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
Newly submitted claim 16 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Claim 1 and Claim 16 are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case the partitioning member may be fabricated without the drying step of newly put forth Claim 16.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 16 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishioka et al. (US PG Pub. 20210164737A1) in view of Masumoto et al. (Translation of JP2017179613A), hereinafter referred to as Nishioka and Masumoto, respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Nishioka discloses a member for a heat exchange element (“The present invention is a sheet for heat exchange elements”, see abstract), the partitioning member comprising:
a sheet shaped porous base (102);
a moisture permeable (“The resin layer used for exemplary embodiments of the present invention contains polyvinylpyrrolidone and/or vinylpyrrolidone copolymer. Containing polyvinylpyrrolidone and/or a vinylpyrrolidone copolymer allows the resin layer to have a high hygroscopicity, and the sheet for heat exchange elements having the resin layer formed thereon can develop a high moisture permeability”, ¶38) membrane (103) provided on the porous base (shown in figure 2); and
a functional material producing at least one of an antifungal effect (“The resin layer according to the present invention may contain additives as required. Examples of the additives include inorganic particles, organic particles, flame retardants, fungicides, preservatives, flame retardants, dyes, and pigments”, ¶49),
the moisture permeable membrane containing the functional material (see ¶49),
the porous base having a first surface subjected to hydrophilic treatment (“Furthermore, surface modification treatments including corona treatment, plasma treatment, surfactant impregnation, and hydrophilization treatment (such as surface grafting) may be performed as required”, ¶36, wherein Nishioka teaches that it known to modify any surface of the porous base), and
the moisture permeable membrane being provided so as to cover the first surface of the porous base (shown in figure 2, the resin layer covers the top surface of the porous membrane, wherein Nishioka teaches any surface, including the top surface, is known to receive a hydrophilic treatment (see ¶36)).
Nishioka fails to disclose the heat exchange element is a partitioning member for a total heat exchange element.
Masumoto, also drawn to a laminated moisture permeable layer, teaches a partitioning member for a total heat exchange element (“The base paper for the total heat exchanger element constitutes a partition plate that partitions the flow path through which the exhaust passes and the flow path through which the supply air passes in the total heat exchanger element”),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the high water resistant sheet of Nishioka being a partitioning member for a total heat exchange element, as taught by Masumoto, the motivation being that utilizing moisture permeable sheets in total heat exchangers allows for “exhaust and air supply Heat exchange between sensible heat (temperature) and latent heat (humidity) can be performed satisfactorily”, “hardly causes condensation” and the moisture permeable sheets reduces condensation, wherein “Condensed water reduces the performance of the element by blocking the gaps in the base paper for the total heat exchanger element and causing the additive to flow away”.
Regarding Claim 2, Nishioka further discloses the functional material is smaller than a thickness of the moisture permeable membrane (shown in figure 2, wherein the additive is contained within the resin layer (103)).
Regarding Claim 4, although Nishioka discloses a fungicide, Nishioka fails to disclose the functional material is a substance containing pyrithione in a molecular structure.
Masumoto, also drawn to a laminated moisture permeable layer, teaches the functional material is a substance containing pyrithione in a molecular structure (“Although it does not specifically limit as an antifungal agent, For example, a benzimidazole type compound, a pyrithione type compound”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the fungicide of Nishioka being a substance containing pyrithione in a molecular structure, as taught by Masumoto, the motivation being that pyrithione in a molecular structure is widely used, inexpensive and considered safe.
Alternately, Nishioka discloses the claimed invention including a fungicide but fails to disclose pyrithione in a molecular structure. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the fungicide of Nishioka be pyrithione in a molecular structure, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known materials on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07
Regarding Claim 5, a modified Nishioka further teaches a total heat exchange element (“The present invention relates to a moisture permeable sheet, a manufacturing method thereof, a base paper for a total heat exchanger element, and a total heat exchanger element” of Masumoto) including a plurality of partitioning members (“the total heat exchanger, the total heat in which a plurality of partition plates, so-called liners, are stacked via a spacer” of Masumoto) according to claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1 above), the total heat exchange element further comprising:
a spacing member arranged between adjacent ones of the partitioning members stacked, the spacing member keeping a distance between the adjacent ones of the partitioning members (“the total heat exchanger, the total heat in which a plurality of partition plates, so-called liners, are stacked via a spacer” of Masumoto),
a first air flow path and a second air flow path being alternately provided with an associated one of the partitioning members interposed therebetween (“an air supply path for introducing outside air into the room and an exhaust path for discharging indoor air to the outside are partitioned” and “the partition plate is required to have a gas barrier property (mainly CO2 barrier property) so that air supply and exhaust are not mixed through the partition plate” of Masumoto). It is noted that the partitioning member is taught by Nishioka in the rejection of Claim 1, wherein Masumoto teaches the structural configuration of the total heat exchanger.
Regarding Claim 6, a modified Nishioka further teaches a ventilation device including the total heat exchange element of claim 5 (see rejection of Claim 5 above), wherein supply air to be supplied from an outdoor space to an indoor space flows in the first air flow path of the total heat exchange element, and exhaust air to be discharged from the indoor space to the outdoor space flows in the second air flow path of the total heat exchange element (“an air supply path for introducing outside air into the room and an exhaust path for discharging indoor air to the outside are partitioned” and “the partition plate is required to have a gas barrier property (mainly CO2 barrier property) so that air supply and exhaust are not mixed through the partition plate” of Masumoto).
Regarding Claim 13, a modified Nishioka further teaches the surface of the porous base (102) covered with the moisture permeable membrane (103) is subjected to corona discharge treatment as the hydrophilic treatment (“Furthermore, surface modification treatments including corona treatment, plasma treatment, surfactant impregnation, and hydrophilization treatment (such as surface grafting) may be performed as required”, ¶36).
Regarding Claim 14, a modified Nishioka further teaches the surface of the porous base (102) covered with the moisture permeable membrane (103) is subjected to plasma treatment as the hydrophilic treatment (“Furthermore, surface modification treatments including corona treatment, plasma treatment, surfactant impregnation, and hydrophilization treatment (such as surface grafting) may be performed as required”, ¶36).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishioka et al. (US PG Pub. 20210164737A1) in view of Masumoto et al. (Translation of JP2017179613A) as applied in Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 13-14 above and in further view of Yosuke et al. (Translation of EP2119996B1) hereinafter referred to as Yosuke.
Regarding Claim 2, in addition to Nishioka, Yosuke, also drawn to a functional material added to a layer of a heat exchanger, teaches the functional material (6, “the antibacterial agent, zinc pyrithione (average particle diameter: 0.37 µm”) is smaller than a thickness of the layer (5, “a hydrophilic coating film layer having a thickness of 0.1 to 10 µm”, shown in figure 1b). Yosuke further states, “When the amount is less than 1% by mass, fungicidal and antibacterial properties are likely to deteriorate. In contrast, when the amount is more than 50% by mass, hydrophilicity is likely to deteriorate.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Nishioka with the functional material being smaller than a thickness of the moisture permeable membrane, as taught by Yosuke, the motivation being to regulate the antibacterial properties of the agent without detracting from other benefits of the layer in which the agent is added.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishioka et al. (US PG Pub. 20210164737A1) in view of Masumoto et al. (Translation of JP2017179613A) as applied in Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 13-14 above and in further view of Legeay et al. (US PG Pub. 2002/0193885A1) hereinafter referred to as Legeay.
Regarding Claim 15, although Nishioka discloses a hydroxyl group and a carbonyl group (“It is preferable for the urethane resin used for the present invention to have a hydrophilic group such as hydroxyl group and carbonyl group. As a result of the existence of a hydrophilic group, the urethane resin will be high in affinity with the polyvinylpyrrolidone etc. and accordingly it will be able to easily form a resin layer having a uniform film thickness when used in combination with polyvinylpyrrolidone etc.”, ¶46) and the porous base covered with the moisture permeable membrane having a surface treatment, Nishioka fails to disclose a carboxy group, hydroxy group, or a carbonyI group generated by the hydrophilic treatment.
Legeay, also drawn to a hydrophilic material that utilizes plasma treatment or corona discharge (“For performing a method of plasma treatment, the skilled person may advantageously refer to the book by Andr Ricard entitled "Plasmas ractifs" published by Editions SVF in 1995. The treatment may also be performed by corona discharge”, ¶68-69), teaches a carbonyI group generated by the hydrophilic treatment exists on the surface (“The plasma treatment leads to an oxidation stable over time, particularly by creation of oxidant groups such as alcohol, acid and carbonyl groups which increase the hydrophilicity of the polymer material surface and thus also its surface energy”, ¶75).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Nishioka with a carbonyI group generated by the hydrophilic treatment exists on the surface, as taught by Legeay, the motivation being to increase the hydrophilicity of the surface.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishioka et al. (US PG Pub. 20210164737A1) in view of Masumoto et al. (Translation of JP2017179613A) as applied in Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 13-14 above and in further view of Swaraj (Translation of FI94870B), hereinafter referred to as Swaraj.
Regarding Claim 15, although Nishioka discloses a hydroxyl group and a carbonyl group (“It is preferable for the urethane resin used for the present invention to have a hydrophilic group such as hydroxyl group and carbonyl group. As a result of the existence of a hydrophilic group, the urethane resin will be high in affinity with the polyvinylpyrrolidone etc. and accordingly it will be able to easily form a resin layer having a uniform film thickness when used in combination with polyvinylpyrrolidone etc.”, ¶46) and the porous base covered with the moisture permeable membrane having a surface treatment, Nishioka fails to disclose a carboxy group, hydroxy group, or a carbonyI group generated by the hydrophilic treatment exists on the surface.
Swaraj, also drawn to a hydrophilic material that utilizes plasma treatment or corona discharge (“A method for increasing the surface energy and hydrophilicity of polymer surfaces in polymeric materials such as polyolefins, polystyrenes, fluoroplastics, polyesters, polyacetals and polyacrylates, wherein in a first step the polymeric material is subjected to an oxidizing process such as corona treatment, plasma or flame treatment to provide functional groups on the surface of the polymer” Claim 1), teaches a carbonyI group generated by the hydrophilic treatment exists on the surface (“Polymer material is surface modified with the intention of increasing the hydrophilicity of the polymer surface, by producing carboxyl groups, carbonyl groups and hydroxyl groups on the polymer surface in a first stage”, see abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Nishioka with a carbonyI group generated by the hydrophilic treatment exists on the surface, as taught by Swaraj, the motivation being to increase the hydrophilicity of the surface
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 7 of the Arguments the Applicant states, “Paragraph [0036] of Nishioka broadly discloses a surface modification, which can be a hydrophilization treatment. However, paragraph [0036] does not describe which surface is subjected to the surface modification. Further, assuming arguendo that the surface subjected to the surface modification is the same surface on which the resin layer 102 is applied, Nishioka fails to describe whether the surface modification is prior to or after application of the resin layer 103. Accordingly, Nishioka fails to disclose or suggest that the porous base has a first surface subjected to hydrophilic treatment, and that the moisture permeable barrier is provided to cover the first surface of the porous base”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner agrees with Applicant that a general teaching is put forth by Nishioka regarding the surface treatment, wherein Nishioka states that “surface modification treatments including…hydrophilization treatment (such as surface grafting) may be performed as required”. One of ordinary skill in the art having read Nishioka would recognize that the aforementioned surface treatment is known to be applied to any surface of the porous base including the surface onto which the resin is formed. There is no indication within Nishioka that would preclude this interpretation nor does Nishioka teach away from having all surfaces of the porous base comprising surface treatment.
On page 9 of the Arguments the Applicant states, “Clearly this arrangement is not disclosed or suggested by Nishioka in view of Matsumoto, Yosuke, Legeay and Swaraj. Under U.S. patent law, the mere fact that the prior art can be modified does not make the modification obvious, unless an apparent reason exists based on evidence in the record or scientific reasoning for one of ordinary skill in the art to make the modification. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007).” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. No modification is put forth concerning the surface treatment of the porous base, wherein Nishioka puts forth a general teaching that it is known to provide a surface treatment on a porous body.
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 PAUL ALVARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8611. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0930-1800.
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, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. 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.
/PAUL ALVARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights