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 .
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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uehara et al. (JP 2006/120340, see Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Uehara et al. discloses in Figs 1-9, a fuel cell system ([0019]) capable of adjusting a bypass flow rate ([0019], [0034], Fig 7) comprising: a blower (ref 3b, [0021]) configured to supply a dry gas ([0021]) through a supply flow path (ref 4b, [0021], Fig 1); a dry gas inlet (Fig 7, arrow into ref 7) configured to supply at least a part of the dry gas ([0021]) supplied from the blower (ref 3b, [0021]) to a membrane humidifier (ref 7); a bypass flow path (ref 8b, Fig 7) configured to supply at least a part of ([0034]) the dry gas ({0021]) supplied from the blower (ref 3b, [0021]) to a fuel cell stack (ref 1) by bypassing (Fig 7) the membrane humidifier (ref 7); and a bypass flow rate adjustment portion (ref 9b, [0035]) formed in the bypass flow path (ref 8b, Fig 7) and configured to adjust a degree of opening of the bypass flow path (ref 8b, Fig 7, [0034]) depending on a temperature ([0034]) of the dry gas ([0021]) flowing into the inside ([0021]) from the blower (ref 3b, [0021]).
Regarding claim 5, Uehara et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the supply flow path (Fig 7, arrow into ref 7) and the bypass flow path (ref 8b, Fig 7) are formed in the same direction (Fig 7, [0034]).
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 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uehara et al. (JP 2006/120340, see Machine Translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ahn et al. (KR 2020/0122260, citations from US 2022/0181655).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Uehara et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the membrane humidifier includes a mid-case, caps fastened to the mid-case, and a humidification module disposed inside the mid-case to accommodate a plurality of hollow fiber membranes, wherein the humidification module includes at least one cartridge including an inner case configured to accommodate the plurality of hollow fiber membranes and potting portions formed at ends of the inner case.
Ahn et al. discloses in Figs 1-12, a fuel cell system ([0001], [0073]) including a humidifier (ref 200) comprising a mid-case (ref 210) comprising hollow membrane fibers ([0079]-[0080], refs 212a), end caps (refs 212b) including potting portions ([0080]) connected to the mid-case (ref 210), and a cartridge (ref 212) connecting the structure together (Fig 2). This configuration enhances the structural integrity and reduces overall costs of construction ([0001], [0020]-[0022]).
Uehara et al. and Ahn et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, fuel cell systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the entire humidifier structure disclosed by Ahn et al. into the humidifier of Uehara et al. to enhance the structural integrity of the humidifier and reduce overall costs of construction, thereby enhancing overall fuel cell system performance.
Regarding claim 8, modified Uehara et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the dry gas inlet (Fig 7, arrow into ref 7) is formed to be connected to (Fig 7 depicts the connection) the supply flow path (ref 4b, [0021], Fig 1) connecting the blower (ref 3b, [0021]) to the membrane humidifier (ref 7) and the bypass flow path (ref 8b, Fig 7, [0034]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Uehara et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the dry gas inlet is perpendicular to the supply flow path. While reference does not disclose said dry gas inlet is perpendicular to the supply flow path it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the supply flow path to being perpendicular to the dry gas inlet, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art while the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uehara et al. (JP 2006/120340, see Machine Translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Higashi (US 2006/0246332).
Regarding claim 2, Uehara et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the bypass flow rate adjustment portion includes a thermal expansion material contracting in a first temperature range and expanding in a second temperature range greater than the first temperature range.
Higashi discloses in Figs 1-24, a fuel cell system (Title) including a bypass passage (ref 15) that has a valve (ref 16) therein to control flow rate through the bypass passage (ref 15, [0201]). The valve (ref 16) is comprises of material having a thermal expansion coefficient that changes at different temperatures, allowing the bypass passage to be controlled dependent on temperature ([0201]).
Higashi and Uehara et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, fuel cell systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the structure having different thermal expansion coefficients disclosed by Higashi into the structure of Uehara et al. to allow control of the bypass passage dependent on temperature, enhancing overall system performance.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uehara et al. (JP 2006/120340, see Machine Translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hirata et al. (US 5,532,073).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Uehara et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the bypass flow rate adjustment portion is formed in a ring shape on an inner wall of the bypass flowpath, nor the bypass flow rate adjustment portion is inserted in a ring shape into an annular fixing groove formed on an inner wall of the bypass flow path.
Hirata et al. discloses in Figs 1-17, a fuel cell system (Abstract) including having a reactant fluid path therein, including a manifold ring (ref 6) and plate rings (refs 12, 12’) set within the fluid path (i.e. a groove) which control / seal the fluid path based on the rings having different thermal expansion coefficients (C7/L44-54). This configuration enhances fluid control therein that is temperature dependent, enhancing overall performance of the fuel cell system (C7/L44-54).
Hirata et al. and Uehara et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, fuel cell systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the rings of different materials having different thermal expansion coefficients disclosed by Hirata et al. into the bypass structure of Uehara et al. to enhance fluid / reactant control based on temperature, thereby enhancing overall fuel cell system performance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8A - 4P EST.
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 571-272-1453. 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.
/KENNETH J DOUYETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725