/diffusion layer media, or of inducing variability in the spacing of the plate-membrane cells, etc.
Therefore, Robb et al. and Vanderwees et al. are analogous in the field of humidifiers, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Robb et al. that discloses the humidifier including the separator(s), first/second/third ridge(s), first/second face(s), etc., to further include adjacent ones of the flow field elements are spaced apart from one another by distances in the range of 1 to 5 mm (i.e., at least a typical inter-rib spacing is about 1.0 to about 3.0 mm, for example 1.5 mm, etc.) as taught by Vanderwees et al. in order to address the challenges mentioned above in an effective and cost-efficient manner such as providing effective flow channels for the exchange of gases to communicate with the interspaced membranes and gas diffusion layers, etc.
Regarding claim 16, Robb et al. discloses the humidifier as discussed above in claim 14. Robb et al. further discloses each of the separators comprises a plurality of lateral supports that extend between adjacent ones of the flow field elements and are dimensioned to not occlude the channels.
Vanderwees et al. teaches a humidifier for fuel cell systems (Title). Vanderwees et al. further teaches in Par. [0094] in order to maximize flow and water vapour transfer, the support ribs ref. 28 are very thin and must be supported laterally in order to prevent them from being pushed over (tipping) or bending along their length, whereby webs ref. 58 are provided between adjacent ribs ref. 28 to keep the ribs ref. 28 in position, etc., (also see Par. [0107] with regards to webs ref. 82), which at least provides separators that comprise a plurality of lateral supports that extend between adjacent ones of the flow field elements and are dimensioned to not occlude the channels, such that the skilled artisan would appreciate that said web(s) (i.e., at least lateral supports) are dimensioned to not occlude the channels so as to provide gaps ref. 84 that provide additional areas of communication between gases, etc., as taught in Par. [0107] and shown in at least Fig. 9, and lacking any further distinction thereof as to said lateral support(s) (see e.g. Pars. [0013], [0018], [0095], [0107]-[0108], [0134]-[0135], [0139]-[0141], [0162]).
Vanderwees et al. further teaches in Par. [0006] there remains a need for improvement in the structure of fuel cell humidifiers, in order to address the challenges mentioned above in an effective and cost-efficient manner, etc., such as the challenges as taught in Par. [0005] to maintain tightly packed cell spacing, the plates need to be very thin, yet also provide for effective flow channels for the exchange gases to communicate with the interspaced membranes and gas diffusion layers, and moreover, the compressive forces and means to assemble and hold the plate flow channels and membranes together, must be low enough to avoid either damaging the fragile membrane/diffusion layer media, or of inducing variability in the spacing of the plate-membrane cells, etc.
Therefore, Robb et al. and Vanderwees et al. are analogous in the field of humidifiers, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Robb et al. that discloses the humidifier including the separator(s), first/second/third ridge(s), first/second face(s), etc., to further include separators that comprise a plurality of lateral supports (i.e., at least webs as discussed above) that extend between adjacent ones of the flow field elements and are dimensioned to not occlude the channels as taught by Vanderwees et al. in order to address the challenges mentioned above in an effective and cost-efficient manner such as providing effective flow channels for the exchange of gases to communicate with the interspaced membranes and gas diffusion layers, etc., and so as to maximize flow and water vapour transfer, etc.
Regarding claim 17, Robb et al. discloses the humidifier as discussed above in claim 13. However, Robb et al. does not explicitly disclose the first and second frame ends are each formed to provide a plurality of apertures that extend through the first and second frame ends and each open into a corresponding one of the channels.
