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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because “2120a” is not depicted in Figure 5 as referenced in [0096] of instant specification. Further regarding Figure 5, “2122-a” should be “2122-1a” and “2122-b” should be “2122-1b”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, the recitation “a fixing layer having ends of the hollow fiber membranes” in line 10 of said claim should read “a fixing layer having the ends of the hollow fiber membranes”. Further, the recitation “a groove having the end of the mid-case” in line 14 of said claim should read “a groove having the open end of the mid-case”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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 1-12 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 is indefinite because of the recitation “a damping protrusion fitted into the fixing layer to suppress a vibration generated in the cartridge using air flowing inside the humidification module is formed on the inner wall of the mid-case.” It is unclear if it is the damping protrusion or the humidification module that is formed on the inner wall of the mid-case. For the purpose of this office action the recitation has been interpreted as “a damping protrusion, fitted into the fixing layer to suppress a vibration generated in the cartridge using air flowing inside the humidification module, is formed on the inner wall of the mid-case.”
Claim 12 is indefinite because of the recitation “wherein an end of the inner case” in line 1 of said claim. It is unclear if this end is the same as the “open end” of the inner case earlier stated in lines 2-3 of Claim 11. For the purpose of this office action, the recitation has been interpreted as “wherein one of the open ends of the inner case”.
Additionally, dependent claims 2-12 are rejected as a result of their dependence on indefinite claim 1, as they include all the limitations of claim 1 and they do not resolve the issues identified in rejections set forth above.
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.
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 nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (WO2020262912A1, see machine translation) in view of Eping (US 20090108476 A1)
Regarding Claims 1 & 13, Kim discloses a fuel cell membrane humidifier (fuel cell humidifier 2000, [0058] & Figure 2) comprising a humidification module (humidifying module 2100, [0058] & Figure 2) configured to humidify gas supplied from the outside with moisture in an off-gas discharged from a fuel cell stack (see [0058] & Figure 2); and caps (cap 2200, [0058] & Figure 2) coupled to both ends of the humidification module (humidifying module 2100), respectively; wherein the humidification module (humidifying module 2100) includes a mid-case (mid-case 2110, [0060] & Figure 2) having both open ends (open ends, [0060]) and a step (step 2112, [0060] & Figure 2) formed on an inner circumferential surface (see [0060] & Figure 2); at least one cartridge (hollow fiber membrane cartridge 2120, [0092] & Figure 2) disposed inside the mid-case (2110) and configured to accommodate a plurality of hollow fiber membranes (plurality of hollow fiber membranes 2121, [0060] & Figure 2); a fixing layer (fixed layer 2122, [0060] & Figure 2) having ends of the hollow fiber membranes (2121) potted therein ([0060] & Figure 2), and supported by an inner wall of the mid-case (2110) (see Figure 2); a bracket (bracket 2130, [0060] & Figure 2) supported by the step (2112) of the mid-case (2110) and being in contact with the fixing layer (2122); and a packing member (packing member 2140, [0060] & Figure 2) including a groove (groove, [0060]) having the end of the mid-case (2110) fitted thereinto and being in contact with the bracket (2130) (see [0060]).
While Kim teaches a humidification module configured to humidify gas and does not explicitly mention the humidification module configured to humidify air, it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to humidify air supplied to fuel cells, as evidenced by Eping, which teaches that the fuel cell membrane humidifier (humidifier 1) is configured to humidify air (humidifier 1 is used in PEM fuel cells to humidify the fuel-cell intake air, see [0023]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use air as the gas being humidified in Kim, as shown in Eping as doing so would amount to nothing more than a use of a known process for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected result.
Further, Kim is silent on a damping protrusion fitted into the fixing layer to suppress a vibration generated in the cartridge using air flowing inside the humidification module is formed on the inner wall of the mid-case.
Eping teaches a fuel cell membrane humidifier (humidifier 1, [0023] & Figure 1), a humidification module (humidifier module 9, [0023] & Figure 1), ends (first end face 3 & second end face 28, [0023] & Figure 1), plurality of hollow fiber membranes (hollow fibers, [0023]), fixing layer (sheath, [0005] wherein the hollow fiber are embedded into the sheath). Eping further teaches a damping protrusion (elastomeric body 32, [0023] & Figure 1, wherein the elastomeric body 32 is situated between a protrusion 20 and shoulder 24 and is implemented as an O-ring). Eping further teaches that the damping protrusion (32) is primarily used for vibration damping (see [0023]) and ensures no direct contact is made between the humidifier module and its surrounding housing thus avoiding the development of noise (see [0006]).
Kim and Eping are analogous art to the claimed invention as both references are in the field of fuel cells. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fuel cell humidifier of Kim to include the elastomeric O-ring body of Eping to dampen vibrations and minimize contact between the humidifier module and its surrounding housing and thus reduce the development of noise.
Further regarding Claim 13, Kim further discloses the hollow fiber membranes (2121a & 2121b) include a first group of hollow fiber membranes (2121a, see [0096] & Figure 5) and a second group of hollow fiber membranes (2121b, see [0096] & Figure 5),
the humidification module (2100) includes a first inner case (2123a, see [0096] & Figure 5) having the first group of hollow fiber membranes (2121a) disposed therein;
and a second inner case (2123b, see [0096] & Figure 5) having the second group of hollow fiber membranes (2121b) disposed therein,
and the fixing layer (2122) includes a first fixing layer (2122-1a, see [0096] & Figure 5) having ends of the first group of hollow fiber membranes (2121a) potted therein;
a second fixing layer (2122-1b, see [0096] & Figure 5) having ends of the second group of hollow fiber membranes (2121b) potted therein;
and a third fixing layer (2122-2, see [0096] & Figure 5) surrounding the first and second fixing layers (2122-1a & 2122-1b) and being in contact with the bracket (2130).
Regarding Claims 2 & 15, modified Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein each of the bracket (2130) and the packing member (2140) has a single closed curve shape corresponding to a cross-sectional form of the mid-case (see [0026]).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the bracket (2130) has a higher hardness than the packing member (2140) (see [0027]).
Regarding Claims 4 & 16, modified Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the bracket (2130) has a hardness of 60 to 100 Shore A, and the packing member (2140) has a hardness of 40 to 50 Shore A (see [0028]).
Regarding Claims 5 & 17, modified Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the packing member (2140) includes soft rubber, and the bracket (2130) includes metal, hard plastic, or hard rubber (see [0029]).
Regarding Claims 6 & 18, modified Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the packing member (2140) includes silicone rubber or urethane rubber, and the bracket (2130) includes polypropylene (PP), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polystyrene (PS), polycarbonate (PC), or acrylic resin (see [0030]).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the packing member (2140) is also in contact with the fixing layer (2122) (see [0031]).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the fixing layer (2122) includes a first fixing layer (first fixed layer 2122-1, [0088] & Figure 2) having the ends of the hollow fiber membranes (2121) potted therein; and a second fixing layer (second fixed layer 2122-2, [0088] & Figure 2) surrounding the first fixing layer (2122-1) and being in contact with the bracket (2130) (see [0032]).
Regarding Claims 9 & 19, modified Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the first fixing layer (2122-1) and the second fixing layer (2122-2) are formed of the same material (see [0033]).
Regarding Claims 10 & 20, modified Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein both the first fixing layer (2122-1) and the second fixing layer (2122-2) include a polyurethane (PU) resin (see [0034]).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the humidification module (2100) further includes an inner case (inner case 2123, [0090] & Figure 2) having both open ends in the mid-case (2110), and the hollow fiber membranes (2121) are disposed in the inner case (2123) (see [0035]).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein an end of the inner case is potted in the first fixing layer (see [0036]).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Kim discloses the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein an end of the first inner case (2123a) is potted in the first fixing layer (2122-1a), and an end of the second inner case (2123b) is potted in the second fixing layer(2122-1b) (see [0038]).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabata (JP 2004202478A; see machine translation) in view of Kobayashi (US 2016/193570 A1)
Regarding Claim 1, Kawabata teaches a fuel cell membrane humidifier (humidification device, P2/L11) comprising: a humidification module (membrane module 1, Figure 11 & P7/L7) configured to humidify air supplied from the outside with moisture in an off-gas (water vapor, P10/L10) discharged from a fuel cell stack (polymer electrolyte fuel cell, P10/L15) (see P10/L8-15 which describes that membrane module is used to humidify fluid such as dry gas wherein dry gas could be dry air (P10/L17) with a fluid containing moisture from the fuel cell);
and caps (first cover 22 & second cover 23, see P9/L1 & Figure 11) coupled to both ends (see P9/L1 which describes first cover 22 and second cover 23 are provided on both ends of a case body 21) of the humidification module (membrane module 1, Figure 11 & P7/L7) , respectively, wherein the humidification module (membrane module 1, Figure 11 & P7/L7) includes a mid-case (case body 21, P8/L21 & Figure 11) having both open ends (see P8/L21 – P9/L1 which describes a hollow case body 21 having ends which are covered with first cover 22 and second cover 23);
at least one cartridge (first partition plate 31 & second partition plate 32, P9/L10-12 & Figure 11) disposed inside the mid-case (case body 21) and configured to accommodate a
plurality of hollow fiber membranes (plurality of hollow fiber membrane 4, P7/L8-9 & Figure 11) (see P7/L20-21 which describes that the hollow fiber membrane bundle is disposed between the first partition plate 31 and second partition plate 32);
a fixing layer (sealing portion, P8/L4) having ends of the hollow fiber membranes (plurality of hollow fiber membrane 4) potted therein (see P8/L8-9 which describes that hollow fiber membranes 4 are firmly fixed by the two-layer structure of the sealing portion), and
supported by an inner wall of the mid-case (case body 21);
Kawabata does not explicitly disclose a mid-case having both open ends and a step formed on an inner circumferential surface, a bracket supported by the step of the mid-case and being in contact with the fixing layer, a packing member including a groove having the end of the mid-case fitted thereinto and being in contact with the bracket and a damping protrusion fitted into the fixing layer to suppress a vibration generated in the cartridge using air flowing inside the humidification module is formed on the inner wall of the mid-case.
Kobayashi teaches a humidification module (cartridge type hollow fiber membrane module 101, Figure 7 & [0121]), mid-case (housing body 3, [0122] & Figure 7), caps (upper cap 4, [0124] & Figure 7), fixing layers (inner potting part 11A & outer potting part 11 B, see annotated Figure 7 & Figure 1), plurality of hollow fiber membranes (hollow fiber membrane bundle 2, Figure 7). Kobayashi further discloses a step (see annotated Figure 7) and a bracket (flange 9A, see Figure annotated Figure 7) wherein the bracket (flange 9A) is a radially outward projection provided at the end of a cylindrical case 9 (see [0122]) which functions as both an inner case and bracket. Kobayashi further teaches that the bracket (flange 9A) is supported by the step (see annotated Figure 7) and interfaces with the fixing layer (outer potting part 11 B). Kobayashi further teaches a packing member (gasket 17, see annotated Figure 7) wherein packing member (gasket 17) interfaces with the bracket (flange 9A) and is used to fix the mid-case (housing body 3) to the upper cap 4 which reads on the configuration of a groove having the end of the mid-case fitted thereinto and being in contact with the bracket. Kobayashi further teaches a damping protrusion (O-ring 16, annotated Figure 7) and further teaches that the damping protrusion is used to ensure an air-tight and liquid-tight enclosure (see [0129]). Kobayashi teaches that bracket (flange 9a), packing member (gasket 17) and damping protrusion (O-ring 16) may be of any material having sufficient properties such as heat resistance and chemical durability.
Kawabata and Kobayashi are analogous art to the claimed invention as both references are in the field of hollow fiber membrane humidifiers. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fuel cell humidifier of Kawabata to include the bracket, packing member and damping protrusion of Kobayashi which are made from materials that exhibit heat resistance and chemical durability to improve the overall functioning of the hollow fiber membrane humidifier.
PNG
media_image1.png
526
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, modified Kawabata discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further teaches wherein each of the bracket (flange 9A) and the packing member (gasket 17) has a single closed curve shape corresponding to a cross-sectional form of the mid-case (see [0122] which describes that the bracket (flange 9A) is a radially outward projection around the perimeter of the cylindrical case and Figure 4 which discloses a similar cylindrical gasket 15).
Regarding Claims 3 & 4, while modified Kawabata discloses all of the limitations as set forth above it does not explicitly teach wherein the bracket (flange 9A) has a higher hardness than the packing member (gasket 17) (as required by Claim 3) and wherein the bracket (flange 9A) has a hardness of 60 to 100 Shore A, and the packing member (gasket 17) has a hardness of 40 to 50 Shore A (as required by Claim 4), it is submitted, however, that Shore A hardness are simply measurements of, and thus descriptions of, inherent properties of the claimed bracket and packing member.
In the Instant Specification, Applicant discloses the instant packing member may include soft rubber (for example, silicone rubber in [0077]) and that instant bracket may include polypropylene [0031]. Kobayashi teaches a silicone rubber gasket packing member (see [0111]) and a polypropylene bracket see [0112]).
MPEP § 2112.01.II states that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. It is submitted that the silicone rubber gasket packing member and the polypropylene bracket of Kobayashi are substantially similar to the instant packing member and bracket. Based upon such substantial similarities, it appears reasonable that the silicone rubber gasket packing member and polypropylene bracket of Kobayashi would inherently possess properties such that they would necessarily fulfill the recited limitations, i.e. wherein the bracket has a higher hardness than the packing member (as required by Claim 3) and wherein the bracket has a hardness of 60 to 100 Shore A, and the packing member has a hardness of 40 to 50 Shore A (as required by Claim 4).
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, modified Kawabata discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further teaches wherein the packing member (gasket 17) includes soft rubber (silicone rubber, see [0111]) and the bracket (flange 9A) includes metal, hard plastic, or hard rubber (polypropylene, see [0112]) and wherein the packing member (gasket 17) includes silicone rubber or urethane rubber (silicone rubber, see [0111]) and the bracket (flange 9A) includes polypropylene (PP), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polystyrene (PS), polycarbonate (PC), or acrylic resin (polypropylene, see [0112]).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Kawabata discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further teaches wherein the packing member (gasket 17) is also in contact with the fixing layer (inner potting part 11A & outer potting part 11 B, see annotated Figure 7 of Kobayashi).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Kawabata discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further teaches wherein the fixing layer (sealing portion, P8/L4) includes a first fixing layer (inner silicon potting layer 54, P8/L7 & Figure 1) having the ends of the hollow fiber membranes (plurality of hollow fiber membrane 4) potted therein; and a second fixing layer (outer epoxy potting layer 53, P8/L7 & Figure 1) surrounding the first fixing layer (inner silicon potting layer 54, P8/L7 & Figure 1) and being in contact with the bracket (flange 9A of Kobayashi).
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, modified Kawabata discloses all of the limitations as set forth above, but is silent on wherein the first fixing layer and the second fixing layer are formed of the same material (as required by Claim 9) and wherein both the first fixing layer and the second fixing layer include a polyurethane (PU) resin (as required by Claim 10).
Kobayashi teaches a first fixing layer (inner potting part 11A) and a second fixing layer (outer potting part 11 B) selected from polyurethane resins which are excellent in adhesion to the hollow fiber membranes, heat-resistant and chemically durable (see [0092]).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second fixing layers such that they are made from the same material and possess excellent adhesion to the hollow fiber membranes.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Kawabata discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further teaches wherein the humidification module (membrane module 1) further includes an inner case (first partition plate 31 & second partition plate 32, P9/L10-12 & Figure 11) having both open ends in the mid-case (case body 21), and the hollow fiber membranes (plurality of hollow fiber membrane 4) are disposed in the inner case (first partition plate 31 & second partition plate 32, see Figure 11).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Kawabata discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further teaches wherein an end of the inner case (first partition plate 31 & second partition plate 32, see Figure 11) is potted in the first fixing layer (inner silicon potting layer 54 of Kawabata) (see Figure 11).
Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabata (JP 2004202478A; see machine translation) in view of Kobayashi (US 2016/193570 A1) and further in view of Lee (KR20210007732A; see machine translation).
Regarding Claim 13, Kawabata teaches a fuel cell membrane humidifier (humidification device, P2/L11) comprising: a humidification module (membrane module 1, Figure 11 & P7/L7) configured to humidify air supplied from the outside with moisture in an off-gas (water vapor, P10/L10) discharged from a fuel cell stack (polymer electrolyte fuel cell, P10/L15) (see P10/L8-15 which describes that membrane module is used to humidify fluid such as dry gas wherein dry gas could be dry air (P10/L17) with a fluid containing moisture from the fuel cell);
and caps (first cover 22 & second cover 23, see P9/L1 & Figure 11) coupled to both ends (see P9/L1 which describes first cover 22 and second cover 23 are provided on both ends of a case body 21) of the humidification module (membrane module 1, Figure 11 & P7/L7) , respectively, wherein the humidification module (membrane module 1, Figure 11 & P7/L7) includes a mid-case (case body 21, P8/L21 & Figure 11) having both open ends (see P8/L21 – P9/L1 which describes a hollow case body 21 having ends which are covered with first cover 22 and second cover 23);
at least one cartridge (first partition plate 31 & second partition plate 32, P9/L10-12 & Figure 11) disposed inside the mid-case (case body 21) and configured to accommodate a
plurality of hollow fiber membranes (plurality of hollow fiber membrane 4,P7/L8-9 & Figure 11) (see P7/L20-21 which describes that the hollow fiber membrane bundle is disposed between the first partition plate 31 and second partition plate 32);
a fixing layer (sealing portion, P8/L4) having ends of the hollow fiber membranes (plurality of hollow fiber membrane 4) potted therein (see P8/L8-9 which describes that hollow fiber membranes 4 are firmly fixed by the two-layer structure of the sealing portion), and
supported by an inner wall of the mid-case (case body 21);
Kawabata does not explicitly disclose a mid-case having both open ends and a step formed on an inner circumferential surface, a bracket supported by the step of the mid-case and being in contact with the fixing layer, a packing member including a groove having the end of the mid-case fitted thereinto and being in contact with the bracket and a damping protrusion fitted into the fixing layer to suppress a vibration generated in the cartridge using air flowing inside the humidification module is formed on the inner wall of the mid-case.
Kobayashi teaches a humidification module (cartridge type hollow fiber membrane module 101, Figure 7 & [0121]), mid-case (housing body 3, [0122] & Figure 7), caps (upper cap 4, [0124] & Figure 7), fixing layers (inner potting part 11A & outer potting part 11 B, see annotated Figure 7 & Figure 1), plurality of hollow fiber membranes (hollow fiber membrane bundle 2, Figure 7). Kobayashi further discloses a step (see annotated Figure 7), bracket (flange 9A, see Figure annotated Figure 7) wherein bracket (flange 9A) is a radially outward projection provided at the end of a cylindrical case 9 (see [0122]) which functions as both an inner case and bracket. Kobayashi further teaches bracket (flange 9A) is supported by the step (see annotated Figure 7) and interfaces with the fixing layer (outer potting part 11 B). Kobayashi further teaches a packing member (gasket 17, see annotated Figure 7) wherein packing member (gasket 17) interfaces with the bracket (flange 9A) and is used to fix the mid-case (housing body 3) to the upper cap 4 which reads on the configuration of a groove having the end of the mid-case fitted thereinto and being in contact with the bracket. Kobayashi further teaches a damping protrusion (O-ring 16, annotated Figure 7) and further teaches that the damping protrusion is used to ensure an air-tight and liquid-tight enclosure (see [0129]). Kobayashi teaches that bracket (flange 9a), packing member (gasket 17) and damping protrusion (O-ring 16) may be of any material having sufficient properties such as heat resistance and chemical durability.
PNG
media_image1.png
526
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kawabata and Kobayashi are analogous art to the claimed invention as both references are in the field of hollow fiber membrane humidifiers. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fuel cell humidifier of Kawabata to include the bracket, packing member and damping protrusion of Kobayashi which are made from materials that have heat resistance and chemical durability to further improve the overall functioning of the hollow fiber membrane humidifier.
Further, Kawabata is silent on the hollow fiber membranes include a first group of hollow fiber membranes and a second group of hollow fiber membranes, the humidification module includes a first inner case having the first group of hollow fiber membranes disposed therein; and a second inner case having the second group of hollow fiber membranes disposed therein, and the fixing layer includes a first fixing layer having ends of the first group of hollow fiber membranes potted therein; a second fixing layer having ends of the second group of hollow fiber membranes potted therein; and a third fixing layer surrounding the first and second fixing layers and being in contact with the bracket.
Lee teaches a fuel cell membrane humidifier (humidifier 100 for a fuel cell, see [0056]), hollow fiber membrane (humidification membrane 124, see [0089]-[0090] which further discloses that humidification membrane 124 is formed of a hollow fiber membrane and disposed inside a cartridge case 122), humidification module (humidification membrane cartridge 120, Figure 3), mid-case (housing 110, Figure 3). Lee further teaches the hollow fiber membranes (humidification membrane 124) include a first group of hollow fiber membranes (see annotated Figure 3) and a second group of hollow fiber membranes (see annotated Figure 3) and further teaches the humidification module (humidification membrane cartridge 120) includes a first inner case (cartridge case 122, [0084] and annotated Figure 3) having the first group of hollow fiber membranes disposed therein (see annotated Figure 3); and a second inner case (see annotated Figure 3) having the second group of hollow fiber membranes (see annotated Figure 3). Lee further teaches a fixing layer (potting material, see [0090]) which includes a first fixing layer (potting material, [0090] which discloses that the end of the humidification membrane 124 is fixed by a potting material), second fixing layer (potting material, [0090] which discloses that the end of the humidification membrane 124 is fixed by a potting material) and a third fixing layer (surrounding potting material, see [0108] which discloses a potting material surrounding the perimeter of the humidification membrane cartridge).
Kawabata and Lee are analogous art to the claimed invention as both references are in the same field of fuel cell humidifiers. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have increased the number of humidification modules, as taught by Lee, in the fuel cell humidifier of Kawabata to improve the overall efficiency and output of said fuel cell humidifier.
PNG
media_image2.png
520
670
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 14, modified Kawabata teaches the limitations as set forth above and further teaches the fuel cell membrane humidifier (humidifier 100 for a fuel cell of Lee) wherein an end of the first inner case (see annotated Figure 3) is potted in the first fixing layer (potting material, see [0090]), and an end of the second inner case (see annotated Figure 3) is potted in the second fixing layer (potting material, see [0090].
Regarding Claim 15, modified Kawabata teaches the limitations as set forth above and further teaches wherein each of the bracket (flange 9A of Kobayashi) and the packing member (gasket 17 of Kobayashi) has a single closed curve shape corresponding to a cross-sectional form of the mid-case (see [0122] of Kobayashi which describes that the bracket (flange 9A) is a radially outward projection around the perimeter of the cylindrical case and Figure 4 which discloses a similar cylindrical gasket 15).
Regarding Claim 16, while modified Kawabata discloses all of the limitations as set forth above it does not explicitly teach wherein the bracket (flange 9A of Kobayashi) has a hardness of 60 to 100 Shore A, and the packing member (gasket 17 of Kobayashi) has a hardness of 40 to 50 Shore A, it is submitted, however, that Shore A hardness are simply measurements of, and thus descriptions of, inherent properties of the claimed bracket and packing member.
In the Instant Specification, Applicant discloses the instant packing member may include soft rubber (for example, silicone rubber in [0077]) and that instant bracket may include polypropylene [0031]. As described in Claims 5 & 6 above, Kobayashi teaches a silicone rubber gasket packing member and a polypropylene bracket.
MPEP § 2112.01.II states that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. It is submitted that the silicone rubber gasket packing member and the polypropylene bracket of Kobayashi are substantially similar to the instant packing member and bracket. Based upon such substantial similarities, it appears reasonable that the silicone rubber gasket packing member and polypropylene bracket of Kobayashi would inherently possess properties such that they would necessarily fulfill the recited limitations, i.e. wherein the bracket has a hardness of 60 to 100 Shore A, and the packing member has a hardness of 40 to 50 Shore A.
Regarding Claims 17 & 18, modified Kawabata discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further teaches wherein the packing member (gasket 17 of Kobayashi) includes soft rubber (silicone rubber, see [0111] of Kobayashi) and the bracket (flange 9A of Kobayashi) includes metal, hard plastic, or hard rubber (polypropylene, see [0112] of Kobayashi) and wherein the packing member (gasket 17) includes silicone rubber or urethane rubber (silicone rubber, see [0111]) and the bracket (flange 9A) includes polypropylene (PP), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polystyrene (PS), polycarbonate (PC), or acrylic resin (polypropylene, see [0112]).
Regarding Claims 19 & 20, modified Kawabata discloses all of the limitations as set forth above, but is silent on wherein the first fixing layer and the second fixing layer are formed of the same material (as required by Claim 19) and wherein both the first fixing layer and the second fixing layer include a polyurethane (PU) resin (as required by Claim 20).
Kobayashi teaches a first fixing layer (inner potting part 11A) and a second fixing layer (outer potting part 11 B) selected from polyurethane resins which are excellent in adhesion to the hollow fiber membranes, heat-resistant and chemically durable (see [0092]).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second fixing layers such that they are made from the same material and possess excellent adhesion to the hollow fiber membranes.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1 & 4-16 of copending Application No. 17/606,045 in view of Eping (US 20090108476 A1). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conflicting claims 1 and 15 recite the limitations of instant Claims 1 & 13 as stated below;
A fuel cell membrane humidifier comprising: a humidification module configured to humidify gas supplied from the outside with moisture in an off-gas discharged from a fuel cell stack; (conflicting claim 1, lines 1-3)
and caps coupled to both ends of the humidification module, respectively (conflicting claim 1, line 4),
wherein the humidification module includes a mid-case having both open ends and a step formed on an inner circumferential surface (conflicting claim 1, line 5-7);
at least one cartridge disposed inside the mid-case and configured to accommodate a plurality of hollow fiber membranes (conflicting claim 1, lines 10 & 23-24, see first inner case);
a fixing layer having ends of the hollow fiber membranes potted therein, and
supported by an inner wall of the mid-case (conflicting claim 1, line 11);
a bracket supported by the step of the mid-case and being in contact with the fixing
layer (conflicting claim 1, lines 13-14);
and a packing member including a groove having the end of the mid-case fitted thereinto
and being in contact with the bracket (conflicting claim 1, lines 17-19).
While conflicting Claim 1 teaches a humidification module configured to humidify gas and does not explicitly mention the humidification module configured to humidify air, it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to humidify air supplied to fuel cells, as evidenced by Eping, which teaches that the fuel cell membrane humidifier (humidifier 1) is configured to humidify air (humidifier 1 is used in PEM fuel cells to humidify the fuel-cell intake air, see [0023]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use air as the gas being humidified in conflicting Claim 1, as shown in Eping as doing so would amount to nothing more than a use of a known process for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected result.
Further, conflicting Claim 1 is silent on a damping protrusion fitted into the fixing layer to suppress a vibration generated in the cartridge using air flowing inside the humidification module is formed on the inner wall of the mid-case.
Eping teaches a fuel cell membrane humidifier (humidifier 1, [0023] & Figure 1), a humidification module (humidifier module 9, [0023] & Figure 1), ends (first end face 3 & second end face 28, [0023] & Figure 1), plurality of hollow fiber membranes (hollow fibers, [0023]), fixing layer (sheath, [0005] wherein the hollow fiber are embedded into the sheath). Eping further teaches a damping protrusion (elastomeric body 32, [0023] & Figure 1, wherein the elastomeric body 32 is situated between a protrusion 20 and shoulder 24 and is implemented as an O-ring). Eping further teaches that the damping protrusion (32) is primarily used for vibration damping (see [0023]) and ensures no direct contact is made between the humidifier module and its surrounding housing thus avoiding the development of noise (see [0006]).
Eping is analogous art to the claimed invention as both references are in the field of fuel cells. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fuel cell humidifier of conflicting Claim 1 to include the elastomeric O-ring body of Eping to dampen vibrations and minimize contact between the humidifier module and its surrounding housing and thus reduce the development of noise.
Further regarding instant Claim 13, conflicting claims 1 and 15 further recite:
the hollow fiber membranes include a first group of hollow fiber membranes and a second group of hollow fiber membranes (conflicting claim 15, line 2),
the humidification module includes a first inner case having the first group of hollow fiber membranes disposed therein (conflicting claim 15, line 4);
and a second inner case having the second group of hollow fiber membranes disposed
therein (lines 5-6),
and the fixing layer includes a first fixing layer having ends of the first group of hollow fiber membranes potted therein (conflicting claim 15, lines 7-9);
a second fixing layer having ends of the second group of hollow fiber membranes
potted therein (conflicting claim 15, lines 10-11);
and a third fixing layer surrounding the first and second fixing layers and being in
contact with the bracket (conflicting claim 15, lines 12-13).
Conflicting claim 4 in view of Eping, as set forth above, recites all the limitations as recited in Claims 2 & 15 and further recites wherein each of the bracket and the packing member has a single closed curve shape corresponding to a cross-sectional form of the mid-case.
Conflicting claim 1 in view of Eping, as set forth above, recites all the limitations as recited in Claim 3 and further recites wherein the bracket has a higher hardness than the packing member (see line 20).
Conflicting claim 6 in view of Eping, as set forth above, recites all the limitations as recited in Claims 4 & 16 and further recites wherein the bracket has a hardness of 60 to 100 Shore A, and the packing member has a hardness of 40 to 50 Shore A.
Conflicting claim 7 in view of Eping, as set forth above, recites all the limitations as recited in Claim 5 & 17 and further recites wherein the packing member includes soft rubber, and the bracket includes metal, hard plastic, or hard rubber.
Conflicting claim 8 in view of Eping, as set forth above, recites all the limitations as recited in Claims 6 & 18 and further recites wherein the packing member includes silicone rubber or urethane rubber, and the bracket includes polypropylene (PP), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polystyrene (PS), polycarbonate (PC), or acrylic resin.
Conflicting claim 9 in view of Eping, as set forth above, recites all the limitations as recited in Claim 7 and further recites wherein the packing member is also in contact with the fixing layer (see page 7).
Conflicting claim 10 in view of Eping, as set forth above, recites all the limitations as recited in Claim 8 and further recites wherein the fixing layer includes a first fixing layer having the ends of the hollow fiber membranes potted therein; and a second fixing layer surrounding the first fixing layer and being in contact with the bracket.
Conflicting claim 11 in view of Eping, as set forth above, recites all the limitations as recited in Claims 9 & 19 and further recites wherein the first fixing layer and the second fixing layer are formed of the same material.
Conflicting claim 12 in view of Eping, as set forth above, recites all the limitations as recited in Claims 10 & 20 and further recites wherein both the first fixing layer and the second fixing layer include a polyurethane (PU) resin.
Conflicting claim 1 in view of Eping, as set forth above, recites all the limitations as recited in Claim 11 and further recites wherein the humidification module further includes an inner case having both open ends in the mid-case (line 21-22), and the hollow fiber membranes are disposed in the inner case (lines 23-24).
Conflicting claim 14 in view of Eping, as set forth above, recites all the limitations as recited in Claim 12 and further recites wherein an end of the inner case is potted in the first fixing layer.
Conflicting claim 15 in view of Eping, as set forth above, recites all the limitations as recited in Claim 14 and further recites wherein an end of the first inner case is potted in the first fixing layer, and an end of the second inner case is potted in the second fixing layer (see lines 21-22).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FIKI V OWHOSO whose telephone number is (571)272-3418. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 5712725453. 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.
/F.V.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725