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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 10-2021-0115978, filed on 08/31/2021.
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 1-8 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 “an inner cross-sectional area of the at least one cartridge” and where such area is measured. The claim does not specify the location within the cartridge at which the cross-sectional area is determined. The cartridge may have different cross-sectional areas at different locations along its length, and the claim does not indicate whether the measurement is taken at an inlet, an outlet portion, or midpoint within the cartridge.
Furthermore, claim 1 recites excluding “a cross-sectional area occupied by the plurality of hollow fiber membranes,” but does not specify how the occupied area is determined. It is unclear whether the occupied area refers to the aggregate projected cross-sectional area of the hollow fiber membranes at a particular plane, the total cross-sectional area of all hollow fiber membranes within the cartridge, or another measurement. As a result, the metes and bounds of the claimed relationship between the cross-sectional area of the second fluid inlet and the cartridge area cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Claim 2 recites “when a cross- sectional area of the second fluid inlet is CS1, a cross-sectional area of the at least one cartridge is CS2, and a total cross-sectional area of the plurality of hollow fiber membranes accommodated in the at least one cartridge is CS3, an inner diameter of the second fluid inlet is such that CS1≥ CS2 - CS3.”
The claim is unclear because the recited limitation states that an “inner diameter” of the second fluid inlet is defined by the relationship “CS1≥CS2 – CS3,” where CS1, CS2, and CS3 are expressly defined as cross-sectional areas. The mathematical relationship recited in the claim pertains solely to areas and does not recite a diameter term. Accordingly, it is unclear how the recited inner diameter is limited by, or satisfies, the claimed relationship between the area variables.
Claims 3-8 are rejected because they are dependent on rejected claim 1 above.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al U.S. Pub. No. 20130065140 A1, March 14, 2013 (hereinafter “Kim140”) in view of Kalthod et al. EP 0841086 A1, May 13, 1998 (hereinafter “Kalthod”).
Regarding claim 1, Kim140 discloses a membrane humidifier for a fuel cell in which dry air is humidified through moisture exchange with wet exhaust air through hollow fiber membranes. Kim140 discloses a housing (101) corresponding to the claimed mid-case, a second inlet (104) configured to introduce wet air into the housing, a second outlet (105) configured to discharge the wet air, and a hollow fiber membrane bundle (107) comprising a plurality of hollow fiber membranes (106) (fig. 6, paragraphs 0008-0010). Kim140 further discloses that the hollow fiber membrane bundle is disposed within the housing and receives the wet air introduced through the second inlet, and the membrane humidifier may include multiple membrane modules arranged within the housing (figs. 1-4; paragraphs 0021-0024). However, Kim140 fails to disclose that a cross-sectional area of the second fluid inlet is formed to be greater than or equal to an inner cross-sectional area of the at least one cartridge excluding a cross-sectional area occupied by the plurality of hollow fiber membranes.
Kalthod discloses that flow distribution through a hollow fiber membrane bundle is affected by the open are available for flow and that non-uniform flow distribution and pressure losses occur when fluid cannot distribute uniformly across the membrane bundle cross-section (paragraphs 0025-0026, 0032). Kalthod further discloses that the hydraulic diameter (D_H) is determined as: D_H = 4 x (open area for flow) / (wetted perimeter), thereby, expressly related flow performance to the open area available for flow within the hollow fiber bundle. (paragraph 0033). Additionally, Kalthod discloses that packing density is the fraction of the module cross-sectional area occupied by the hollow fibers and that the remaining area constitutes the open area available for flow (paragraph 0037).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the membrane humidifier of Kim140 such that the second-fluid inlet is dimensioned to provide a cross-sectional flow area at least as large as the effective open flow area of the membrane cartridge. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because Kalthod discloses that flow distribution, hydraulic resistance, hydraulic diameter, and pressure drop are functions of the available open flow area within a hollow fiber membrane bundle, and that improved flow distribution is achieved by providing adequate flow area and reducing flow restrictions. Modifying Kim140’s inlet dimensions in accordance with the open-flow area principle taught by Kalthod would have improved wet-air distribution throughout the hollow fiber membrane bundle and improved humidification efficiency, which are recognized objectives in Kim140 (paragraphs 0011-0015).
Regarding claim 2, Kim140 fails to disclose a cross- sectional area of the second fluid inlet is CS1, a cross-sectional area of the at least one cartridge is CS2, and a total cross-sectional area of the plurality of hollow fiber membranes accommodated in the at least one cartridge is CS3, an inner diameter of the second fluid inlet is such that CS1 ≥ CS2 - CS3. However, Kalthod discloses that the open area available for fluid flow within a hollow fiber membrane bundle is determined by the module cross-sectional area and the area occupied by the hollow fibers (paragraph 0021). Kalthod further defines hydraulic diameter as a function of the “open area of flow” and teaches that flow distribution and pressure drop are directly related to the available open flow area through the membrane bundle (paragraphs 0032-0033).
The claimed relationship CS1 ≥ CS2 - CS3 defines the inlet flow area as being at least as large as the available open flow area within the cartridge after accounting for the area occupied by the hollow fiber membranes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to dimension the second-fluid inlet of Kim140 such that the inlet flow area is no smaller than the available open flow area of the membrane cartridge, as taught by Kalthod, in order to reduce inlet restrictions, improve fluid distribution throughout the hollow fiber bundle, and minimize pressure losses.
Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al U.S. Pub. No. 20130065140 A1, March 14, 2013 (hereinafter “Kim140”) and Kalthod, in view of claim 1, in further view of Kim et al. KR 20210011204 A, February 02, 2021 (hereinafter “Kim204”).
Regarding claim 3, Kim140 fails to disclose a partition wall partitioning an inner space of the mid-case into a first space and a second space; and an active bypass portion configured to adjust a flow rate of the second fluid flowing in the first space and the second space according to a flow rate of the second fluid introduced through the second fluid inlet. However, Kim204 discloses a fuel cell humidifier including a housing (110), a partition wall (120), and a bypass unit (140). The partition wall (120) partitions the internal space of the housing into a first space (110a) communicating with a humid air supply port (112) and a second space (110b) communicating with a humid air discharge port (114) (figs. 1-3; paragraphs 0045, 0064-0065). Kim204 further discloses a bypass unit (140) configured to selectively bypass humid air supplied to the first space (110a) into the second space (110b) (paragraphs 0086-0089).
Kim204 discloses that when the pressure in the first space exceeds a predetermined pressure range, humid air supplied to the first space is bypassed to the second space (paragraph 0088). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the humidifier of Kim140 with the partition wall and pressure-responsive bypass arrangement taught by Kim204 in order to regulate the distribution of the second fluid between separate flow regions of the humidifier, reduce excessive humidification during high-flow operations, and improve overall humidifier efficiency.
Regarding claim 4, Kim204 discloses that the bypass unit (140) includes a first check valve (142) and a second check valve (144) disposed through the partition wall (120), wherein the inlet of each check valve is positioned in the first space (110a) and the outlet is positioned in the second space(110b) (figs. 1-3; paragraphs 0089-0090). The openings extending through partition wall (120) occupied by first check valve (142) and second check valve (144) constitute bypass passages or bypass holes penetrating the partition wall. The first check valve (142) and second check valve (144) further function as bypass-hole opening/closing devices because they selectively open and close the bypass flow path between the first space and the second space (paragraphs 0091-0094). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the check-valve-controlled bypass openings taught by Kim204 in the humidifier of Kim140 to regulate fluid distribution and humidification performance under varying operating conditions, yielding predictable result of controlled bypass flow and improved humidifier operation.
Regarding claim 5, Kim140 fails to disclose that the bypass hole opening/closing device comprises a single valve member formed on the partition wall to cover the bypass hole. However, Kim204 discloses that the bypass unit may include only a first check valve (142) disposed through the partition wall, or alternatively only a second check valve (144) disposed through the partition wall (paragraph 0030, figs. 6-7). Kim204 further discloses that the single check valve functions as a valve member positioned on and extending through the partition wall to selectively cover and uncover the bypass opening, thereby opening and closing the bypass flow path between the first space and the second space (paragraphs 0096-0098). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to employ the single-valve embodiment taught by Kim204 in the humidifier of Kim 140 as Kim204 discloses that a single check valve provides a simpler bypass structure while still allowing selective bypass of humid air according to operating conditions.
Regarding claim 6, Kim140 fails to disclose that the bypass hole opening/closing device comprises a dual valve member formed on the partition wall to cover the bypass hole from both sides. However, Kim204 discloses a bypass unit including a first check valve (142) and a second check valve (144), both disposed through the partition wall (120) (figs 1-3,5; paragraph 0089-0093). The first check valve and the second check valve collectively constitute dual valve members associated with the partition wall and configured to selectively open and close bypass flow paths extending through the partition wall. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to employ the dual-valve bypass arrangement taught by Kim204 in the humidifier of Kim140 in order to provide increased bypass flow capacity and permit control of humidification performance under varying operating conditions.
Regarding claim 7, Kim140 fails to disclose that the bypass hole opening/closing device comprises a double valve member formed on the partition wall to cover the bypass hole from both sides while at least a portion of the members overlap each other. However, Kim204 discloses that the first check valve (142) and second check valve (144) may be configured to open sequentially in response to changing pressure conditions within the first space (paragraphs 0100-0101). Kim204 further discloses that the pressure in the first space varies according to operating conditions and the amount of humid air supplied into the humidifier through the humid air supply port (112), such that sequential opening of the first and second check valves adjusts bypass flow in response to changing inlet flow conditions (paragraphs 0088, 0103-0104).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al U.S. Pub. No. 20130065140 A1, March 14, 2013 (hereinafter “Kim140”), Kalthod, Kim204, in view of claim 4, in further view of Yashiro JP 2009163935 A, July 23, 2009 (hereinafter “Yashiro”).
Regarding claim 8, Kim140 fails to disclose that the bypass hole opening/closing device comprises a flexible material having a shape that deforms when a pressure applied thereto increases and returns to an original shape when the pressure decreases. However, Yashiro discloses a fuel system including check valves (24, 27, and 29), which is formed from a “flexible and elastic material” and is configured as a duckbill valve (fig. 2; paragraph 0010). Yashiro further discloses that the duckbill valve opens when pressure is applied and automatically closes due to its elastic characteristics when the pressure is reduced (paragraph 0012). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the check valve (142, 144) of Kim204 with the flexible elastomeric duckbill valves taught by Yashiro because both references relate to fluid control components used in fuel-cell systems and also flexible elastomeric valves are known to provide automatic pressure responsive opening and closing, reliable sealing, and improved durability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRIAM N EZELUOMBA whose telephone number is (571)272-0110. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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.
/M.N.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights