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 § 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.
Claim 10 is 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 10 recites “wherein, on the assumption that a width of the hollow fiber membrane bundle is 1 a thickness of the hollow fiber membrane bundle is 0.1 to 0.8” it is unclear what is means to base a measurement on an assumption of another measurement. It is unclear the metes and bounds of the claim. In addition, it is unclear how a width and thickness can be unitless. Is the above limitation supposed to define a ratio of thickness-to-width or another relative measurement? Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 6-9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn (WO 2018182178 A1) with machine translation and mapping provided by Ahn (US 20210111420 A1) in view of Matoba (JP 2007216176 A, Machine Translation).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Ahn discloses a cartridge (see Figs. 1-2 of a humidifier for fuel cells configured to humidify dry gas supplied from outside using wet gas discharged from a fuel cell stack ([0015], 100 [0039]-[0065]), the cartridge comprising:
an inner case (See Figs. 1-2, 111, [0042]) open at opposite ends thereof (IP1 and OP1 [0040]) ;
a hollow fiber membrane bundle (112 [0042]) received in the inner case (111 [0042]);
an inner inlet (IP2 [0042]) and an inner outlet (OP2 [0042]) formed at the inner case so as to be spaced apart from each other in a first axis direction;
a first potting layer (113 on right or left most side [0044]) configured to fix one end of the hollow fiber membrane bundle (112) at one end of the inner case (111); and
a second potting layer (113 on left or right most side ([0044])) configured to fix the other end of the hollow fiber membrane bundle (112) at the other end of the inner case (111).
However, Ahn does not disclose that the packing density based on a potting sectional area and a membrane sectional area is 0.405 to 0.625, the potting sectional area is a sectional area of an interior of the one end of the inner case in which the first potting layer is potted in a second axis direction perpendicular to the first axis direction, the membrane sectional area is a sectional area of the hollow fiber membrane bundle in the second axis direction and furthermore does not disclose the membrane sectional area is a sum of sectional areas of hollow fiber membranes constituting the hollow fiber membrane bundle based on external diameter, the potting sectional area is a sum of a sectional area of the first potting layer in the second axis direction and the membrane sectional area, and the packing density is a value obtained by dividing the membrane sectional area by the potting sectional area.
Matoba discloses a hollow fiber membrane which is used for humidification of gas for a fuel cell and further discloses that the packing density effects the flow resistance of gas within the humidifier ([0033]-[0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the packing density of Ahn based on a potting sectional area and a membrane sectional area as defined in the claim to be within the claimed range because Matoba discloses that packing density effects flow resistance and gases within the humidifier and one would want to optimize the flow resistance in order to achieve efficient humidification for maximal fuel cell power output.
Regarding claims 8, 9, and 12, modified Ahn discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, Ahn does not explicitly disclose wherein the packing density is in the range of 0.51-0.53.
Matoba discloses a hollow fiber membrane which is used for humidification of gas for a fuel cell and further discloses that the packing density effects the flow resistance of gas within the humidifier ([0033]-[0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the packing density of Ahn based on a potting sectional area and a membrane sectional area as defined in the claim to be within the claimed range because Matoba discloses that packing density effects flow resistance and gases within the humidifier and one would want to optimize the flow resistance in order to achieve efficient humidification for maximal fuel cell power output.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn (WO 2018182178 A1) with machine translation and mapping provided by Ahn (US 20210111420 A1) in view of Matoba (JP 2007216176 A, Machine Translation) as applied to claims 6-9 and 12 above and in further view of Kim (US 20120270120 A1).
Regarding claim 10, modified Ahn discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Kim discloses that hollow fiber bundles inside of the humidifier can be placed in an inner case which has different shapes including elliptical (see 310, [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the shape of the inner casing which defines the cross-section of the hollow fiber bundle of modified Ahn so that the shape is an elliptical shape as disclosed by Kim because Kim discloses it is a known effective shape for an inner casing of a cartridge for a humidifier for a fuel cell.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues with respect to claim 10, that a thickness is a normalized thickness which is a thickness- to-width ratio. The rejection could be overcome by replacing the word “thickness” with “a thickness-to-width ratio” with an appropriate showing of support in the specification. The word thickness defines a dimension taken along a single direction and does not automatically include a normalized thickness. Also normalized thickness does not mean “a thickness-to-width ratio”, since the thickness could be normalized to any other reference measurement.
Applicant argues that the membrane sectional area of Matoba varies along the longitudinal length, and the membrane cross sectional area of the instant invention is uniform along the longitudinal length and that this defines the packing density as claimed which is also uniform, therefore there is no reasoning to modify the packing density of Ahn.
Ahn discloses a uniform packing density along the entirety of the length of the casing (see Fig. 1). In addition, Matoba provides motivation for modifying a packing density, namely, that the packing density effects the flow resistance of gas within the humidifier ([0033]-[0034]). The humidification efficiency is affected by the flow rate of fluid.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DEVINA PILLAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30-6:00.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 517-272-1307. 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.
DEVINA PILLAY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/DEVINA PILLAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
