DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s response filed 7/30/26 containing amendments and remarks to the claims.
The amendments are not sufficient to overcome the prior art rejection.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-12, and 22 are currently pending.
A Final rejection follows.
FINAL REJECTION
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 1-5, 7, 8, 10-12, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. US Patent 11,641,021.
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a humidifier for a fuel cell comprising (Figures 1-7, column 7-9):
a) A humidifying module 100 (Figure 1 and Figure 3) configured to humidify dry inflow gas (DG) supplied from the outside by using moist air wet gas (WG) discharged from fuel stack 20 (column 7 lines 45-61 and column 8 lines 12-17);
b) A first cap 116 (Figure 3) coupled to one end of the humidifying module 100 (column 3 line 47);
c) A second cap 118 coupled at the opposite end of the humidifying module 100 (column 3 line 50);
d) The humidifying module further comprises a mid-case housing 110 with ends open (column 8 lines 49-51);
e) A cartridge as humidification unit 200 (Figure 4, column 9 lines 1-3) disposed within the mid-case housing 110 further comprising a plurality of hollow fiber membranes 220 (column 9 lines 55-58);
f) The cartridge further comprises an inner case 210 (column 9 lines 8-10) having openings in the ends and configured to receive the plurality of hollow fiber membranes 220 (column 9 lines 53-55);
e) The inner case comprises first gas inlet windows 212 configured to accept intake gas WG1 (column 9 lines 11) and a first gas outlet windows 214 configured to discharge moist air (column 9 lines 12-13).
Lee does not explicitly teach that that area of the first gas inlet (analogous to the first gas inlet windows 212) is different than the area of the first gas outlet (first gas outlet windows 214), wherein the first gas inlet and the first gas outlet are formed at one side of the inner case, and on the assumption that an area of the one side of the inner case is M (M being a real number greater than 0), the area of the first gas inlet is 0.05M to 0.18M. The Examiner will consider the inlet area is the sum of all the inlet windows 212 and the outlet area is the sum of the outlet windows 214.
However, in Figures 3, 5 and 6, Lee teaches that the inlet comprises a total of 12 windows and the outlet comprises a total of 16 windows, each window is represented by relatively equal-sized square. Lee teaches that the number and structure of inlet windows 212 and outlet windows 214 may be changed based on required conditions and design specifications. Lee further teaches that changing the opening degree of inlet windows 212 changes the amount of air entering the cartridge and the resulting humidification. Thus, Lee recognizes that the available inlet opening area affects humidification (column 17 lines 8-13).
Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select the number and size of the inlet openings to provide the moist-air supply needed for the intended operating conditions. For a given case size area M, changing the total inlet opening area also changes its proportion relative to M. Lee’s disclosed relationship between opening area, moist-air supply, and humidification provides a reasonable expectation that adjusting the inlet area would permit the desired humidification levels.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to vary the inlet and outlet area sizes because Lee teaches that humidification can be adjusted by changing the amount of moist air supplied to the cartridge (column 17 lines 8-13). The supply of air can be controlled by opening and closing supply holes through valves and thus affect the flow rate to control the humidification rate. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would expect that by varying the inlet and outlet areas would affect the flow rate, pressure drop, and resistance time of the moist air, thereby allowing humidification to be controlled and tuned for operating conditions of the fuel stack.
Regarding claim 2, Lee does teach a plurality of inlet windows 212 and a plurality of outlet windows 214. However, Lee does not explicitly teach the number of inlet windows 212 is greater than the number of outlet windows 214; instead, Lee teaches the reverse where the inlet windows are less than the outlet windows.
However, the motivation to have more inlet windows to outlet windows would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art because Lee teaches that humidification can be adjusted by changing the amount of moist air supplied to the cartridge (column 17 lines 8-13). The supply of air can be controlled by opening and closing supply holes through valves and thus affect the flow rate to control the humidification rate. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would expect that having more inlet windows than outlet windows would allow more wet gas to flow into the cartridge, thereby allowing humidification to be controlled and tuned for operating conditions of the fuel stack.
Regarding claim 3, Lee teaches a plurality of inlet windows 212 and a plurality of outlet windows 214 and the number of outlet windows 214 is more than the number of inlet windows 212.
Regarding claim 4, Lee does not explicitly teach that the areas of each inlet window are equal to each other and the areas of each outlet window are equal to each other. However, Lee’s Figure discloses that the inlet and outlet windows are represented by equal squares thus, suggesting that the areas of each inlet window are equal to each other and the areas of each outlet window are equal to each other.
Regarding claim 5, Lee does not explicitly teach that the area of the first gas inlet is N (N being a real number greater than 0), the area of the first gas outlet is 0.5N to less than 1N or greater than 1N to 2N. However as stated above, Lee teaches that humidification can be adjusted by changing the amount of moist air supplied to the cartridge (column 17 lines 8-13). The supply of air can be controlled by opening and closing supply holes through valves and thus affect the flow rate to control the humidification rate, thereby adjusting the inlet area would affect the flow rate and the humidification rate. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to adjust the inlet and outlet areas in order to control the wet gas flow into and from the cartridge, thereby allowing humidification to be controlled and tuned for operating conditions of the fuel stack.
Regarding claims 7, the inlet and outlet windows 212 and 214 are on the inner case 210 in communication with the hollow fibers thus the windows are also disposed on the inner case (column 14 lines 10-20, also see insert in Figure 5). Lee does not explicitly teach an area of the one side of the inner case is M (M being a real number greater than 0), the area of the first gas inlet is 0.05M to 0.18M.
However, as stated above, Lee teaches that humidification can be adjusted by changing the amount of moist air supplied to the cartridge (column 17 lines 8-13). The supply of air can be controlled by opening and closing supply holes through valves and thus affect the flow rate to control the humidification rate, thereby adjusting the inlet area would affect the flow rate and the humidification rate. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to adjust the inlet and outlet areas in order to control the wet gas flow into and from the cartridge, thereby allowing humidification to be controlled and tuned for operating conditions of the fuel stack.
Regarding claims 8 and 10-12, Lee further teaches that the inner case 210 comprises:
an introduction member as adjusting unit 300 where the inlet windows 212 are formed (Figure 5, column 16 lines 34-35);
a connection member 350 disposed in between the inlet and outlet and connects with the introduction member 300 and extends laterally along the hollow fibers (Figures 4 and 5, column 16 lines 41-43); and wherein
the first gas inlet windows 212 are disposed at the left half side of the humidifier body and the first outlet windows 214 are disposed on the right half of the humidifier body (Figure 3).
Lee does not explicitly teach a discharge member in which the first gas outlet 214 is formed. Instead, the first gas outlet windows 214 are formed on the inner casing. However, adding a discharge member to mirror the introduction member body 300 is considered a repetition of parts and would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Lee teaches that the body 300 controls the flow rate of the wet gas by opening and closing the inlet windows 212, and thus applying the same mechanism to the outlet side would have been obvious and a duplication of parts. The modification would have achieved predictable results in allowing control of the gas flow and thus control the amount of humidification.
In light of the proposed modification of providing a discharge member, it would therefore be obvious that one end of the connection member is coupled to one end of the introduction member while the other end of the connection member is coupled to one end of the discharge member, the first gas inlet is disposed at a position at which a distance from one end of the introduction member and a distance from the other end of the introduction member are different from each other, and the first gas outlet is disposed at a position at which a distance from one end of the discharge member and a distance from the other end of the introduction member are different from each other.
With further regards to claims 10-12, one having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to adjust the distance between the inlet and outlet in order to control the level of humidification and further be motivated to optimize the distances between the inlet and outlet by routine experimentation; thus would be obvious to arrive at:
a first distance between the first gas inlet and the other end of the introduction member is L (L being a real number greater than 0), a second distance between the first gas outlet and the other end of the introduction member is greater than 2.33 L to 19 L (claim 10);
the first gas inlet is disposed at a position at which the distance from the one end of the introduction member is less than the distance from the other end of the introduction member, and the first gas outlet is disposed at a position at which the distance from the one end of the discharge member is less than the distance from the other end of the discharge member (claim 11);
the first gas inlet is disposed at a position at which the distance from the one end of the introduction member is greater than the distance from the other end of the introduction member, and the first gas outlet is disposed at a position at which the distance from the one end of the discharge member is greater than the distance from the other end of the discharge member (claim 12).
Regarding claim 22, Lee further teaches that the inner case 210 comprises:
an introduction member as adjusting unit 300 where the inlet windows 212 are formed (Figure 5, column 16 lines 34-35);
a connection member 350 disposed in between the inlet and outlet and connects with the introduction member 300 and extends laterally along the hollow fibers (Figures 4 and 5, column 16 lines 41-43);
the first gas inlet windows 212 are disposed at the left half side of the humidifier body and the first outlet windows 214 are disposed on the right half of the humidifier body (Figure 3).
Lee does not explicitly teach a discharge member in which the first gas outlet 214 is formed. Instead, the first gas outlet windows 214 are formed on the inner casing. However, adding a discharge member to mirror the introduction member body 300 is considered a repetition of parts and would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Lee teaches that the body 300 controls the flow rate of the wet gas by opening and closing the inlet windows 212, and thus applying the same mechanism to the outlet side would have been obvious and a duplication of parts. The modification would have achieved predictable results in allowing control of the gas flow and thus control the amount of humidification.
In light of the proposed modification of providing a discharge member, it would therefore be obvious that one end of the connection member is coupled to one end of the introduction member while the other end of the connection member is coupled to one end of the discharge member, and the first gas outlet is disposed at a position at which a distance from one end of the discharge member and a distance from the other end of the discharge member are different from each other.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s arguments in light of the amendment has been considered but is not persuasive. Lee teaches that changing the opening degree of inlet windows 212 changes the amount of air entering the cartridge and the resulting humidification. Thus, Lee recognizes that the available inlet opening area affects humidification (column 17 lines 8-13).
Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select the number and size of the inlet openings to provide the moist-air supply needed for the intended operating conditions. For a given case size area M, changing the total inlet opening area also changes its proportion relative to M. Lee’s disclosed relationship between opening area, moist-air supply, and humidification provides a reasonable expectation that adjusting the inlet area would permit the desired humidification levels.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SHARON PREGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571) 272-5954. 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.
/SHARON PREGLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
