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.
Claims 2-4, and 7-9 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.
In claim 2, “the impact absorbing portion” lacks antecedent basis. Also, in claim 2, line 3, apparently “a material” should be replaced by --the material--, since the element has been introduced in claim 1 previously.
In claim 3, “the impact absorbing portion” lacks antecedent basis. Also, in claim 3, line 4, apparently “a material” should be replaced by --the material--, since the element has been introduced in claim 1 previously.
In claim 4, “the impact absorbing portion” lacks antecedent basis. Also, in claim 4, on the last line of the claim, apparently “a material” should be replaced by --the material--, since the element has been introduced in claim 1 previously.
In claim 7, line 3, apparently “a material” should be replaced by --the material--, since the element has been introduced in claim 6 previously.
In claim 8, line 4, apparently “a material” should be replaced by --the material--, since the element has been introduced in claim 6 previously.
In claim 9, on the last line of the claim, apparently “a material” should be replaced by --the material--, since the element has been introduced in claim 6 previously.
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.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirakawa et al.
Shirakawa et al (Figs. 8-10; paragraphs [0025], [0066]-[0073]) disclose a membrane humidifier comprising a mid-case (201, 202) having a second fluid inlet (201a) for introducing a second fluid into the mid-case and a second fluid outlet (202a) for discharging the second fluid from the mid-case, a hollow fiber membrane cartridge disposed in the mid-case, the cartridge having a rigid inner case (10) having a first inherent hardness to protect the hollow fiber membranes therein, a potting portion (31,32) fixing the ends of the hollow fiber membranes, a first mesh hole (11) through which the second fluid is introduced, the first mesh hole having an elongate opening (see Fig. 9), a second mesh hole (12) through which the second fluid is discharged after exchanging moisture with a first fluid that passes through the interior of the hollow fiber membranes, the second mesh hole also having an elongate opening (see Fig. 9), and an impact absorbing portion (51, 52) associated with the first and second mesh holes, the impact absorbing material having a second hardness less than the first hardness of the inner case. The impact absorbing material is provided on the hollow fiber membrane side surface of the inner case in the area of the inner case that has been cut to form a “joint” (holes 11,12) during manufacturing to provide the mesh holes in the case, so as to protect the hollow fiber membranes from damage due to the pressurized gas pushing on the membranes as it passes through the mesh holes. The reference fails to specifically illustrate a plurality of windows in each of the mesh holes (11,12), as set forth by all of the claims, and the specific hardnesses as set forth by dependent claims 5 and 10 for the inner case and impact absorbing material. The reference does however, at paragraph [0025], suggest that it is preferable to form a plurality of holes through the inner case from the inside to outside at locations between the case exterior and hollow fiber membrane, with shock absorbing materials provided to buffer the impact of the flow through the plurality of holes. With regard to the plurality of windows, it would have been obvious for an artisan at the time of the filing of the application, to modify the elongate mesh holes, as illustrated by Shirakawa et al, to be in the form of a plurality of smaller windows within the same footprint as the elongate holes, such being an obvious design choice driven by the compromise of a larger pressure drop across the multiple smaller holes vs. housing rigidity that would be provided by the cross members dividing the elongate holes into smaller holes. Further, with regard to the specific material hardnesses of the inner case material and the impact absorbing material, the reference clearly teaches a greater relative hardness of the inner case (which must be formed from a rigid material to maintain it shape and the form of the cartridge containing the hollow fiber membranes) over the lesser hardness of the elastic shock absorbing material, and as such it would have been obvious for an artisan at the time of the filing of the application, to construct the apparatus of Shirakawa et al using materials of well known hardnesses, as set forth in the instant claims on the basis of their suitability for the intended purpose, which purposes are the same for the invention and the reference. It is noted that the ranges of hardness (Shore A of 5 to 80 and Shore D of 20 to 80) are very broad given the fact that the hardness ranges for all Shore A and Shore D measurements range between 0 and 100, and therefore, the claimed ranges are not considered to be of particular criticality to the functionality of the invention based upon their undue breadth.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES S BUSHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1153. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30-5:00.
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, 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.
/C.S.B/4-4-26
/CHARLES S BUSHEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights