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 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-5, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An et al. US Pub. No. 20180316028 A1, November 01, 2018 (hereinafter “An”) in view of Kim et al. KR 20190081736 A, July 09, 2019 (Hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding claim 1, An teaches a humidifier for fuel cells (paragraph 0002), the humidifier comprising: a humidifying module (fig. 3 humifying module 110, paragraph 0061) configured to humidify dry gas supplied from outside using wet gas discharged from a fuel cell stack 10 (fig. 2, paragraph 0044); and a first cap (fig. 3, first cap 120) coupled to one end of the humidifying module, wherein the humidifying module comprises: a mid-case (fig. 3, housing 111, paragraph 0062) open at opposite ends thereof; and a membrane housing 111a disposed in the humidifying module 110, the second housing 111b comprising a plurality of hollow fiber membranes (fig. 3, hollow fiber membrane 112, paragraph 0065), the second housing 111b comprises: a first housing 111a open at opposite ends thereof, the first housing 111a being configured to receive the hollow fiber membranes 112; and a first potting layer (fig. 3, first sub-fixing layers 113a, paragraph 0065) configured to pot one end of each of the hollow fiber membranes 112, the humidifying module comprises: a first packing member (fig. 3, second sub-fixing layers 113b, paragraph 0065) airtightly coupled to one end of the humidifying module through mechanical assembly such that the first cap 120 can fluidly communicate with only the hollow fiber membranes 112; and an outer space (fig. 3 and 4).
However, An fails to disclose a first sealing portion configured to form a hermetic seal between the first packing member and the first potting layer; and a first blocking portion coupled to the first packing member so as to limit a flowable distance of the first sealing portion, and the first sealing portion is disposed in at least one of a first outer space between the first packing member and the first cap based on the first packing member and an inner space disposed on a side opposite the first outer space.
Kim teaches a sealing member 200 (fig. 3, first sealing part 210, paragraph 0052) to hermetically sealing the space formed between a cartridge and a cap case 120 as well as the space inside the middle case 110 (paragraph 0056), the hollow fiber membrane modules is blocked by the potting part 130, and a flow path is formed while other regions are blocked, thereby limiting fluid communication and controlling flow within the humidifier (paragraph 0050). Kim discloses the first sealing portion 210 contacts the inner wall 122 of the cap case and is mounted on the end 111 of the middle case. The second sealing portion 220 is formed on the inner side of the first sealing portion 210 and is formed to surround the potting portion 130 (fig. 3, paragraph 0055), thereby restricting movement of sealing material and separating inner and outer spaces.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the humidifier of An to include the blocking and sealing configurations taught by Kim, such that the sealing portion is structurally limited by a blocking portion in order to improve hermetic sealing and prevent uncontrolled spreading of sealing material. The motivation to combines arises from the well-recognized need in fuel cell humidifiers to improve sealing reliability, prevent leakage, and maintain separation between inner and outer spaces.
Regarding claims 2-5, these claims depend from claim 1 and further recite particular configurations of the first sealing portion, blocking portion, sealant, and corresponding inner and outer recesses. As set forth above with respect to claim 1, An teaches a humidifier structure including a packing member, potting layer, adjacent spaces, and Kim teaches sealing members disposed in recessed regions and bounded by adjacent structural portions that limit sealant flow and form hermetic seals.
The additional limitations of claims 2-5 merely specify alternative placements and arrangements of sealant and blocking structures that perform the known function of limiting a flowable distance of sealant and forming a hermetic seal. Selecting whether a sealant is disposed in an inner space, an outer space, or both, and providing corresponding blocking structures to confine the sealant, would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art, as such alternatives were known and would have yielded predictable results. The configuration recited in claims 2-5 was not shown to produce any unexpected results or critical difference over the sealing arrangements taught by the applied references. See MPEP §2144.04(IV) (design choice where the claimed structure performs the same function and achieves the same result).
Regarding claims 15-18, these claims depend from the preceding claims and further recite additional structural refinements of the sealing, blocking, partitioning, and support features of the humidifier. As discussed above, the applied references collectively teach sealing members, recessed structures, blocking portions, and housing-based supports that limit fluid communication and form hermetic seals within hollow fiber membrane humidifiers. The additional limitations of claims 14-18 merely recite alternative structural implementations of known sealing and support functions. Selecting specific shapes, lengths, orientations, or relative arrangements of such structural features would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art, as these alternatives were known and would have produced predictable results. See MPEP §2144.04(IV) (changes in size, shape, or arrangement of parts)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-14 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/16/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over An in view of Kim have been fully considered.
Claims 1-5, and 15-18.
Applicant argues that the combination of An and Kim fails to disclose or suggest the claimed sealing configuration, particularly asserting that Kim does not disclose the claimed blocking portion, recesses, and structural arrangement of the sealing member. The Examiner is not persuaded.
The rejection of independent claim 1 relies on the combined teachings of An and Kim rather than either reference individually. An discloses the humidifier structure including the humidifying module, cartridge, hollow fiber membranes, packing member, potting layer, and mechanical assembly between the packing member and the cap (fig. 3; paragraphs 0061, 0065). Kim discloses a sealing member including a first sealing portion (210) and a second sealing portion (220) that hermetically seals the spaces formed between the cartridge, middle case, cap case, and potting portion while separating the internal and external spaces. Kim further discloses that the rigid sealing portion mechanically limits deformation and movement of the softer sealing portion during assembly, thereby maintaining sealing integrity (figs. 3-4; paragraphs 0050-0056, 0063-0064).
Applicant’s arguments are directed primarily to a particular recessed seal-retaining geometry including recesses, partition members, and projecting blocking members. However, these limitations are not recited in independent claim 1. Claim 1 broadly recites a first sealing portion configured to form a hermetic seal, a first blocking portion coupled to the first packing member to limit a flowable distance of the first sealing portion, and the sealing portion being disposed within at least one of a first outer space or an inner space. The examiner maintains that the combined teachings of An and Kim render these broadly recited limitations obvious. The rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
Claims 2-5, and 15-18 depend, directly or indirectly from claim 1 and further recite particular arrangements of the first sealing portion, sealant, blocking portion, and corresponding recesses. Kim discloses sealing portions positioned between the potting portion and adjacent structural members to hermetically isolate the respective fluid spaces while mechanically controlling location of the sealing region. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the sealing material within adjacent recessed regions bounded by surrounding structural portions in order to improve sealing reliability, and maintain hermetic separation between adjacent fluid spaces. Therefore, the rejection of dependent claims 2,5 and 15-18 is likewise maintained.
Claims 6-14.
Applicant’s argument with respect to independent claim 6 have been carefully considered and are found persuasive.
Independent claim 6 recites a substantially narrower structural arrangement than claim 1. Claim 6 requires a first packing member including a first inner recess configured to receive a first sealant, a first blocking member disposed on one side of the recess, a first partition member disposed on the opposite side of the recess, wherein the first blocking member projects toward the inner space and has a greater length than the first inner recess, and wherein the first sealant is located within the first inner recess to form a hermetic seal between the first blocking member and the first potting layer.
Upon further review, the examiner agrees that the cited combination of An and Kim does not teach this particular recessed seal-retention geometry. Although Kim discloses a mechanical sealing member including first and second sealing portions for hermetically sealing the spaces surrounding the potting portion, Kim does not disclose a packing member having an inner recess that receives a sealant, together with an opposing blocking member and partition member arranged as presently claimed, nor does Kim disclose a blocking member projecting toward the inner space and extending beyond the recess as recited.
Because the prior art fails to disclose these specific structural relationships, the Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments persuasive with respect to independent claim 6. The rejection of independent claim 6, and claims 7-14 depending therefrom, is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-5, and 15-18 is maintained, while claims 6-14 are in condition for allowance.
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 MIRIAM N EZELUOMBA whose telephone number is (571)272-0110. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 5712707872. 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.
/M.N.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights