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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “2133”. 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. 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.
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Regarding the limitation "additive" and phrase "manufactured by adding an additive for laser fusion" in line 2 recited in claim 3, the specification merely repeats the language without defining nor providing an example, see pars [26] and [61] in the originally filed specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
par [55], "the inner case [[2133]] 2123".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 3, "moisture [in]] from an off-gas discharged from a fuel cell stack".
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 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 "from the outside" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Consider amending as "from [[the]] outside of the humidification module".
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a humidification module configured to humidify air supplied from the outside with moisture in an off-gas discharged from a fuel cell stack” in lines 2-3. However, the claim fails to recite structural elements that would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to interpret that said humidification module were configured to humidify air supplied from the outside as recited in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite.
Claims 1-4 recite the limitation "the potting portion" in lines 9, 2, 1, and 3, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation "a potting portion" was not previously recited. Note: claim 1 recites the limitation "potting portions" in line 7.
Claim 3 recites the phrase "manufactured by adding an additive for laser fusion" in line 2 associated with the limitations "the potting portion" and "the inner case". The metes and bounds of the phrase are unclear. The claim language does not define the additive by—a property, name, or class—any structural elements.
Claim 4 recites the limitations "a transparent color" in line 2 and "a translucent or opaque color" in lines 2-3 and 3-4. These limitations are relative terms that are not defined by the language recited in the claim. The limitations are ambiguous without relative references to the transparency and translucence for color and opaqueness of color. Therefore, the distinction for the alternative phrases "the inner case is ... a transparent color ... the potting portion … translucent or opaque color" and "the inner case ... the potting portion ... translucent or opaque color" is indefinite. For examination on the merits, prior art that reads on the limitations the inner case and the potting portion[s] will be interpreted to also read on these limitations of claim 4.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the end of the mid-case" in line 8; wherein, the limitation "an end of the mid-case" was not previously recited. Instead, a recitation is "a mid-case having both open ends" in line 3. Consider amending as "[[the]] an end of the mid-case."
Claims 2-7 are rejected due to dependency to claim 1.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagumo (US 20080237902 A1) in view of Koenig (US 20070210463 A1).
For claim 1, Nagumo discloses a fuel cell membrane humidifier (humidifiers 1, 2, 3; Figs. 3, 5, 7) comprising:
a humidification module (Figs. 3, 5, 7; hollow fiber membrane bundle 31) configured to humidify air supplied from the outside with moisture in an off-gas discharged from a fuel cell stack (Fig. 1; par [0036]); and
caps coupled to both ends of the humidification module (front cap 12, rear cap 14; Figs. 2, 3, 5, 7), respectively,
wherein the humidification module includes at least one cartridge including an inner case (Figs. 3, 5, 7; whereas, “at least one cartridge” is delimited in Figs. by interior of outer case 11),
a plurality of hollow fiber membranes disposed inside the inner case (Figs. 3, 5, 7; hollow tube membranes make-up hollow fiber membrane bundle 31), and
potting portions configured to fix ends of the plurality of hollow fiber membranes (Figs. 3, 5, 7; potting parts 33, 34).
Nagumo does not explicitly disclose a laser fusion surface created by laser fusion between the inner case and the potting portion but does disclose the potting parts 33, 34 formed of a thermosetting resin. Koenig does disclose a laser fusion surface (see surface of sealing material 78 in Fig. 3) created by laser fusion between the inner case and the potting portion (Fig. 3; pars [0036], [0040]-[0043]) made of material that fills any spaces or voids. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to include the potting portion of Koenig at the inner case of Nagumo that would form a laser fusion surface in order to fill any voids since Koenig teaches laser fusion. Additionally, the instant claim is an apparatus claim. The limitation “a laser fusion surface” is a product, and the phrase “created by laser fusion between the inner case and the potting portion” is a method of production. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP § 2113 (I).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagumo (US 20080237902 A1) in view of Beck (US 20200047128 A1).
For claim 1, Nagumo discloses a fuel cell membrane humidifier (humidifiers 1, 2, 3; Figs. 3, 5, 7) comprising:
a humidification module (Figs. 3, 5, 7; hollow fiber membrane bundle 31) configured to humidify air supplied from the outside with moisture in an off-gas discharged from a fuel cell stack (Fig. 1; par [0036]); and
caps coupled to both ends of the humidification module (front cap 12, rear cap 14; Figs. 2, 3, 5, 7), respectively,
wherein the humidification module includes at least one cartridge including an inner case (Figs. 3, 5, 7; whereas, “at least one cartridge” is delimited in Figs. by interior of outer case 11),
a plurality of hollow fiber membranes disposed inside the inner case (Figs. 3, 5, 7; hollow tube membranes make-up hollow fiber membrane bundle 31), and
potting portions configured to fix ends of the plurality of hollow fiber membranes (Figs. 3, 5, 7; potting parts 33, 34).
Nagumo does not explicitly disclose a laser fusion surface created by laser fusion between the inner case and the potting portion but does disclose the potting parts 33, 34 formed of a thermosetting resin. Beck does disclose a laser fusion surface (Fig. 7; par [0069]) created by laser fusion (“laser welding”) between the inner case and the potting portion (Figs. 6-7; par [0069]); whereas, the potting portion comprised of IR-adsorbing material and the inner case are joint to ridge 26 by laser welding. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to include the potting portion of Beck at the inner case of Nagumo, i.e., forming a laser fusion surface, to join the inner case since Beck teaches laser welding. Additionally, the instant claim is an apparatus claim. The limitation “a laser fusion surface” is a product, and the phrase “created by laser fusion between the inner case and the potting portion” is a method of production. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP § 2113 (I).
For claim 2, the prior art is relied upon as set forth above. Beck further discloses wherein a step (ledge 21 in Fig. 7) formed at an end of the inner case, and both ends of the potting portion are seated on the step (Fig. 7).
For claim 3, the prior art is relied upon as set forth above. Beck further discloses wherein the potting portion and the inner case are manufactured by adding an additive for laser fusion (pars [0056]).
For claim 4, the prior art is relied upon as set forth above. The phrase “wherein the inner case is manufactured in a transparent color and the potting portion is manufactured in a translucent or opaque color, or the inner case and the potting portion are manufactured in the translucent or opaque color” is an intended result. The instant invention is an apparatus. Apparatus claims are distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than intended use or function. See MPEP § 2114 & Section 112 above.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagumo (US 20080237902 A1) and Beck (US 20200047128 A1) taken with Kim (KR 20210000680 A).
For claim 5, the teaching of the prior art is relied upon as indicated above and discloses the humidification module. However, the humidification module does not appear to include a mid-case having both open ends and a step formed on an inner circumferential surface; a fixing layer formed between the mid-case and the [at least one] cartridge; a bracket supported by the step of the mid-case and coming into contact with the fixing layer; and a packing member having a groove into which the end of the mid-case is fitted, the packing member coming into contact with the bracket.
Nonetheless, Kim is analogous art and also discloses humidification module (2100). Said humidification module includes a mid-case (2110) having both open ends and a step (2112) formed on an inner circumferential surface (Figs. 2, 5, 6, 7e-f); a fixing layer (2122) formed between the mid-case and the [at least one] cartridge; a bracket (2130) supported by the step of the mid-case and coming into contact with the fixing layer; and a packing member (2140) having a groove (G) into which the end of the mid-case is fitted, the packing member coming into contact with the bracket that are utilized together in order to prevent gas leakage due to the occurrence of a gap between the fixing layer (2122) and the mid-case (2110). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to utilize the structural elements of Kim with the humidification module of the combined teaching of Nagumo and Beck in order to prevent gas leakage as disclosed in Kim.
Claim(s) 6, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagumo (US 20080237902 A1) and Beck (US 20200047128 A1) taken with Kim (KR 20210000680 A) in further view of Eping (US 8104747 B2).
For claim 6, the teaching of the prior art is relied upon as indicated above and but does not appear to teach wherein a protrusion member fitted into the fixing layer to suppress vibration generated in the cartridge due to air flowing inside the humidification module is formed on an inner wall of the packing member. Eping is analogous art and discloses a humidifier including a housing that is used to receive a humidification module comprising an elastomer body 32, or O-ring, between protrusion 20 and shoulder 24. The protrusion 20 presses against shoulder 24 and compresses sealing element 26 in conjunction with the O-ring, or elastomer body 24, and suppresses vibration. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to include the sealing and compression elements disclosed in Eping with the fuel cell humidifier disclosed from the combined teaching of the prior art to suppress vibrations. The phrase “to suppress vibration generated in the cartridge due to air flowing inside the humidification module is formed on an inner wall of the packing member” is interpreted as an intended use/result. The instant invention is an apparatus. Apparatus claims are distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than intended use or function. See MPEP § 2114.
For claim 7, the teaching of the prior art is relied upon as indicated above and but does not appear to teach wherein a damping protrusion fitted into the fixing layer to suppress vibration generated in the cartridge due to air flowing inside the humidification module is formed on an inner wall of the mid-case. Eping is analogous art and discloses a fuel cell humidifier including a housing that receives a humidification module comprising an elastomer body 32, or O-ring, between protrusion 20 and shoulder 24. The protrusion 20 presses against shoulder 24 and compresses sealing element 26 in the conjunction the O-ring, or elastomer body, damping vibration. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to include the sealing and compression elements disclosed in Eping with the fuel cell humidifier disclosed from the combined teaching of the prior art to suppress vibrations. The phrase “to suppress vibration generated in the cartridge due to air flowing inside the humidification module is formed on an inner wall of the mid-case” is interpreted as an intended use/result. The instant invention is an apparatus. Apparatus claims are distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than intended use or function. See MPEP § 2114.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant should consider prior art examples provided below in response to this correspondence.
US 20170077531 A1: a fuel cell humidifier includes a humidifier housing, and a bundle of hollow fiber membranes which has both ends potted by potting members and accommodated in the humidifier housing.
US 20220093946 A1: e humidification module 200 is provided at opposite ends thereof with potting units.
KR 101697998 B1: a sealing groove 212 is formed at an edge of the potting part 210. The sealing member 200 is interposed between the outer wall 112 and the potting portion 210 to seal the housing portion 110. The sealing member 200 is located in the sealing groove 212 formed in the potting part 210.
EP 2883597 A1: a process for laser-welded joints that employs laser welding. A ring 2 of a thermoplastic polymer comprising an IR-absorptive material is provided at the interface of the housing 3 and the end cap 1. The ring allows for laser-welding the end cap 1 to the housing 3, forming a laser welded-joint in the process.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONJI TURNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1203. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 am - 2:00 pm (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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/SONJI TURNER/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 June 4, 2026
/Jennifer Dieterle/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights