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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
While the examiner acknowledges the applicant’s clarification that “mixture humidification” means direct mixing, this is argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim language of the independent claim 1 and is therefore not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR-101428186-B1 (K).
Regarding claim 1, K teaches:
A fuel cell membrane humidifier (100) comprising: a humidification module comprising a mid-case (101) and at least one cartridge (107) disposed in the mid-case and configured to accommodate a plurality of hollow fiber membranes (106) performing moisture exchange, caps (sloping portions in dotted boxes, see annotated Fig. 4 below) fastened to the mid-case and having a bypass inlet (124) connected to a bypass flow path, a first portion of an off-gas discharged from a fuel cell stack being bypassed through the bypass flow path (see annotated Fig. 4 below); and a mixture humidification portion (120) configured to mix a dry air flowing into an inside through a cap (gray dotted box, see annotated Fig. 4 below) of the caps with the first portion of the off-gas flowing into the inside through the bypass inlet to perform mixture humidification [0037], wherein the mixture humidification portion is formed in the cap on a dry air input side (see Fig. 4), wherein the dry air supplied to the cap is primarily humidified by mixing with the first portion of the off-gas in the mixture humidification portion ([0037] “first humidify”) and secondarily humidified by moisture exchange with a second portion of the off-gas through the hollow fiber membranes of the at least one cartridge in the humidification module ([0052] “secondary humidification”).
PNG
media_image1.png
444
737
media_image1.png
Greyscale
On line 12 of claim 1, “mixing” is interpreted to mean combining or bringing together, which is a common definition of the verb “mix”. While K does not teach that the first portion of the off-gas is mixed directly with the dry air, the two streams are crossed and water from the off-gas is transferred into the dry air. This constitutes combining elements of the dry air and off-gas, which means that they have been mixed even if the off-gas is contained in hollow fiber membranes and not directly combined with the dry air.
Regarding claim 10, K teaches at least one cartridge includes an inner case (portion inside solid box in annotated Fig. 4 below) configured to have openings formed at ends thereof and accommodate the plurality of hollow fiber membranes; and potting portions (labeled in annotated Fig. 4 below), end portions of the plurality of hollow fiber membranes being fixed to the potting portions and the openings of the inner case being closed by the potting portions.
While the potting portions are not explicitly taught, this is how hollow fibers of the mixture humidification portion are installed so it must be how the 106 hollow fibers are installed [0039].
PNG
media_image2.png
444
737
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR-101428186-B1 (K) in view of DE-102014205029-A1 (G).
Regarding claim 2, the teachings of K are explained in the rejection of claim 1.
K does not teach a mesh structure forming the mixture humidification portion.
G teaches a filter device (60) for a fuel cell humidifier (40) which is located in the case of the fuel cell humidifier in the same region as the hollow fibers (hollow fibers (58), description in [0049-50], also see Fig. 6). G teaches the filter device comprises a foamy open pore structure (61). G teaches the filter material contains an adsorbent material, where activated carbon is a suitable material [0019]. G teaches the benefit of the filter device is that it saves space and weight in the design of the fuel cell system [0016].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to place the filter device of G in the mixture humidification section of K in order to achieve the benefit of weight and space reduction in the fuel cell system of K. It would have been obvious to do because G teaches the inclusion of a filtering device in the same space as a hollow fiber moisture exchange portion saves space in fuel cell systems. K teaches the mixture humidification portion is a hollow fiber moisture exchange portion (K, [0039]), so the modification taught by G is applicable.
A foamy open-pore structure used in a filter and a porous filter are sufficiently similar structures, therefore claim 2 is not patentable over K and G.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR-101428186-B1 (K), DE-102014205029-A1 (G), and in further view of KR-102496633-B1 (OH).
Regarding claim 3, the teachings of K are explained in the rejection of claim 1.
K does not teach a condensate water storage portion in the 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 OH to the humidification module of K and G in order to achieve the benefit of preventing flooding of the humidification module of K and G, solving a known problem with fuel cell humidifiers as explained above.
K does not teach a mesh structure forming the mixture humidification portion.
G teaches a filter device (60) for a fuel cell humidifier (40) which is located in the case of the fuel cell humidifier in the same region as the hollow fibers (hollow fibers (58), description in [0049-50], also see Fig. 6). G teaches the filter device comprises a foamy open pore structure (61). G teaches the filter material contains an adsorbent material, where activated carbon is a suitable material [0019]. G teaches the benefit of the filter device is that it saves space and weight in the design of the fuel cell system [0016].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to place the filter device of G in the mixture humidification section of K in order to achieve the benefit of weight and space reduction in the fuel cell system of K. It would have been obvious to do because G teaches the inclusion of a filtering device in the same space as a hollow fiber moisture exchange portion saves space in fuel cell systems. K teaches the mixture humidification portion is a hollow fiber moisture exchange portion (K, [0039]), so the modification taught by G is applicable.
A foamy open-pore structure used in a filter and a porous filter are sufficiently similar structures, so claim 3 is unpatentable over K, G and OH.
Regarding claim 4, OH 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]. OH 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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