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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/22/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 2, 6, 7, 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2008027674-A (U) in view of US-20140186727-A1 (K).
Regarding claim 1, U teaches:
A fuel cell membrane humidifier (10) comprising: a mid-case (5);
partition walls (37, 39) configured to partition an inner space of the mid-case into a first space (47) and a second space (49), a first off-gas inlet (33) connected to a first off-gas branch flow path and configured such that off-gas discharged from a fuel cell stack flows into the first space through the first off-gas inlet;
a second off-gas inlet (35) connected to a second off-gas branch flow path and configured such that the off-gas discharged from the fuel cell stack flows into the second space through the second off-gas inlet;
and a single off-gas outlet (36) configured to discharge the off-gas from the first space and the second space.
U teaches a hollow fiber membrane module (7) where the off-gas passes through to humidify dry gas [0030]. U teaches an off-gas outlet space (51). U teaches the benefit of having a first and second off-gas inlet is that the configuration allows for adjusting the length of the flow path of the off-gas inside of the humidifier to control the level of humidification [0008-9].
U does not teach the single off-gas outlet is formed between the partition walls.
K teaches a fuel cell humidifier (10) with two off-gas inputs (15a, 15b) at opposite ends of the humidifier. K teaches two off-gas outlets (17a, 17b) at opposite ends of the humidifier. K teaches the benefit of locating the inputs at the opposite sides of the humidifier is that it allows for switching between co-flow and counter-flow of the off-gas with respect to the dry air flow (see Fig. 4). K teaches this is beneficial because it allows for adjustment of the humidification during different process conditions [0078].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to modify the humidifier of U to enable switching between counter-flow and co-flow like that of K in order to achieve the benefit for allowing for adjustment of humidification during different process conditions. This modification would involve moving the inlets to opposite sides of the humidifier which is the configuration taught by K. At the same time, in order to preserve the original function of U, the two inlets must be different distances from the outlet, so the outlet must be farther from one inlet than the other. Additionally, in order to enable the selection of co-flow and counter-flow, the outlet must be located in a place where the gas will flow towards the end portion 15 from one inlet and towards end portion 13 from the other. This is only possible if the outlet is located between the two inlets.
Therefore, in the modification of U to allow for the selection between counter-flow and co-flow, the outlet must be located between the first and second inlet, and the partition walls must separate the first and second spaces (47, 49) from the off-gas outlet space (51) to allow for the gas to flow through the hollow fiber membrane module.
The combination of U and K would therefore teach the outlet is between the partition walls, therefore, claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination of U and K.
Regarding claim 2, U teaches the first off-gas inlet and the second off-gas inlet are formed at a 90 degree angle (see Fig. 2).
As mentioned in the Claim Interpretation section of the previous correspondence, no definitions for “inclined” or “preset angle” were provided. The examiner has interpreted first and second gas inlets that are at right angles with either of the length or width of a humidifier are still inclined at a preset angle.
Regarding claim 6, U teaches a fuel cell system (entirety of Fig. 1) comprising:
a blower (21) configured to supply a dry gas;
a fuel cell stack (3); and
A fuel cell membrane humidifier (10) comprising: a mid-case (5);
partition walls (37, 39) configured to partition an inner space of the mid-case into a first space (47) and a second space (49), a first off-gas inlet (33) connected to a first off-gas branch flow path and configured such that off-gas discharged from a fuel cell stack flows into the first space through the first off-gas inlet;
a second off-gas inlet (35) connected to a second off-gas branch flow path and configured such that the off-gas discharged from the fuel cell stack flows into the second space through the second off-gas inlet;
and a single off-gas outlet (36) configured to discharge the off-gas from the first space and the second space.
U teaches a hollow fiber membrane module (7) where the off-gas passes through to humidify dry gas [0030]. U teaches an off-gas outlet space (51). U teaches the benefit of having a first and second off-gas inlet is that the configuration allows for adjusting the length of the flow path of the off-gas inside of the humidifier to control the level of humidification [0008-9].
U does not teach the single off-gas outlet is formed between the partition walls.
K teaches a fuel cell humidifier (10) with two off-gas inputs (15a, 15b) at opposite ends of the humidifier. K teaches two off-gas outlets (17a, 17b) at opposite ends of the humidifier. K teaches the benefit of locating the inputs at the opposite sides of the humidifier is that it allows for switching between co-flow and counter-flow of the off-gas with respect to the dry air flow (see Fig. 4). K teaches this is beneficial because it allows for adjustment of the humidification during different process conditions [0078].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to modify the humidifier of U to enable switching between counter-flow and co-flow like that of K in order to achieve the benefit for allowing for adjustment of humidification during different process conditions. This modification would involve moving the inlets to opposite sides of the humidifier which is the configuration taught by K. At the same time, in order to preserve the original function of U, the two inlets must be different distances from the outlet, so the outlet must be farther from one inlet than the other. Additionally, in order to enable the selection of co-flow and counter-flow, the outlet must be located in a place where the gas will flow towards the end portion 15 from one inlet and towards end portion 13 from the other. This is only possible if the outlet is located between the two inlets.
Therefore, in the modification of U to allow for the selection between counter-flow and co-flow, the outlet must be located between the first and second inlet, and the partition walls must separate the first and second spaces (47, 49) from the off-gas outlet space (51) to allow for the gas to flow through the hollow fiber membrane module.
The combination of U and K would therefore teach the outlet is between the partition walls, therefore, claim 6 is unpatentable over the combination of U and K.
Regarding claim 7, U teaches the first off-gas inlet and the second off-gas inlet are formed at a 90 degree angle (see Fig. 2).
As mentioned in the Claim Interpretation section of the previous correspondence, no definitions for “inclined” or “preset angle” were provided. The examiner has interpreted first and second gas inlets that are at right angles with either of the length or width of a humidifier are still inclined at a preset angle.
Regarding claim 11, U teaches a humidified gas supply flow path (17) configured to supply a gas humidified in the fuel cell membrane humidifier to the fuel cell stack; an off-gas supply flow path (27) configured to supply the off-gas discharged from the fuel cell stack to the fuel cell membrane humidifier; and a first off-gas branch flow path (A) branched from the off-gas supply flow path and connected to the first off-gas inlet, and a second off-gas branch flow path (B) branched from the off-gas supply flow path and connected to the second off-gas inlet.
Regarding claim 12, U teaches a flow adjustment means (53) for adjusting a flow rate of the off-gas to the first off-gas branch flow path and the second off-gas branch flow path, the flow adjustment means being formed between the first off-gas branch flow path and the second off-gas branch flow path.
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
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights