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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/5/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/5/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8, paragraphs 2-4 of the applicant’s response, the applicant asserts that Berger does not teach that the guide member prevents shortcut flow or prevent same-space shortcut discharge. In the combination of Kim, Oh, and Berger, the guide member of Berger has the same structure as the claimed guide member of the instant, so it must be capable of performing the same function of preventing shortcut flow and preventing same-space shortcut discharge.
In response to applicant's argument that Berger does not teach that the guide member prevents shortcut flow or prevent same-space shortcut discharge, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
On page 8, paragraphs 2-4 of the applicant’s response, the applicant asserts that the Berger reference does not teach nor suggest the requirements of the previously presented instant claim 8 nor the currently amended instant claim 1. This argument is piecemeal because it addresses the Berger reference in isolation. The rejection was not in view of Berger alone but in view of the combination of Kim, Oh, and Berger.
Similarly, the argument on page 12, lines 6-10, the applicant argues that Kim does not disclose or suggest the use of partition walls and discharge guide members. This argument is also piecemeal because it addresses Kim in isolation, when the rejection was in view of Kim, Oh, and Berger.
The applicant also argues on page 12, lines 11-12, that Oh does not teach a configuration using two off-gas inlets and two off-gas outlets, which is once again piecemeal.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Finally, the applicant claims that the combination would not teach or suggest the presently amended claim 1 without impermissible hindsight reconstruction.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Still, in light of the claim amendments, the prior art rejections are withdrawn, and new grounds of rejection are presented herein.
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.
Claims 1, 10, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US
20140186727 A1, Kim et. al., 2013 in view of WO 2015102374 A1, Oh et. al., 2015, and in further view of US 20050241482 A1, Berger et. al., 2005.
Regarding claim 1, Kim et. al. teaches a fuel cell membrane humidifier (Abstract) comprising:
a mid-case (Fig. 4, 11a);
a first off-gas inlet (Fig. 4, 15a) formed on one side of one surface of the mid-case and a second
off-gas inlet (Fig. 4, 15b) formed on the other side of the one surface of the mid-case;
and a first off-gas outlet (Fig. 4, 17b) formed on one side of the other surface of the mid-case
and a second off-gas outlet (Fig. 4, 17a) formed on the other side of the other surface of the mid-case.
Kim et. al. does not teach a partition wall dividing the inner space of the mid-case into a first space and a second space, nor that the first off-gas inlet and off-gas outlet are located in the first space and the second off-gas inlet and off-gas outlet are located in the second space.
However, Oh et. al. teaches a fuel cell membrane humidifier (Fig. of Page 8, referred to from here on as Fig. 1, 100) with a mid-case (Fig. 1, 110) comprising hollow fiber membranes and partition
walls (Fig. 1, 140) dividing the cell into three separate spaces, which will be referred to as S1, S2, and S3 (Fig. 1, see annotated version below).
PNG
media_image1.png
469
802
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Oh et. al. teaches that these dividers increase the residence time of the fluid flowing around the hollow fiber membranes, which maximizes the performance of the humidifier (Abstract). In the abstract, it is stated that at least one division unit is formed in the space, which means that one division unit would have at least a comparative improvement to performance of the humidifier compared to a humidifier without the division unit (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to apply the division unit of Oh et. al. to the humidifier of
Kim et. al., because the division unit would increase the flow path of the off-gas through the humidifier
of Kim et. al. This would increase residence times of the off-gas and therefore improve the performance
of the fuel cell which is a clear benefit. The dividing wall would be placed in the humidifier of Kim et. al.
along the dotted line shown below, which is consistent with the placements of the dividers in Oh et. al.
This would create space “a”, which houses the first inlets and outlets (Fig. 4, 15a and 17b, respectively),
and space “b”, which houses the second inlets and outlets (Fig. 4, 15b, and 17a), respectively).
PNG
media_image2.png
605
753
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kim et. al. does not teach that the fuel cell humidifier has guide members that extend in an
upward diagonal slope from one space to the next that prevent off-gas moving from an inlet in one
space to an outlet in the same space.
However, Berger et. al. teaches a fuel cell humidifier (Fig. 3) with guide members (Fig. 5, 18) that
slope upwards from one space “a” to another space “b” (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
310
237
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Berger teaches this is to increase length the flow path of gas stream B, ensuring that the gas B flows around as many of the hollow fiber membranes as possible, allowing the size of the humidifier to be minimized (Paragraph 33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant to apply the guide members of Berger et. al. to the humidifier of Kim et. al. in order to increase the length of the flow path and enable a smaller humidifier with the same performance.
In the implementation of the guide member of Berger in the humidifier mid-case of Kim and Oh, the guide member would be placed over the two off-gas inlets and outlets of the humidifier of Kim and Oh because that is how the structure is arranged in the humidifier of Berger. In doing this, the guide member at the inlet can then be angled towards or away from the opposite outlet. This leaves two options for the orientation of the guide member, meaning one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive to the configuration where the guide member is angled up towards the opposite outlet without undue experimentation because doing so would amount to no more than testing a finite amount of configurations to increase the length of the flow path of the off-gas. This is a desirable outcome as taught by Berger in [0033], so one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant would have drawn motivation to pursue it.
In this case, the combination of Kim, Oh, and Berger teaches the guide member of Berger et. al. slopes upward in a diagonal direction from one space to the next space.
Therefore claim 1 of the instant is unpatentable over Modified Kim.
Regarding claim 10, the teachings of Modified Kim are explained above.
Modified Kim further teaches a blower (Kim, Paragraph 45, “an air blower”) configured to supply a dry gas (Kim, Fig. 4, “Dry air”) and a fuel cell stack (Kim, Fig. 4, 20). Modified Kim teaches the guide member of Berger et. al. slopes upward in a diagonal direction from one space to the next space, which renders claim 14 of the instant unpatentable.
Therefore, Modified Kim renders the instant claim 10 unpatentable as it teaches all of the claimed matter of claim 10.
Regarding claim 19, Modified Kim teaches the fuel cell system comprises:
a humidifier gas supply flow path (Kim, Fig. 4, “Humidified air” arrow) configured to supply a gas
humidified in the fuel cell membrane (Kim, Fig. 4, “Humidified air”) to the fuel cell stack;
an off-gas supply flow path (Kim, Fig. 4, 31) configured to supply the off-gas discharged from the fuel
stack (Kim, Fig. 4, “Humid air”) to the fuel cell humidifier;
and a first off-gas branch flow path (Kim, Fig. 4, 31a) branched from the off-gas supply flow path and
connected to the first off-gas inlet (Kim, Fig. 4, 15a), and a second off-gas branch flow path (Fig. 4, 31b)
branched from the off-gas supply flow path and connected to the second off-gas inlet (Kim, Fig. 4, 15b).
Regarding claim 20, Modified Kim teaches the fuel cell system comprises a valve (Kim, Fig. 4, 32) for adjusting the flow rate of the off-gas to the first off-gas branch flow path and the second off-gas flow
path, the valve being placed between the first off-gas branch flow path and the second off-gas branch
flow path.
Therefore, Modified Kim renders claim 20 of the instant unpatentable as it teaches all of the claimed matter of claim 20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI whose telephone number is (571)272-6917. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M..
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI/Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights