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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: [0056] states “first and second openings 460a, 470b” for the first endcap 420a. It is assumed that this is a typo of “460a, 470a” as indicated in figure 4.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katagiri (US20010015501A1) in view of Sebring (US4351092).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katagiri in view of Sebring in view of CN624 (CN211265624U, attached translation will be referenced.).
Rejection in view of Katagiri and Sebring
Claim 12: Katagiri teaches a fuel cell humidifier ([0002] teaches a fuel cell system with a humidifier), comprising: a housing (System 2) comprising: a first end and a second end opposite the first end (First and second ends 22 and 23.); a body positioned between the first end and the second end and defined by one or more cavities, each of the one or more cavities including a hollow fiber membrane bundle (Body is the area between 22 and 23 as seen in figure 4a. The cavity can be seen in figures 4-5, wherein the hollow fiber membrane bundles occupy the space.); a first portion connected to the first end of the housing; a second portion connected to the second end of the housing (22 and 23); wherein the first portion forms a first seal at the first end of the housing; and wherein the second portion forms a second seal at the second end of the housing (Figure 5a shows the flow of the gas and 22 and 23 seal off the ends so the gas passes through them.).
Katagiri does not explicitly teach that each of the one or more cavities including a hollow fiber membrane bundle without a core. Katagiri teaches the use of hollow fiber membranes 21.
Sebring teaches a method of making helical coreless hollow fibers for use in a separation module (abstract). Column 2 lines 1-5 teaches that the presence of a core element filling the region of the annular bundle tends to reduce the effective total membrane surface area attainable. Column 3 lines 10-15 that a helix angle is beneficial for making sure that all the filaments in the bundle be of approximately the same length as between the ends.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to use helically wound hollow fiber membranes without a core in the device of Katagiri as Sebring teaches that having a core can reduce the effective total membrane surface area attainable and that helically wounding the membrane allows for all the filaments in the bundle to be about the same length for separation.
Claim 13: Katagiri teaches the first portion comprises a first inlet configured to permit a first fluid to enter the humidifier and flow through each the hollow fiber membrane bundle positioned in the one or more cavities; and the second portion comprises a first outlet configured to permit the first fluid to exit the humidifier (Figure 5a shows each portion of 22 and 23 has an inlet and outlet.).
Claim 14: Katagiri teaches the body of the housing comprises a center opening positioned between the one or more cavities (Figures 5a-5c shows the interior open center between the bundles 21. Figure 4 shows that both sides have a section of the center being open.).
Claim 15: Katagiri teaches prior to the first fluid flowing through each hollow fiber membrane bundle positioned in the one or more cavities, the first fluid flows through the center opening; and wherein the center opening is configured to distribute a flow path of the first fluid to each hollow fiber membrane bundle positioned in the one or more cavities (Figure 5c shows this as the fluid goes through the center area before entering the bundles. Figure 4 also shows that both sides have a center portion the gas goes through before entering the bundles.).
Claim 16: Katagiri teaches the first fluid is an exhaust stream of a fuel cell (Figures 4-5 teach an air stream and exhaust gas). This is also considered to be intended usage. Limitations drawn to the contents of an apparatus do not impart patentability to the claim (see MPEP 2115). Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining the patentability of the apparatus claim (Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667).
Claim 17: Katagiri does not explicitly teach the first portion comprises a second inlet configured to permit a second fluid to enter the humidifier and flow through each hollow fiber membrane bundle positioned in the one or more cavities; and the second portion comprises a second outlet configured to permit the second fluid to exit the humidifier. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the invention to have multiple inlets and outlets since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim 18: Katagiri teaches the second fluid is a fuel cell intake air stream (Figures 4-5 teach an air stream and exhaust gas). This is also considered to be intended usage. Limitations drawn to the contents of an apparatus do not impart patentability to the claim (see MPEP 2115). Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining the patentability of the apparatus claim (Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667).
Rejection in view of Katagiri, Sebring, and CN624
Claim 19: Katagiri and Sebring do not explicitly teach the housing comprises a fin positioned between the first end and the second end on an external portion of the housing. CN624 teaches a fuel gas dehumidifier that has a set of reinforcing ribs on the outside of the humidifier body to improve the strength and gas pressure it can withstand (page 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have the ribs/fin of CN624 in the device of Katagiri and Sebring as CN624 teaches the benefit of improving the mechanical strength of the gas humidifier and increasing the gas pressure it can withstand.
Claim 20: CN624 teaches the first portion surrounds at least a first section of the body of the housing and is connected to the fin; and wherein the second portion surrounds at least a second section of the body of the housing and is connected to the fin (Figure 1 shows first and second end gapes 41 and 51 that are connected to the ribs 6). If they are not connected it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to connect the pieces since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/14/2026 have been fully considered.
Examiner has withdrawn the 112b rejection of claim 17. Examiner notes that the specification has what appears to be a typo regarding the openings on the first end cap 420a. It appears to have labeled them as 460a and 470b instead of 460a and 470a.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILLIP Y SHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8171. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9-5:30.
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.
/P.Y.S/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 09/22/2026
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights