DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because low resolution and blurriness. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0029] “opening v formed” appears to be a typographical error.
[0058] “hollow fiber membrane cartridge 100 The” needs a period after 100.
[0057], [0060], [0061] inconsistently identify the y- and z-axes as the width and longitudinal directions.
[0103] changes from “longitudinal direction” to “length direction” without explaining whether they’re the same or different.
Appropriate correction is 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 1-19 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
Regarding claim 1, the phrases “first portion” and “second portion” are arbitrary and relative areas without defined reference numericals, boundaries, or fixed locations described in the specification. It is unclear what part may be considered a first or second portion. Thus, it is unclear if the window openings are merely a different size, irregular shapes compared to a circle or rectangle, or another window configuration. For the purposes of this Office Action, the Examiner will consider different window shapes on the cartridge for allowing exhaust air to flow to the hollow fiber membranes, based on Figures 3-10 of the specification.
Further regarding claim 1, the phrases “introduced or discharged” conflicts with the subsequent requirement for inflow rate. It is unclear how the portions are defined when the opening is a discharge opening.
Further regarding claim 1, the second flow rate is stated per unit area while the first portion’s inflow flow rate is not. Thus, the comparison of parameters is unclear.
Further regarding claim 1, there lacks an operating measurement for determining the flow rate per unit area (e.g. pressure, total flow, or direction) thus is unclear.
Further regarding claim 1, the term ‘width’ for each portion does not identify the measurement direction or location, particularly where the opening width varies. Thus, the width is unclear.
Claim 2
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “gradually changes” is unclear because it provides no objective boundary to distinguish between a gradual or abrupt change.
The directions for ‘width’ and ‘length’ are not identified, thus it is unclear where the measurement for each should be taken.
Claim 3
Regarding claim 3, “a longitudinal direction” does not specify whether it is the longitudinal direction of the opening or the cartridge. The specification inconsistently identifies the y- and z-axes as longitudinal directions.
Claim 4
Regarding claim 4, “a center” does not specify a longitudinal center or geometric center. “To outside thereof” is further unclear whether it should be outside the center, outside the opening, or toward one or both ends.
Further regarding claim 4, “a longitudinal direction” does not specify whether it is the longitudinal direction of the opening or the cartridge.
Further regarding claim 4, “a longitudinal direction” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 5
Regarding claim 5, it is unclear if the newly cited portions in this claim are the same or different than the first and second portions cited in claim 1 or additional portions. As with claim 1, the term ‘portion’ is subjective and lacks a clear boundary or area.
Further regarding claim 5, the boundary or transition between the uniform width portions is not identified.
Further regarding claim 5, the phrase “gradually changes” is unclear because it provides no objective boundary to distinguish between a gradual or abrupt change.
Claim 6
Regarding claim 6, the structural relationship between the “opening” and the “windows” is unclear. It is uncertain whether windows are subdivisions of the opening, mesh apertures, or separate holes. The term “window” is not objectively distinguished from “opening.”
Claim 8
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “plurality of openings” conflicts with claim 1’s “an opening.” Thus, a lack of antecedent basis exists.
Further regarding claim 8, “a width direction” is not objectively identified, since the cartridge may be cylindrical, oval or polygonal.
Claim 9
Regarding claim 9, it is unclear whether the constant and variable width portions correspond to the first and second portions of claim 1. A lack of antecedent basis exists.
The measurement direction for width and longitudinal direction remains unclear. “Gradually decreasing” lacks an objective boundary. “From the constant width portion” does not identify the boundary from which the decrease begins.
Claim 10
Claim 10 is indefinite because of the term “atypical.” There is no reference or standard given for “typical” thus rendering “atypical” indefinite.
Claim 11
Regarding claim 11, the phrases “first portion” and “second portion” are arbitrary and relative areas without defined reference numericals, boundaries, or fixed locations described in the specification. It is unclear what part may be considered a first or second portion. Thus, it is unclear if the window openings are merely a different size, irregular shapes compared to a circle or rectangle, or another window configuration. For the purposes of this Office Action, the Examiner will consider different window shapes on the cartridge for allowing exhaust air to flow to the hollow fiber membranes, based on Figures 3-10 of the specification.
Further regarding claim 11, the phrases “introduced or discharged” conflicts with the subsequent requirement for inflow rate. It is unclear how the portions are defined when the opening is a discharge opening.
Further regarding claim 11, the second flow rate is stated per unit area while the first portion’s inflow flow rate is not. Thus, the comparison of parameters is unclear.
Further regarding claim 11, there lacks an operating measurement for determining the flow rate per unit area (e.g. pressure, total flow, or direction) thus is unclear.
Further regarding claim 11, the term ‘width’ for each portion does not identify the measurement direction or location, particularly where the opening width varies. Thus, the width is unclear.
Claim 12
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “gradually changes” is unclear because it provides no objective boundary to distinguish between a gradual or abrupt change.
The directions for ‘width’ and ‘length’ are not identified, thus it is unclear where the measurement for each should be taken.
Claim 13
Regarding claim 13, “a longitudinal direction” does not specify whether it is the longitudinal direction of the opening or the cartridge. The specification inconsistently identifies the y- and z-axes as longitudinal directions.
Claim 14
Regarding claim 14, “a center” does not specify a longitudinal center or geometric center. “To outside thereof” is further unclear whether it should be outside the center, outside the opening, or toward one or both ends.
Further regarding claim 14, “a longitudinal direction” does not specify whether it is the longitudinal direction of the opening or the cartridge.
Further regarding claim 14, “a longitudinal direction” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 15
Regarding claim 15, it is unclear if the newly cited portions in this claim are the same or different than the first and second portions cited in claim 11 or additional portions. As with claim 1, the term ‘portion’ is subjective and lacks a clear boundary or area.
Further regarding claim 15, the boundary or transition between the uniform width portions is not identified.
Further regarding claim 15, the phrase “gradually changes” is unclear because it provides no objective boundary to distinguish between a gradual or abrupt change.
Claim 16
Further regarding claim 16, the phrase “gradually changes” is unclear because it provides no objective boundary to distinguish between a gradual or abrupt change.
Claim 17
Regarding claim 17, the phrase “plurality of openings” conflicts with claim 11’s “an opening.” Thus, a lack of antecedent basis exists.
Further regarding claim 17, “a width direction” is not objectively identified, since the cartridge may be cylindrical, oval or polygonal.
Claim 18
Regarding claim 18, it is unclear whether the constant and variable width portions correspond to the first and second portions of claim 11. A lack of antecedent basis exists.
The measurement direction for width and longitudinal direction remains unclear. “Gradually decreasing” lacks an objective boundary. “From the constant width portion” does not identify the boundary from which the decrease begins.
Claim 19
Claim 19 is indefinite because of the term “atypical.” There is no reference or standard given for “typical” thus rendering “atypical” indefinite.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh e et al. US Patent 10,862,145 in view of Katagiri JP Patent 2002066265 (translation provided).
Regarding claim 1, Oh teaches a hollow fiber membrane cartridge comprising 100:
a) A first fluid comprising dry air flowing through input 13 and further into the hollow fiber membrane cartridge 31 comprising hollow fiber membranes 33;
b) A second fluid comprising humid exhaust flowing through input 75 carries the humid exhaust through opening windows on the case 31, thereby allowing the dry air inside the hollow fiber membrane to humidify (column 7 lines 10-20, lines 36-50, and column 11 lines 48-51);
c) The second fluid comprising the humid exhaust is introduced into the fiber membrane cartridge 31 through window openings 35 formed on the cartridge 31 (column 7 lines 34-45, Figure 5A).
Oh teaches that in Figures 3 and 5A, the windows 35 on the cartridge of allowing the second (exhaust air) to flow into the cartridge may be rectangular shaped where a width of a second portion is less than the width of the first portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
504
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
44
74
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 of Oh. The windows 35 on the cartridge 31 are rectangular shaped
Oh does not explicitly teach a first portion into which the second fluid is introduced and a second portion having a greater inflow flow rate of the second fluid per unit area than an inflow flow rate of the first portion are formed in the opening.
However, Katagiri teaches a humidifier comprising a hollow fiber membrane module accommodated in a pipe with including a plurality of inlet holes formed along the pipe. In Figure 9, the holes have a different size and width. The larger inlet holes naturally allow greater flow through than the smaller inlet holes which allows a uniform distribution across more hollow fibers and increases humidification efficiency ([0009]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the cartridge window holes in Oh with the varying sizes and shapes in Katagiri (where ‘a first portion into which the second fluid is introduced and a second portion having a greater inflow flow rate of the second fluid per unit area than an inflow flow rate of the first portion are formed in the opening’) because Katagiri teaches that different window shapes improve humidification efficiency. One having ordinary skill in the art would understand from Katagiri that different window shapes and sizes allow more flow through larger areas and less flow through the smaller areas thereby allowing more control over fluid flow and provide a uniform distribution across the hollow fiber membranes thereby improving humidification.
Regarding claims 2, 3, and 4, Katagiri teaches the openings comprise circular holes that gradually change in width, decreasing from one end to the other, and from the center to the outside edge in the longitudinal direction (Figure 9).
PNG
media_image3.png
240
257
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Katagiri Figure 9
Regarding claim 5, Katagiri teaches that the vertical width (with respect to the tubes longitudinal length) of the holes are about the same and the horizontal width gradually changes (Figure 9).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Oh teaches mesh net 37 is provided in the cartridge 31, thus installed in the opening (column 7 line 41). With regards to claim 6, the presence of the mesh would provide a plurality of smaller holes (windows) within the opening). Katagiri further teaches mesh defined apertures (Figures 8 and 9).
Regarding claim 8, Oh and Katagiri teach a plurality of windows spaced apart on the cartridge (Oh has windows 35 and Katagiri’s are D & H in Figures 8 and 9). Katagiri teaches these holes may be circular or oval.
Regarding claim 9, Katagiri teaches that the vertical width (with respect to the tube’s longitudinal length) of the holes are about constant and the horizontal width gradually decreases from the constant width portion to an end of the tube (Figure 9).
Regarding claim 10, Oh teaches windows 35 are rectangular. Katagiri teaches the holes are different sized circles and can have various shapes ([0009]).
Regarding claim 11, Oh teaches a hollow fiber membrane module 30 comprising (Figure 3, 4A, 5A):
a) A housing unit (includes main body 10 and midbody 15) comprising a first fluid inlet 13, a first fluid outlet 14, a second fluid inlet 75, and a second fluid outlet 79;
b) A plurality of hollow fiber membrane cartridges 31 are disposed inside the housing unit (includes main body 10 and midbody 15) which contain hollow fiber membranes 33 within,
c) The cartridges 31 each comprise window openings 35 that allow the second fluid (exhaust air) to enter and exit the cartridge therethrough (column 7 lines 37-53) where a width of the second portion is less than a width of the first portion of the openings, by virtue of its rectangular shape (Figure 5A).
Oh does not explicitly teach a first portion and a second portion having a greater inflow flow rate of the second fluid per unit area than an inflow flow rate of the first portion are formed in the opening, and a width of the second portion is less than a width of the first portion.
However, Katagiri teaches a humidifier comprising a hollow fiber membrane module accommodated in a pipe with including a plurality of inlet holes formed along the pipe. In Figure 9, the holes have a different size and width. The larger inlet holes naturally allow greater flow through than the smaller inlet holes which allows a uniform distribution across more hollow fibers and increases humidification efficiency ([0009]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the cartridge window holes in Oh with the varying sizes and shapes in Katagiri (where ‘a first portion into which the second fluid is introduced and a second portion having a greater inflow flow rate of the second fluid per unit area than an inflow flow rate of the first portion are formed in the opening’) because Katagiri teaches that different window shapes improve humidification efficiency. One having ordinary skill in the art would understand from Katagiri that different window shapes and sizes allow more flow through larger areas and less flow through the smaller areas thereby allowing more control over fluid flow and provide a uniform distribution across the hollow fiber membranes thereby improving humidification.
Regarding claims 12, 13, and 14, Katagiri teaches the openings comprise circular holes having a width (along the longitudinal direction of the tube) and a length where the width gradually changes, gradually decreases from one end to the other, and from the center to the outside edge in the longitudinal direction (Figure 9).
Regarding claim 15, Katagiri teaches that the vertical width (with respect to the tubes longitudinal length) of the holes are about the same and the horizontal width gradually changes (Figure 9).
Regarding claim 16, Katagiri teaches that the vertical width (with respect to the tube’s longitudinal length) of the holes gradually decreases toward the second fluid’s inlet or outlet (Figure 9).
Regarding claim 17, Oh and Katagiri teach a plurality of windows spaced apart on the cartridge (Oh has windows 35 and Katagiri’s are D & H in Figures 8 and 9). Katagiri teaches these holes may be circular or oval.
Regarding claim 18, Katagiri teaches that the vertical width (with respect to the tube’s longitudinal length) of the holes are about constant and the horizontal width gradually decreases from the constant width portion to an end of the tube (Figure 9).
Regarding claim 19, Oh teaches windows 35 are rectangular. Katagiri teaches the holes are different sized circles and can have various shapes ([0009]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON PREGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571) 272-5954. 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.
/SHARON PREGLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights