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 § 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.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al(9209467) taken together with Kalthod et al(5779897).
Kim et al in figures 1 and 2 teaches a fuel cell membrane humidifier comprising a mid case(first cover 320 and second cover 330), a cap (350, 340) fastened to the mid case, a plurality of hollow fiber membranes(hollow fiber membranes 370) disposed inside the mid-case and perform moisture exchange between air supplied from the outside and an off gas(high humidity unreacted gas inlet 321) flowing into the inside from a fuel cell stack to humidify the air. Kim et al is silent as to a gas adjustment pipe disposed between the plurality of hollow fiber membranes and formed of a material having a different coefficient of thermal expansion from the plurality of hollow fiber membranes to adjust gaps between the plurality of hollow fiber membranes depending on a temperature of the off-gas. Kalthod et al teaches a casing(20), the casing enclosing a plurality of hollow fiber membranes(27), a cap(22) fastened to the case, and a gas adjustment pipe(filaments 28 in figure 3) disposed between the plurality of hollow fiber membranes and formed of a material having a different coefficient of thermal expansion from the plurality of hollow fiber membranes(noting column 8 line 56 stating materials for the filaments include graphite and glass, wherein graphite and glass have a different coefficient of thermal expansion from the plurality of hollow fiber membranes). Examiner notes the limitations “to adjust gaps between the plurality of hollow fiber membranes depending on a temperature of the off-gas” are not given patentable weight for prior art analysis, wherein adjustment of gaps between the hollow fiber membranes during off gas flow is a process limitation, wherein patentability of the claimed fuel cell membrane humidifier is based on a difference in structure from the claimed limitations, wherein patentable weight is determined also when the humidifier is not in use.
With regards to claim 2, Kim et al taken together with Kalthod et al further teaches wherein the gas adjustment pipe includes a negative thermal expansion material(noting graphite is a negative thermal expansion material) expanding in a first temperature range and contracting in a second temperature range greater than the first temperature range.
With regards to claim 3, Kim et al taken together with Kalthod et al is silent as to wherein the gap adjustment pipe includes bismuth. Examiner respectfully submits that bismuth represents a negative thermal expansion material equivalent to graphite, therefore someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, understanding that graphite is a negative thermal expansion material, would have been motivated to substitute bismuth in order to provide an equivalent negative thermal expansion material to provide a gap adjustment pipe between the hollow fiber membranes of Kim et al having equivalent thermal expansion properties.
With regards to claim 4, Kim et al taken together with Kalthod et al is silent as to wherein the gap adjustment pipe includes oxides of bismuth, lanthanum, and nickel. Examiner respectfully submits that oxides of bismuth, lanthanum, and nickel represents a negative thermal expansion material equivalent to graphite, therefore someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, understanding that graphite is a negative thermal expansion material, would have been motivated to substitute bismuth lanthanum, and nickel in order to provide an equivalent negative thermal expansion material to provide a gap adjustment pipe between the hollow fiber membranes of Kim et al having equivalent thermal expansion properties.
With regards to claim 5, Kim et al taken together with Kalthod et al is silent as to wherein the gap adjustment pipe includes oxides of bismuth, iron, and nickel. Examiner respectfully submits that oxides of bismuth, iron, and nickel represents a negative thermal expansion material equivalent to graphite, therefore someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, understanding that graphite is a negative thermal expansion material, would have been motivated to substitute bismuth lanthanum, and nickel in order to provide an equivalent negative thermal expansion material to provide a gap adjustment pipe between the hollow fiber membranes of Kim et al having equivalent thermal expansion properties.
With regards to claim 6, Kim et al taken together with Kalthod et al further teaches a humidification module including an inner case(membrane housing 310) configured to accommodate the plurality of hollow fiber membranes, and at least one cartridge including potting portions formed at ends of the inner case.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 7 recites “a gasket assembly, wherein the gasket assembly includes a packing portion including a body member having a hole into which an end of the cartridge is inserted, and a protrusion member formed at one end of the body member and coming into contact with the end of the cartridge inserted into the hole to prevent a fluid in the mid case from flowing toward the cap; an edge portion formed at the other end of the body member and formed in a space formed by a groove formed at an end of the mid-case and an end of the cap; and a sealing portion formed to come into contact with the cartridge and the packing portion to prevent the fluid in the mid case from flowing toward the cap”. Kim et al taken together with Kalthod et al teaches a potting portion, however Kim et al taken together with Kalthod et al does not teach or suggest a gasket assembly, wherein the gasket assembly includes a packing portion including a body member having a hole into which an end of the cartridge is inserted, and a protrusion member formed at one end of the body member and coming into contact with the end of the cartridge inserted into the hole to prevent a fluid in the mid case from flowing toward the cap; an edge portion formed at the other end of the body member and formed in a space formed by a groove formed at an end of the mid-case and an end of the cap; and a sealing portion formed to come into contact with the cartridge and the packing portion to prevent the fluid in the mid case from flowing toward the cap.
Claims 8-11 depend on claim 7 and hence would also be allowable upon incorporation of claims 6 and 7 into claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT A HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-1159. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-4pm.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 5712707872. 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.
/ROBERT A HOPKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
February 2, 2026