Vanderwees et al. teaches a humidifier for fuel cell systems (Title). Vanderwees et al. further teaches in [0094] in the humidifier ref. 10, each web ref. 58 extends parallel to ribs ref. 28 across the flow field ref. 32, terminating at a short distance from the first bridging portion ref. 40 to form a gap ref. 60 which is divided by ribs ref. 28 into a series of small holes extending through the plate ref. 14, etc., whereby gaps ref. 60 and ref. 62 are also referred to herein as a “dive-through openings” because they extend through the plate ref. 14, 16 and provide flow communication between the open top and open bottom of flow field ref. 322 and the inlet and outlet passages refs. 36, 38, etc., which at least provides the first and second frame ends are each formed to provide a plurality of apertures that extend through the first and second frame ends and each open into a corresponding one of the channels (also see Annotated Figs. 16A-B above in claim 7, also see Pars. [0095], [0107], [0134], [0157], [0163]).
Vanderwees et al. further teaches in Par. [0006] there remains a need for improvement in the structure of fuel cell humidifiers, in order to address the challenges mentioned above in an effective and cost-efficient manner, etc., such as the challenges as taught in Par. [0005] to maintain tightly packed cell spacing, the plates need to be very thin, yet also provide for effective flow channels for the exchange gases to communicate with the interspaced membranes and gas diffusion layers, and moreover, the compressive forces and means to assemble and hold the plate flow channels and membranes together, must be low enough to avoid either damaging the fragile membrane/diffusion layer media, or of inducing variability in the spacing of the plate-membrane cells, etc.
Therefore, Robb et al. and Vanderwees et al. are analogous in the field of humidifiers, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Robb et al. that discloses the humidifier including the separator(s), first/second/third ridge(s), first/second face(s), etc., to further include the first and second frame ends are each formed to provide a plurality of apertures that extend through the first and second frame ends and each open into a corresponding one of the channels as taught by Vanderwees et al. in order to address the challenges mentioned above in an effective and cost-efficient manner such as providing effective flow channels for the exchange of gases to communicate with the interspaced membranes and gas diffusion layers, etc., and so as to provide flow communication between the open top and open bottom of flow field and the inlet and outlet passages, etc.
Regarding claim 19, Robb et al. discloses the humidifier as discussed above in claim 1. However, Robb et al. does not explicitly disclose the cavity has an aspect ratio of width:length in the range of 1:1.2 to 1.2:1.
Vanderwees et al. teaches a humidifier for fuel cell systems (Title). Vanderwees et al. further teaches in Annotated Fig. 3B the cavity has an aspect ratio of 1:1, such that the skilled artisan would appreciate that said cavity is at least 1:1 so as to provide plates that are square as taught in [0062], and so as to provide a flow field that is square as further taught in [0071], which is a value within the claimed range of the cavity has an aspect ratio of width:length in the range of 1:1.2 to 1.2:1, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I.), and lacking any further distinction thereof as to said cavity (also see e.g. Pars. [0017], Fig. 9).
Vanderwees et al. further teaches in Par. [0006] there remains a need for improvement in the structure of fuel cell humidifiers, in order to address the challenges mentioned above in an effective and cost-efficient manner, etc., such as the challenges as taught in Par. [0005] to maintain tightly packed cell spacing, the plates need to be very thin, yet also provide for effective flow channels for the exchange gases to communicate with the interspaced membranes and gas diffusion layers, and moreover, the compressive forces and means to assemble and hold the plate flow channels and membranes together, must be low enough to avoid either damaging the fragile membrane/diffusion layer media, or of inducing variability in the spacing of the plate-membrane cells, etc.
Therefore, Robb et al. and Vanderwees et al. are analogous in the field of humidifiers, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Robb et al. that discloses the humidifier including the separator(s), cavity, first/second/third ridge(s), first/second face(s), etc., to further include the cavity has an aspect ratio of width:length in the range of 1:1.2 to 1.2:1 (e.g., 1:1) as taught by Vanderwees et al. in order to address the challenges mentioned above in an effective and cost-efficient manner such as providing effective flow channels for the exchange of gases to communicate with the interspaced membranes and gas diffusion layers, etc., and so as to provide flow communication between the open top and open bottom of flow field and the inlet and outlet passages, etc.
PNG
media_image5.png
729
1137
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3B (Vanderwees)
Regarding claim 21, Robb et al. discloses the humidifier as discussed above in claim 1. However, Robb et al. does not explicitly disclose a frame surrounding the stack of unit cells, the frame tensioned to apply compression to the stack of unit cells.
Vanderwees et al. teaches a humidifier for fuel cell systems (Title). Vanderwees et al. further teaches in [0096] and Fig. 7 the core ref. 12 is compressed to seal the plates ref. 14 and ref. 16 to each side of their shared membrane ref. 18, such that the membrane ref. 18 is sandwiched between plates ref. 14 and 16, and is maintained in compression by fasteners, such as bolts ref. 66 and nuts ref. 67, etc., which at least provides a frame surrounding the stack of unit cells, the frame tensioned to apply compression to the stack of unit cells (also see e.g. Par. [0061], [0088]).
Vanderwees et al. further teaches in Par. [0006] there remains a need for improvement in the structure of fuel cell humidifiers, in order to address the challenges mentioned above in an effective and cost-efficient manner, etc., such as the challenges as taught in Par. [0005] to maintain tightly packed cell spacing, the plates need to be very thin, yet also provide for effective flow channels for the exchange gases to communicate with the interspaced membranes and gas diffusion layers, and moreover, the compressive forces and means to assemble and hold the plate flow channels and membranes together, must be low enough to avoid either damaging the fragile membrane/diffusion layer media, or of inducing variability in the spacing of the plate-membrane cells, etc.
Therefore, Robb et al. and Vanderwees et al. are analogous in the field of humidifiers, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Robb et al. that discloses the humidifier including the separator(s), cavity, first/second/third ridge(s), first/second face(s), etc., to further include a frame surrounding the stack of unit cells, the frame tensioned to apply compression to the stack of unit cells as taught by Vanderwees et al. in order to address the challenges mentioned above in an effective and cost-efficient manner such as providing effective flow channels for the exchange of gases to communicate with the interspaced membranes and gas diffusion layers, etc., and so as to provide flow communication between the open top and open bottom of flow field and the inlet and outlet passages, etc.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robb et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mullen et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2018/0363929 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Robb et al. discloses the humidifier as discussed above in claim 1. Robb et al. further discloses in Par. [0038] the membrane layers may be formed from any conventional membrane such as polymer composite membrane, etc.
However, Robb et al. does not explicitly disclose the first and second membrane sheets each comprises a porous substrate and a water vapor permeable coating on one face of the porous substrate.
Mullen et al. teaches an enthalpy exchanger (Title). Mullen et al. further teaches in Par. [0062] one or both membrane sheets ref. 12A and ref. 12B comprises a composite polymer membrane with porous substrate and selectively water vapor permeable coating, etc., and further teaches in Par. [0100] the membranes are oriented such that the coated side of the membrane (i.e., the side of the membrane that carries the water vapor selective material) faces away from separators ref. 12C, etc., which at least provides the first and second membrane sheets each comprises a porous substrate and a water vapor permeable coating on one face of the porous substrate, lacking any further distinction thereof (also see e.g. Abstract, Pars. [0017], [0021], [0024], [0026], [0033], [0034], [0081], [0099], [0101]).
Mullen et al. further teaches in Par. [0101] particular orientations of an asymmetric membrane (such as a membrane with a coating on one side) may offer advantages in certain applications of the heat and humidity exchangers described herein, whereby some factors which may guide the choice of which way to orient asymmetric membranes in panels ref. 12 on either side of corresponding separators 12C include: Par. [0102] whether the adhesive or bonding mechanism used to attach the membranes to one or the other of the corrugated separator ref. 12C or spacers ref. 14 adheres better to the coated or uncoated side of the membrane, Par. [0103] for some coatings, optimum performance can be achieved by orienting the membrane such that the coating faces toward the more humid stream, and Par. [0104] some membrane coatings may have a permeability to moisture that is temperature-dependent, etc., whereby this property may be exploited by orienting the membrane so that the coated side of the membrane faces the warmer stream (which is typically also the more-humid stream).
Therefore, Robb et al. and Mullen et al. are analogous in the field of humidifiers, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Robb et al. that discloses the humidifier including the separator(s), membrane(s), cavity, first/second/third ridge(s), first/second face(s), etc., to further include the first and second membrane sheets each comprises a porous substrate and a water vapor permeable coating on one face of the porous substrate as taught by Mullen et al. so as to provide optimum performance by orienting the membrane such that the coating faces toward the more humid stream, etc.
Regarding claim 10, Robb et al. discloses the humidifier as discussed above in claim 9. However, Robb et al. does not explicitly disclose the first and second membrane sheets are each oriented so that the water vapor permeable coating faces away from the separator to which the first and second membrane sheets are attached.
Mullen et al. teaches an enthalpy exchanger (Title). Mullen et al. further teaches in Par. [0062] one or both membrane sheets ref. 12A and ref. 12B comprises a composite polymer membrane with porous substrate and selectively water vapor permeable coating, etc., and further teaches in Par. [0100] the membranes are oriented such that the coated side of the membrane (i.e., the side of the membrane that carries the water vapor selective material) faces away from separators ref. 12C, etc., which at least provides the first and second membrane sheets are each oriented so that the water vapor permeable coating faces away from the separator to which the first and second membrane sheets are attached, lacking any further distinction thereof (also see e.g. Abstract, Pars. [0017], [0021], [0024], [0026], [0033], [0034], [0081], [0099], [0101]).
Mullen et al. further teaches in Par. [0101] particular orientations of an asymmetric membrane (such as a membrane with a coating on one side) may offer advantages in certain applications of the heat and humidity exchangers described herein, whereby some factors which may guide the choice of which way to orient asymmetric membranes in panels ref. 12 on either side of corresponding separators 12C include: Par. [0102] whether the adhesive or bonding mechanism used to attach the membranes to one or the other of the corrugated separator ref. 12C or spacers ref. 14 adheres better to the coated or uncoated side of the membrane, Par. [0103] for some coatings, optimum performance can be achieved by orienting the membrane such that the coating faces toward the more humid stream, and Par. [0104] some membrane coatings may have a permeability to moisture that is temperature-dependent, etc., whereby this property may be exploited by orienting the membrane so that the coated side of the membrane faces the warmer stream (which is typically also the more-humid stream).
Therefore, Robb et al. and Mullen et al. are analogous in the field of humidifiers, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Robb et al. that discloses the humidifier including the separator(s), membrane(s), cavity, first/second/third ridge(s), first/second face(s), etc., to further include the first and second membrane sheets are each oriented so that the water vapor permeable coating faces away from the separator to which the first and second membrane sheets are attached as taught by Mullen et al. so that the adhesive or bonding mechanism used to attach the membranes to one or the other of the corrugated separator adheres better to uncoated side of the membrane, so as to provide optimum performance by orienting the membrane such that the coating faces toward the more humid stream, etc.
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robb et al. and Mullen et al. as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Shimohira et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2008/0193821 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Robb et al. and Mullen et al. disclose the humidifier including the porous substrates of the first and second membrane sheets as discussed above in claim 9. However, Robb et al. in view of Mullen et al. does not explicitly disclose the porous substrates of the first and second membrane sheets comprise PPS plastic.
Shimohira et al. teaches in Par. [0126] the present electrolyte membrane may be reinforced by a reinforcing material, whereby the reinforcing material may, for example, be a porous substrate, fibers, woven fabric or non-woven fabric, and as a material of the reinforcing material, polyphenylene sulfide, may be mentioned, for example, etc., which at least provides the porous substrate(s) comprise PPS plastic, lacking any further distinction thereof.
Therefore, Robb et al. and Mullen et al. and Shimohira et al. are analogous in the field of fuel cells, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Robb et al. in view of Mullen et al. that discloses the humidifier including the separator(s), membrane(s), cavity, first/second/third ridge(s), first/second face(s), and the porous substrates of the first and second membrane sheets etc., to further include the porous substrate(s) comprise PPS plastic as taught by Shimohira et al. so that the membrane may be reinforced by a reinforcing material, etc.
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robb et al. and Vanderwees et al., as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Brinkmeier et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2017/0222235 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Robb et al. discloses the humidifier as discussed above in claim 17. However, Robb et al. does not explicitly disclose the apertures are formed to have drafted walls.
Brinkmeier et al. teaches a humidifier, plate, device, and motor vehicle (Title). Brinkmeier et al. further teaches in Pars. [0037]-[0038] webs ref. 410, 420 which protrude at the same height, forming open channels ref. 510, 610 are formed on the flat sides of plate ref. 400, etc., whereby the side walls of channels ref. 510, 610 changes linearly over the length of the plate ref. 500, etc., and webs ref. 410 taper on the one flat side of plate ref. 100, etc., which at least provides the apertures are formed to have drafted walls (e.g., tapered walls as shown in at least Fig. 5) (also see e.g. Abstract, Pars. [0013], [0038], Figs. 5-6).
Brinkmeier et al. further teaches in Par. [0012] the tapering of the cross-sectional area effectuates a pressure drop across the humidification channel which reduces, compensates for, or overcompensates for a pressure rise due to the increasing humidification, so that the partial pressure difference between the first gas and the second gas remains large across the humidification channel path despite the transfer of moisture.
Therefore, Robb et al. and Vanderwees et al. and Brinkmeier et al. are analogous in the field of humidifiers, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Robb et al. that discloses the humidifier including the separator(s), first/second/third ridge(s), first/second face(s), channels, plurality of apertures, etc., to further include the apertures are formed to have drafted walls (i.e., tapered walls) as taught by Brinkmeier et al., such that the tapering of the cross-sectional area effectuates a pressure drop across the humidification channel which reduces, compensates for, or overcompensates for a pressure rise due to the increasing humidification, so that the partial pressure difference between the first gas and the second gas remains large across the humidification channel path despite the transfer of moisture.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robb et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fasold et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2015/0171445 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Robb et al. discloses the humidifier as discussed above in claim 1. However, Robb et al. does not explicitly disclose the transverse passages have heights that are greater than a thickness of a portion of the perimeter frame at which the first membrane sheet is bonded to the perimeter frame.
Fasold et al. teaches a humidification device, in particular for a fuel cell (Title). Fasold et al. further teaches in Annotated Fig. 4 the transverse passages have heights that are greater than a thickness of a portion of the perimeter frame at which the first membrane sheet is bonded to the perimeter frame (see e.g. Pars. [0042]-[0045]).
Fasold et al. further teaches in Par. [0013] a further advantage of the embodiment of the frame as film composite resides in the relatively minimal thickness, and this makes it possible to configure stacked units with several membranes with minimal spacing relative to each other.
Therefore, Robb et al. Fasold et al. are analogous in the field of humidifiers, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Robb et al. that discloses the humidifier including the separator(s), ridge(s), face(s), channels, transverse passages, frame, etc., to further include the transverse passages have heights that are greater than a thickness of a portion of the perimeter frame at which the first membrane sheet is bonded to the perimeter frame as taught by Fasold et al. so as to make it possible to configure stacked units with several membranes with minimal spacing relative to each other.
PNG
media_image6.png
396
960
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4 (Fasold)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kusunose et al. discloses a gas/liquid separation device (Title), whereby as disclosed in [0077] the humidifier elements ref. 10 and mounting frame ref. 22 may be assembled together, in the case of the arrangement illustrated in Fig. 8 for example, by joining the water inlet/outlet portions ref. 14 and vertical frame piece ref. 22A together in watertight fashion by means of adhesive bonding, etc.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA PATRICK MCCLURE whose telephone number is (571)272-2742. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Tong Guo can be reached on (571) 272-3066. 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.
/JOSHUA P MCCLURE/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/TONG GUO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723