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
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-4, 10 in the reply filed on 4/2/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 5-9, 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species and invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/2/2026.
Claims 1-4, 10, are currently pending in this application and are under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the inside" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the cartridge” in line 2. The only reference to a cartridge before this is phrased as “at least one cartridge”, therefore “the cartridge” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the cartridge” in line 2. The only reference to a cartridge before this is phrased as “at least one cartridge”, therefore “the cartridge” lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 2-4, 10 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 1, which has been rejected for the reason stated above.
Claim Interpretation
For the purposes of examination, the following claim interpretations will be used:
In claim 2, “a mesh structure made of activated carbon” is interpreted to mean a mesh structure comprising carbon.
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, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE-102014205029-A1, GRUNDEI, in view of US-20030012993-A1, KATAGIRI.
PNG
media_image1.png
674
1463
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, GRUNDEI teaches a conditioning unit for a fuel cell (40) comprising: a mid-case (41); caps (labeled C, see modified figure above) fastened to the mid-case a mixture humidification portion (50) configured to mix a dry air (14) flowing into the inside through the cap with an off-gas (15) flowing into the inside through an inlet (see modified figure below) to perform mixture humidification; and at least one cartridge (see modified figure below) disposed in the mid-case and configured to accommodate a plurality of hollow fiber membranes (58) performing moisture exchange.
PNG
media_image2.png
444
441
media_image2.png
Greyscale
GRUNDEI does not teach a bypass inlet connected to a bypass flow path that an off-gas discharged from a fuel cell stack partially is bypassed through the bypass flow path.
KATAGIRI teaches a fuel cell humidifying system (Fig. 3) comprising a bypass (7) that allows cathode exhaust gases to go around a first humidifier (2) and go to a second humidifier (3) [0045]. KATAGIRI teaches a valve (7a) allows for increased control of how much off-gas reaches each humidifier in order to balance the humidification levels of the fuel gas and oxidant gas [0114] at different output levels.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant to include the bypass of KATAGIRI as a part of the off-gas supply of GRUNDEI because doing so would allow for increased control of the humidification levels of the oxidant gas and fuel gas. Doing so would constitute adding a bypass flow path which the off-gas is partially flowed through.
The result of this combination will be referred to as Modified GRUNDEI.
Regarding claim 2, Modified GRUNDEI teaches a filter device (GRUNDEI, 60) comprising a foamy, open-pore structure (GRUNDEI, 61). Modified GRUNDEI teaches the filter device occupies the same region as the humidifier (see Fig. 6). Modified GRUNDEI teaches the filter material contains an adsorbent material, where activated carbon is a suitable material [0019]. A foamy open-pore structure and a mesh are sufficiently similar structures, therefore claim 2 is not patentable over Modified GRUNDEI.
Regarding claim 10, Modified GRUNDEI teaches the cartridge includes an inner case (volume bounded by both of GRUNDEI, 51) configured to have openings formed at ends thereof (GRUNDEI, 55) and accommodate the plurality of hollow fiber membranes [GRUNDEI, 0054]. Modified GRUNDEI teaches potting portions (GRUNDEI, 51), end portions of the plurality of hollow fiber membranes being fixed to the potting portions (see GRUNDEI, Fig. 5) and the openings of the inner case being closed by the potting portions (because the inner case is defined by the potting portions 51, this is true).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE-102014205029-A1, GRUNDEI, in view of US-20030012993-A1, KATAGIRI, and in further view of KR-102496633-B1, OH.
Regarding claim 3, the teachings of Modified GRUNDEI are explained in the rejections of claim 1 and 2. Modified GRUNDEI further teaches a pre-filter (38) which is preferably an air filter like one used in a combustion engine [0045]. An air filter is a porous filter.
Modified GRUNDEI does not teach a condensate water storage portion disposed in a lower portion of the cartridge.
OH teaches a fuel cell humidifier (100) with an absorption member (120) in the lower part of a mid-case (110). OH teaches the absorption member is in a region between two potting portions (111) with membranes fixed between them [0010]. OH teaches the absorption member absorbs condensate at the bottom of the tube to prevent flooding [0020] which is a problem in the field of fuel cells [0007].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to add the absorption member of KATAGIRI to Modified GRUNDEI in order to achieve the benefit of preventing flooding of the humidifier of GRUNDEI, solving a known problem with fuel cell humidifiers as explained above.
The result of this combination will be referred to as 2nd Modified GRUNDEI.
Regarding claim 4, 2nd Modified GRUNDEI teaches the absorption member includes a porous resin [OH, 0031] and that the absorption member has a higher side on the side towards the fuel cell [OH, 0032]. 2nd Modified GRUNDEI teaches the condensate in the mid-case moves towards the tube-in side (which is the dry-air side) [OH, 0034] via diffusion [OH, 0035].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-20220013798-A1.
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