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 1-6 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 1, the phrase “the space allows the inflow port to communicate with a gap between the humidifying unit and the case, the gap being opposite to the inflow port” is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how an inflow port “communicates” with a gap. Also, it is unclear what “the gap being opposite to the inflow port” entails.
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.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (“Kim”, US 2021/0050607 A1).
Regarding claims 1-4, Kim discloses a humidifier for fuel cell (title), which includes a housing having, at a first side, a moist air supply port through which moist air is supplied from a fuel cell stack and having, at a second side a moist air discharge port (abstract). A humidifying membrane is disposed in the housing and allows dry air to flow along the inside of the humidifying membrane. A bypass flow path is formed in the housing to allow a part of the moist air supplied to the moist air supply port to continuously flow to the moist air discharge port without passing through the humidifying membrane, thereby adjusting the amount of humidification (abstract).
In Fig. 1, the housing 110 reads on the case. Humidifier 100 reads on a humidifying unit. The housing cap 130 reads on the lid body. Bypass flow path 111 reads on the claimed space and/or gap.
A 112 rejection is applied above for indefiniteness. As best understood, Kim appears to read on all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2, or at least render the claims obvious.
As to claims 3 and 4, Kim does not teach a separator of the humidifying unit has a cutout forming the space communicating with the inflow port.
However, Kim teaches the cross-sectional area of the bypass flow path may be changed in various ways in accordance with required conditions and design specification. Changing the shape of components to allow a different flow path is thus suggested by Kim and would be a matter of design choice.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied above, and further in view of Pohlmann et al. (“Pohlmann”, WO 2022/052577 A1).
Regarding claims 5-6, Kim is silent as to a vibration-proof member.
However, Pohlmann teaches stiffening ribs designed to absorb shocks and vibrations (p.21, line 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to add stiffening ribs or any sort of shock/vibration absorber to protect the fuel cell modules from mechanical shocks (p.21, lines 14-15), as taught by Pohlmann.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL H. LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2548. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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.
DANIEL H. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/DANIEL H LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights