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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
In this case, claim 2 recites the limitation “a fastening means” in lines 4 and 6, respectively, and is supported in the specification at page 8 in lines 15-19. Additionally, this application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but nonetheless are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation is: the limitation “a transportation means” in claim 10.
Because the claim limitation is not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, limitation is not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have the limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation does not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-10 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 phrase "a position-variable mount formed to be position-variable on the humidification module" in line 7. The functional claim language “formed to be position-variable on the humidification module” and the limitation “a position-variable mount” are self-referential, repetitious, and fail to provide an independent, objective standard for determining the scope of the limitation. Consequently, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and therefore indefinite.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "a fastening means" in lines 4 and 6. Claim 3 recites the limitation "the fastening means" in line 1. It is unclear if the limitations are the same or distinct. In claim 2, if the limitations are distinct, then amend the limitation to distinguish between the two limitations—i.e., “a first fastening means” and a second fastening means and then also amend claim 3 to have the appropriate antecedent basis.
Claims 3-10 are rejected for depending from 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horiuchi (US 20200036016 A1) in view of Sirosh (US 20150096977 A1).
For claim 1, Horiuchi discloses a fuel cell membrane humidifier comprising (Figs. 1, 3-4): a humidification module (humidifying module 12) configured to perform moisture exchange between a first fluid and a second fluid (pars [0015]-[0018], [0030]-[0031]; Figs. 1, 3-4), and comprising a mid-case (Figs. 1, 3-4), a second fluid inlet through which the second fluid is introduced into the mid-case (pars [0015]-[0018], [0030]-[0031]; Figs. 1, 3-4), a second fluid outlet through which the second fluid is discharged to outside (pars [0015]-[0018], [0030]-[0031]; Figs. 1, 3-4), and at least one cartridge located in the mid-case (par [0020]; Fig. 3); caps formed on both ends of the humidification module (pars [0016], [0021], [0026]-[0028], [0036]; Figs. 1, 3-4); and a mount (fixing member 50) on the humidification module and configured to mount the humidification module on a mount target structure (par [0019]; Figs. 1, 3-4). Horiuchi does not specifically state said mount is a position-variable mount formed to be position-variable on the humidification module and configured to mount the humidification module on a mount target structure. Sirosh is analogous art and does disclose a position-variable mount (strap 120/alternate securing mechanism 270, bracket 130) configured to mount on a mount target structure (frame 180). Also see pars [0033]-[0039], [0042], [0046], [0047], [0051]; Figs. 1-5, 9-12; claim 2. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to substitute the strap 120/alternate securing mechanism 270 and bracket 130 for preventing longitudinal sliding and rotation of cylindrical fuel cells while secured to a vehicular frame as disclosed in Sirosh (pars [0010]-[0011], [0038]; abstract) in place of the fixing member 50 of Horiuchi, as equivalents for use in the fastening art and the selection of any of these known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art . See MPEP § 2144.06.
For claim 2, the teaching of the prior art is set forth above. Sirosh further discloses wherein the position-variable mount comprises a body portion comprising a first fastener formed on a surface of the mid-case and at least one second fastener fastened to the first fastener by a fastening means (Figs. 2-5, 9; strap 120/alternate securing mechanism 270, bracket 130, interfaces 140a, 140b), a head portion connected to the body portion and comprising a third fastener for mounting on the mount target structure by using a fastening means, (Figs. 1, 4-5; pars [0031]-[0033]) and a sliding portion formed on a bottom surface of the body portion and slidably inserted into a rib formed on the surface of the mid-case (pars. [0042]-[0043], [0051]-[0052]; Figs. 8A-B, 9, 10A-C, 12).
For claim 3, the teaching of the prior art is set forth above. Sirosh further discloses wherein the fastening means is a bolt on which a thread is formed, and a thread corresponding to the thread of the bolt is formed on the first fastener, the second fastener, and the third fastener (Figs. 4-5, 9, 12; bolt 135; pars [0040], [0051]),
For claim 4, the teaching of the prior art is set forth above. Sirosh further discloses wherein the sliding portion comprises a guide groove formed at a position corresponding to the rib (pars. [0042]-[0043], [0051]-[0052]; Figs. 8A-B, 9, 10A-C, 12).
For claim 5, the teaching of the prior art is set forth above. Horiuchi further discloses wherein the mid-case comprises a partition wall dividing an inner space of the mid-case into a first space and a second space (first space and second space above and below pipe 38 in Fig. 3; par [0021]), and a constant bypass hole passing through the partition wall to connect the first space to the second space (par [0021]; openings 38a in Fig. 3).
For claim 10, the teaching of the prior art is set forth above. Horiuchi (par [0019] “fixed to a member such as a vehicle body frame”) and Sirosh (Abstract; pars [0013], [0034]) further disclose wherein the mount target structure is a structure of a transportation means or is a generator system of a building.
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horiuchi (US 20200036016 A1) and Sirosh (US 20150096977 A1) in further view of Kim (US 20210151780 A1).
For claim 6, the teaching of the prior art is set forth above. The prior art does not appear to teach explicitly wherein each of the at least one cartridge comprises an inner case comprising a first mesh hole unit into which the second fluid is introduced and a second mesh hole unit through which the second fluid introduced through the first mesh hole unit is subjected to moisture exposure and then discharged to outside, wherein the first mesh hole unit and the second mesh hole unit are asymmetrical to each other. However, Kim does disclose the comprising components of the inner case of said at least one cartridge—a first mesh hole unit into which the second fluid is introduced and a second mesh hole unit through which the second fluid introduced through the first mesh hole unit is subjected to moisture exposure and then discharged to outside, wherein the first mesh hole unit and the second mesh hole unit are asymmetrical to each other that balance the pressure of the fluid flowing therethrough (pars [0042], [0049]; Figs. 1, 10). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to include a first mesh hole unit into which the second fluid is introduced and a second mesh hole unit through which the second fluid introduced through the first mesh hole unit is subjected to moisture exposure and then discharged to outside, wherein the first mesh hole unit and the second mesh hole unit are asymmetrical to each other as taught in Kim in the combined teaching of the prior art to maintain a balance fluid flow in said at least one cartridge since Kim discloses such teaching.
Regarding claims 7, 8, and 9, the teaching of the prior art is set forth above. Kim teaches mesh hole windows and mesh holes as illustrated in Figs. 1 and 9. The phrases (a) wherein a total area of mesh hole windows of the first mesh hole unit is greater than a total area of mesh hole windows of the second mesh hole unit recited in claim 7; (b) wherein, when sizes of the mesh hole windows of the first mesh hole unit and the second mesh hole unit are same, a number of mesh holes constituting the first mesh hole unit is greater than a number of mesh holes constituting the second mesh hole unit recited in claim 8; and (c) wherein, when numbers of the mesh hole windows of the first mesh hole unit and the second mesh hole unit are same, an area of each of mesh holes constituting the first mesh hole unit is greater than an area of each of mesh holes constituting the second mesh hole unit recited in claim 9 recite result effective variables—the area and size of the mesh hole windows and the number of mesh holes in the humidification module—that contribute to the distribution and the flow rate of the first fluid and the second fluid for the moisture exchange (par [0042]). Kim teaches an improved performance by maintaining moisture of the fluid content for power generation efficiency ([0006 ]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to optimize the area and size of the mesh hole windows and the number of mesh holes in the humidification module as claimed to control the distribution and flow rate of the first fluid and the second fluid for the improved performance by maintaining the moisture exchange since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable like the area and size of the mesh hole windows and the number of mesh holes in the humidification module involves only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith. Also, see the prior art examples provided below in response to this correspondence. Examples follow:
US 20070122669 A1: pars [0059]-[0064]; Figs. 3a-5.
US 20130137003 A1: par [0038].
US 20080226964 A1: pars [0044]-[0045]; Fig. 5.
US 20170263957 A1: pars [0009]-[0014], [0018], [0053]-[0062]; Figs. 3-8.
US 20070287036 A1: pars [0035]-[0039]; Figs. 1-4.
US 20070065696 A1: pars [0029], [0033]-[0034],[0067]-[0069]; Fig. 4, 6-8.
US 20240145740 A1: pars [0062]-[0075]; Figs. 6-7.
US 20090000837 A1: par [0034]; Figs. 1, 3-4.
US 20070065696 A1: pars [0029], [0033].
US 20240145740 A1: pars [0067]-[0075]; 5-7.
JP 7137988 B2: Figs. 1, 3-4; humidifier 10 is fixed to a mounting member such as a vehicle body frame at a fixing portion 50; humidifier module 12, inlet head 14 (first head); head 16 (second head); inlet joint 20 (second inlet joint); outlet joint 22 (first exhaust joint); outlet joint 48 (second exhaust joint); introduction port 18 (first inlet joint).
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 September 11, 2026
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights