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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/09/2024 were filed before first Office action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 12 includes solid black shading areas. The use of shading in views is encouraged if it aids in understanding the invention and if it does not reduce legibility. Spaced lines for shading are preferred. These lines must be thin, as few in number as practicable, and they must contrast with the rest of the drawings. As a substitute for shading, heavy lines on the shade side of objects can be used except where they superimpose on each other or obscure reference characters. Solid black shading areas are not permitted, except when used to represent bar graphs or color. 37 CFR 1.84(m).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “installation guide” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the first line of the abstract “The present disclosure relates to a dehumidifier” is a phrase which can be implied. Further, the use of “may” in “may include a main body including a suction part and a fan…” lacks clear and concise language because it introduces ambiguity to the features of the invention. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a dehumidification member in at least claim 1; and
Sealing member in at least claim 8;
Valve device in at least claim 10;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
dehumidification member, 320, which may include a membrane, p.33 of Applicant Specification and Figure 8.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) 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(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Regarding Claim 8 and Claim 20, the claims recite the limitation “a sealing member configured to seal a space…”. The term “member” invokes a claim interpretation governed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph), which requires a review of the specification to determine the appropriate structure, material or act to carry out the claimed limitation. However, the specification as originally filed, fails to describe a corresponding structure or technique by which a space is sealed between the protrusion and the connection port. A mere restatement of the function does not suffice as a statement of structure. Thus, it does not appear that applicant had possession of the claimed invention because the specification does not disclose a structure which is capable of providing a seal. When a description of the structure, material or act is not provided or is not sufficient to perform the entire claimed function, or no association between the structure and the claimed function can be found in the specification, the written description fails to clearly define the boundaries of the claim
Regarding Claim 10, the claims recite the limitation “ a valve device configured to supply at least some of the air discharged from the fan to the dehumidification module…”. The term “device” invokes a claim interpretation governed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph), which requires a review of the specification to determine the appropriate structure, material or act to carry out the claimed limitation. However, the specification as originally filed, fails to describe a corresponding structure or technique by which air discharged from the fan is supplied to the dehumidification module. A mere restatement of the function does not suffice as a statement of structure. Thus, it does not appear that applicant had possession of the claimed invention because the specification does not disclose a structure which is capable of providing a seal. When a description of the structure, material or act is not provided or is not sufficient to perform the entire claimed function, or no association between the structure and the claimed function can be found in the specification, the written description fails to clearly define the boundaries of the claim
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected based on dependency from a rejected claim.
§ 112(b)
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 1-17 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the recitation of “the installation guide extending from the second partition wall…” is unclear.
In particular, the claims are unclear to the structure of the installation guide because the Applicant Specification discloses the mounting guide, 125, extending from the second partition wall, 123, toward the first suction part 110a, p. 19.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For examination purposes, the limitation “the installation guide” has been interpreted as - - a mounting guide - - for consistent terminology.
Further regarding Claim 2, the recitation of “both sides of the second partition wall…” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
In particular, “both sides” lacks antecedent basis to determine which sides of the partition wall is being referred to. Therefore, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation. In particular, the term sides can refer to front and back faces or any of the edge faces on a wall.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as - - opposing sides of the second partition wall - - for consistent terminology.
Claim limitation “sealing member” in claim 8 and claim 20 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim, sealing a space. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim limitation “valve device” in claim 10 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim, supply discharged air to the dehumidification module. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 3, 9 and 11 are rejected based on dependency from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao et al. (Zhao, B., et al., Hollow Fiber Membrane Dehumidification Device for Air Conditioning System, Membranes, 5(4), 16 Nov 2015, [retrieved on 28 Mar 2026] Retrieved from Internet <DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes5040722>).
Regarding Claim 18, Zhao, as modified, teaches a dehumidifier [membrane dehumidification system, Figure 5] comprising:
a main body [annotated Figure 5] including a suction part [where humid air from atmosphere enters through a filter, Figure 5] and a fan [blower, Figure 5];
a dehumidification module [membrane module, Figure 5] including a dehumidification member that separates moisture from the air suctioned from the suction part by driving the fan [where the membrane module is made of nine pieces of fiber bundles, where air moisture permeated through the fibers from the shell side to the lumen side; 3.4 Design of the Membrane Dehumidification System, p.729];
a vacuum pump [vacuum pump, Figure 5] configured to provide driving force to discharge moisture separated from the dehumidification module to an outside of the dehumidification module [where vacuum pump removes water moisture out of system; 3.4 Design of the Membrane Dehumidification System, p. 729]; and
a first partition wall [annotated Figure 5] configured to vertically divide a space where the dehumidification module is installed [where humid air is drawn across the membrane module, Figure 5] and a space where the vacuum pump is installed [vacuum purge chamber, Figure 5],
wherein a port communication hole configured to guide water vapor separated from the dehumidification module to flow to the vacuum pump is formed in the first partition wall [where each of the nine fiber bundles insert through the first partition, annotated Figure 5], and wherein a connection port extending downward and inserted into the port communication hole is formed at a lower portion of the dehumidification module [where the caseless hollow fiber modules of the membrane module are open and insert into each port communication hole, annotated Figure 5; 3.4 Design of the Membrane Dehumidification System, p. 729].
PNG
media_image1.png
487
896
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et. al. (KR102512160B1) in view of Katsumi et al. (CN102120124A) and Bonne et al. (US4900448A).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim teaches a dehumidifier [the membrane-based composite heat recovery ventilation, heating and cooling system 100, Figure 1; 0018] comprising:
a main body [system 100, Figure 1] including a suction part [inside air passage 102, Figure 1] and a fan [a blower fan; 0021];
a dehumidification module [dehumidification module 130, 0019, Figure 1] including a dehumidification member [membrane 131, Figure 1] that separates moisture from the air [where one or more membranes 131 performs dehumidification by collecting water vapor from the air in contact with the surface; 0024] suctioned from the suction part by driving the fan [where a blower fan may be provided in the supply passage 104 and exhaust passage 103 to circulate air; 0021];
a vacuum pump [vacuum pump 132, Figure 1] configured to provide driving force to discharge moisture separated from the dehumidification module [where the vacuum pump is equipped to control the flow rate and pressure of the fluid; 0024] to the outside of the dehumidification module [where vacuum pump 132 circuit passes through dehumidification module 130, Figure 1];
a first partition wall [annotated Figure 1] configured to divide a space where the dehumidification module is installed [at ventilation passage 102, Figure 1] and a space where the vacuum pump is installed [at ventilation passage 101, Figure 1] [where the outdoor air passage 101 and the ventilation passage 102, are not directly connected, Figure 1; 0019];
a second partition wall [annotated Figure 1] extending from the first partition wall and configured to divide the dehumidification module and the fan [where the exhaust passage 103 and the air supply passage 104 are not directly connected, Figure 1; 0019; where a blower fan may be provided in the supply passage 104 and exhaust passage 103; 0021]; and
Kim does not teach the first partition wall configured to divide the space where the dehumidification module is installed and the space where the vacuum pump is installed in a vertical direction and where the second partition wall extends upward from the partition wall.
However, Katsumi teaches a dehumidification device [0003] where the first partition wall [annotated Figure 1] is configured to divide the space where the dehumidification module is installed [where the dehumidifying rotor 2 is above the regenerated fan 7 driving the circulation path 8, annotated Figure 1] and the space where the vacuum pump is installed in a vertical direction [where the regeneration fan circulates path 8 below, Figure 1; refer to Kim for teaching of vacuum pump] in a vertical direction [annotated Figure 1] and where the second partition wall extends upward from the first partition wall [annotated Figure 1] where it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to arrange interior partitions according to the inlets and outlets of the dehumidifier since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art while the device having the claimed orientations would not perform differently than the prior art device, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the first partition wall is configured to divide the spaces in a vertical direction and where the second partition wall extends upward from the partition wall in view of the teachings of Katsumi where rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art and would have yielded predictable results i.e., aligning the space where the vacuum pump with the natural flow direction of gravity [Katsumi, Figure 1]
Kim further does not teach a mounting guide extending from the second partition wall toward the suction part and configured to guide mounting of the dehumidification module.
However, Bonne teaches the removal of water vapor from ambient atmosphere of a conditioned space [col. 1, lines 9-15] including an installation guide [annotated Figure 2] extending from the second partition wall [annotated Figure 2, where there is a lack of criticality for the numbering of the partitions and the numbering appears to be for identification purposes without limiting the scope of the invention] toward the suction part [where air flow passes through fibers 31 at a front, see AIR FLOW arrows, Figure 2] and configured to guide mounting of the dehumidification module [where hollow tubular membrane fibers 31 of membrane filter module 30 are mounted in parallel spaced relation in line with liquid flow from conduit 11 to conduit 17; col. 4, lines 19-23, Figure 2] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements, partition and installation guide, as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., orienting the dehumidification module properly in relation to liquid flow and air flow.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have an installation guide extending from the second partition wall toward the suction part and configured to guide mounting of the dehumidification module in view of the teachings of Bonne where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., orienting the dehumidification module properly in relation to liquid flow and air flow.
PNG
media_image2.png
771
1042
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
559
622
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
419
559
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Kim, as modified, and, in light of indefiniteness, further teaches wherein the mounting guide includes a pair of mounting guides extending from opposing sides of the second partition wall toward the suction part, respectively [installation guides are on opposite sides of hollow tubular membrane fibers 31 permitting airflow in between, annotated Figure 2 of Bonne, refer to the rejection of claim 1 in view of Bonne].
Regarding Claim 4, Kim, as modified, in light of indefiniteness, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach wherein the mounting guide has the same height as the dehumidification module.
However, Bonne teaches the removal of water vapor from ambient atmosphere of a conditioned space [col. 1, lines 9-15] including where the installation guide [annotated Figure 2] has the same height as the dehumidification module [where installation guides connect the top and bottom plates enclosing the hollow tubular membrane fibers 31, annotated Figure 2] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., orienting the dehumidification module properly in relation to liquid flow and air flow.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have wherein the installation guide has the same height as the dehumidification module in view of the teachings of Bonne where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., orienting the dehumidification module properly in relation to liquid flow and air flow.
Regarding Claim 5, Kim, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches a port communication hole [where the fluid circuit between vacuum pump 132 and membrane 131 passes through the first partition, annotated Figure 1; where the outdoor air passage 101 and the ventilation passage 102, are not directly connected, Figure 1; 0019] is formed in the first partition wall [annotated Figure 1] to guide water vapor separated from the dehumidification module to flow to the vacuum pump [where vacuum pump 132 adjusts the flow rate and pressure of the fluids;0024 ]
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et. al. (KR102512160B1) in view of Katsumi et al. (CN102120124A) and Bonne et al. (US4900448A) as applied above and in further view of Zhao et al. (Zhao, B., et al., Hollow Fiber Membrane Dehumidification Device for Air Conditioning System, Membranes, 5(4), 16 Nov 2015, [retrieved on 28 Mar 2026] Retrieved from Internet <DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes5040722>).
Regarding Claim 3, Kim, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 2 and further teaches where the dehumidification module [hollow tubular membrane fibers 31 as taught by Bonne in the rejection of claim 1 and 2 above] is inserted into a space between the pair of mounting guides [where mounting guides are on opposite sides of hollow tubular membrane fibers 31 permitting airflow in between, annotated Figure 2 of Bonne, refer to the rejection of claim 1 in view of Bonne above] but does not teach where the dehumidification module is seated on the first partition wall.
However, Zhao teaches a pilot scale air dehumidification system [Abstract] where the dehumidification module [membrane module, Figure 5] is seated on the first partition wall [where membrane module is seated on the top wall of the vacuum purge chamber, Figure 5] where it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to arrange interior partitions according to the inlets and outlets of the dehumidifier since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art while the device having the claimed orientations would not perform differently than the prior art device, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the dehumidification module is seated on the first partition wall in view of the teachings of Zhao where rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et. al. (KR102512160B1) in view of Katsumi et al. (CN102120124A) and Bonne et al. (US4900448A) as applied above and in further view of Kuramoto et al. (US20040109781A1)
Regarding Claim 6, Kim, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 5 and further does not teach where a protrusion extending along an edge of the port communication hole and into which a connection pipe connected to the vacuum pump is inserted is formed on the first partition wall.
However, Kuramoto teaches a fluid pump system [0001] where a protrusion [sub cover 23, Figure 3] extending downward [refer to the rejection in claim 1 in view of Katsumi above in regard to orientation] along an edge of the port communication hole [communication passage 42] and into which a connection pipe [pipe 13, Figure 3] connected to the vacuum pump [vacuum pump 11, Figure 1] is inserted is formed on the first partition wall [21a of main chamber 70, Figure 1] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, providing a cover over two conduits, to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., preventing leaks between the area of interest and the vacuum pump [Kuramoto; 0003]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where a protrusion extending along an edge of the port communication hole and into which a connection pipe connected to the vacuum pump is inserted is formed on the first partition wall in view of the teachings of Kuramoto where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., preventing leaks between the area of interest and the vacuum pump [Kuramoto; 0003]
Regarding Claim 7, Kim, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 6 and further teaches a connection port extending downward formed at a lower portion of the dehumidification module [where conduit 17 extends from dehumidification module 30 in Figure 2 of Bonne, refer to the rejection of claim 1 above] and does not teach the connection port is inserted into the protrusion
However, Kuramoto teaches a fluid pump system [0001] where a connection port [hose 15, Figure 3] is inserted into the protrusion [at hole 36 of sub cover 23, Figure 1] is formed at [sub cover 23, Figure 3] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, providing a cover over two conduits, to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., preventing leaks between the area of interest and the vacuum pump [Kuramoto; 0003]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the connection port is inserted into the protrusion in view of the teachings of Kuramoto where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., preventing leaks between the area of interest and the vacuum pump [Kuramoto; 0003]
Regarding Claim 8, Kim, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 7 and does not teach where a sealing member configured to seal a space between the protrusion and the connection port is provided on an outer peripheral surface of the connection port.
However, Kuramoto teaches a fluid pump system [0001] where a sealing member [annular sealing member 18, Figure 3] is configured to seal a space between the protrusion [inner space 27a, Figure 3] and the connection port [hose 15, Figure 3] is provided on an outer peripheral surface of the connection port [at flange 15a of hose 15, Figure 3] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, providing a sealing ring, to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., preventing leaks between the area of interest and the vacuum pump [Kuramoto; 0003]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have a sealing member configured to seal a space between the protrusion and the connection port is provided on an outer peripheral surface of the connection port in view of the teachings of Kuramoto where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., preventing leaks between the area of interest and the vacuum pump [Kuramoto; 0003]
Regarding Claim 9, Kim, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 8 and does not teach where a sealing groove is recessed toward an inner peripheral surface of the connection port and into which the sealing member is coupled is formed on the outer peripheral surface of the connection port.
However, Kuramoto teaches a fluid pump system [0001] where a sealing groove [formed by flange 15a and 15b in coupling 14 from hose 15 and pipe 13, Figure 3] is recessed toward an inner peripheral surface of the connection port [toward ring 17 on hose 15, Figure 3] and into which the sealing member [annular sealing member 18, Figure 3] is formed on the outer peripheral surface of the connection port [where annular sealing member sits on outer surface of ring member 17, Figure 3] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, providing a sealing ring in a sealing groove, to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., preventing leaks between the area of interest and the vacuum pump [Kuramoto; 0003].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where a sealing groove is recessed toward an inner peripheral surface of the connection port and into which the sealing member is coupled is formed on the outer peripheral surface of the connection port in view of the teachings of Kuramoto where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., preventing leaks between the area of interest and the vacuum pump [Kuramoto; 0003].
Claim 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et. al. (KR102512160B1) in view of Katsumi et al. (CN102120124A) and Bonne et al. (US4900448A) as applied above and in further in view of Scovazzo et al. (US20140157985A1)
Regarding Claim 10, Kim, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches a valve device [damper 123, Figure 3] configured to supply at least some of the air discharged from the fan [a blower fan in supply passage 104; 0021] to the dehumidification module [where air flow from supply passage 104 circulates through dehumidifying module with membrane 131, Figure 3]; but does not teach a supply pipe extending from the valve device and connected to an air port of the dehumidification module.
However, Scovazzo teaches a membrane dehumidification system [0002] including a supply pipe [sweep gas inlet 15, Figure 2] extending from the valve device [flow splitter 23, Figure 2] and connected to an air port of the dehumidification module [where sweep gas inlet 15 enters permeate side 13 of membrane housing, Figure 2] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., helping sweep the permeate, water, out of the membrane housing with dehumidified air [Scovazzo; 0077]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where a supply pipe extending from the valve device and connected to an air port of the dehumidification module in view of the teachings of Scovazzo where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., helping sweep the permeate, water, out of the membrane housing with dehumidified air [Scovazzo; 0077]
Regarding Claim 11, Kim, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 10 and further teaches where a guide hole [at damper 123 such that air circulates through, Figure 3] through which at least a portion of the air discharged from the fan passes [where air flow from supply passage 104 circulates through dehumidifying module with membrane 131, Figure 3] is formed in the second partition wall [see annotated Figure 1], and wherein the valve device is installed in the guide hole [damper 123, Figure 3].
Claim 12-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et. al. (KR102512160B1) in view of Katsumi et al. (CN102120124A) and Bonne et al. (US4900448A) as applied in claim 1 above and in further in view of Di et al. (CN209689104U)
Regarding Claim 12, Kim, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach a water supply tank configured to store water to be supplied to the dehumidification module; and a water supply connection pipe extending from the water supply tank and connected to a water supply port of the dehumidification module.
However, Di teaches direct evaporative cooling and dehumidification air conduiting unit based on hollow fiber membrane [0002] where a water supply tank [hollow fiber reverse osmosis membrane regenerator 11, Figure 1] is configured to store water to be supplied to the dehumidification module [where the inlet of the hollow fiber membrane dehumidifier 5 is connected to the outlet of the hollow fiber reverse osmosis membrane regenerator 11, Figure 1]; and a water supply connection pipe [through a solution pipe 18, Figure 1; 0034] extending from the water supply tank and connected to a water supply port of the dehumidification module [Figure 1;0034] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., providing a concentration difference between moisture in the air and the dehumidifier 5 [Di; 0041].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where a water supply tank configured to store water to be supplied to the dehumidification module; and a water supply connection pipe extending from the water supply tank and connected to a water supply port of the dehumidification module in view of the teachings of Di where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., providing a concentration difference between moisture in the air and the dehumidifier 5 [Yahu; 0041].
Regarding Claim 13, Kim, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 12 and does not teach wherein the water supply tank is disposed below the first partition.
However, Applicant has not disclosed that the water supply tank is disposed below the first partition wall does anything more than produce the predictable result of supply fluid to the dehumidification membrane module. Since it has been held that mere rearrangement of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04 IV. A, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to modify the combined teachings of Di and meet the claimed limitations in order to provide the predictable results of collecting separated moisture for improved efficiency.
Regarding Claim 14, Kim, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 12 and does not teach where a water supply through-hole through which the water supply connection pipe passes is formed in the first partition wall.
However, Di teaches direct evaporative cooling and dehumidification air conduiting unit based on hollow fiber membrane [0002] where a water supply through-hole through which the water supply connection pipe [pipe 18, Figure 1; 0034] passes is formed in the first partition wall [where solution pipe 18 passes from the upper to lower layer of housing 1; 0029] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, providing a hole to connect systems in separate layers of a housing, to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., connecting the dehumidifier module to components outside of the ventilation channel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where a water supply through-hole through which the water supply connection pipe passes is formed in the first partition wall in view of the teachings of Di where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., connecting the dehumidifier module to components outside of the ventilation channel.
Regarding Claim 16, Kim, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach a heat exchanger fluidly connected to the vacuum pump and configured to condense the separated moisture; and a drain tank configured to store water condensed in the heat exchanger, wherein the heat exchanger is disposed above the first partition wall, and wherein the drain tank is disposed below the first partition wall.
However, Di teaches direct evaporative cooling and dehumidification air conduiting unit based on hollow fiber membrane [0002] where a heat exchanger [Hollow fiber reverse osmosis membrane regenerator 11, Figure 1] fluidly connected to the vacuum pump [pressure pump 9, Figure 1] and configured to condense the separated moisture [where water forms and is collected in a water collection pan 10 below regenerator 11, Figure 1;0011]; and a drain tank [water storage tank 15, Figure 1] configured to store water condensed in the heat exchanger [where water collecting pan 10 connects to water storage tank 15 through pipe 14, Figure 1], where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, condensing and storing separated moisture from the dehumidifier, to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., collecting separated water vapor to be recycled for improved efficiency rather than waste [Di; 0029].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where a heat exchanger fluidly connected to the vacuum pump and configured to condense the separated moisture; and a drain tank configured to store water condensed in the heat exchanger in view of the teachings of Di where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., collecting separated water vapor to be recycled for improved efficiency rather than waste [Di; 0029].
The combined teachings does not teach the heat exchanger is disposed above the first partition wall, and wherein the drain tank is disposed below the first partition wall. However, Applicant has not disclosed that having the heat exchanger disposed above the first partition wall, and wherein the drain tank is disposed below the first partition wall does anything more than produce the predictable result of collecting separated moisture. Since it has been held that mere rearrangement of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04 IV. A, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to modify the combined teachings of Di and meet the claimed limitations in order to provide the predictable results of collecting separated moisture for improved efficiency.
Regarding Claim 17, Kim, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 16 and further teaches a discharge port through which a condensate pipe configured to guide water condensed in the heat exchanger to the drain tank [pipe 14, Figure 1 of Yahu, refer to the rejection of claim 16 above] but does not teach wherein a discharge port through which a condensate pipe configured to guide water condensed in the heat exchanger to the drain tank passes is formed in the first partition wall.
The combined teachings does not teach the heat exchanger is disposed above the first partition wall, and wherein the drain tank is disposed below the first partition wall such that a discharge port through which a condensate pipe configured to guide water condensed in the heat exchanger to the drain tank passes is formed in the first partition wall, however Applicant has not disclosed that having the heat exchanger disposed above the first partition wall, and wherein the drain tank is disposed below the first partition wall where a discharge port through which a condensate pipe configured to guide water condensed in the heat exchanger to the drain tank passes is formed in the first partition wall does anything more than produce the predictable result of collecting separated moisture. Since it has been held that mere rearrangement of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04 IV. A, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to modify the combined teachings of Di and meet the claimed limitations in order to provide the predictable results of collecting separated moisture.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et. al. (KR102512160B1) in view of Katsumi et al. (CN102120124A), Bonne et al. (US4900448A) and Di et al. (CN209689104U) as applied to claim 12 above and in further view of Taylor et al. (US20120304862A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Kim, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 12 and Kim does not teach where the mounting guide forms a cutout part by cutting a portion facing the water supply port.
However, Taylor teaches porous membrane contractors [0002;0004] where the mounting guide [housing 200, Figure 3] forms a cutout part by cutting a portion facing the water supply [where contactor 100 inserts into side opening of housing 200 where ports 120, 122 extend out, Figure 3; 0097;0102] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, accommodating fluid pipelines in the housing and mounting structure, to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., providing fluid communication to the dehumidification module.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the mounting guide forms a cutout part by cutting a portion facing the water supply port in view of the teachings of Taylor where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., providing fluid communication to the dehumidification module.
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (Zhao, B., et al., Hollow Fiber Membrane Dehumidification Device for Air Conditioning System, Membranes, 5(4), 16 Nov 2015, [retrieved on 28 Mar 2026] Retrieved from Internet <DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes5040722> as applied to claim 18 above and in further view of Kuramoto et al. (US20040109781A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Zhao teaches the invention of claim 18 and further teaches wherein a protrusion extending downward along an edge of the port communication hole is formed on the first partition wall [where fiber bundles insert into a protrusion of port communication hole in the first partition above the vacuum purge chamber, annotated Figure 5 above] but does not teach where a connection pipe connected to the vacuum pump is inserted in the protrusion.
However, Kuramoto teaches a fluid pump system [0001] where a connection pipe [pipe 13, Figure 3] connected to the vacuum pump [vacuum pump 11, Figure 1] is inserted in the protrusion [sub cover 23 of wall 21a of main chamber 70, Figure 1] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, providing redundant cover over a conduit coupling, to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., preventing leaks between the area of interest and the vacuum pump [Kuramoto; 0003]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Zhao to have where a connection pipe connected to the vacuum pump is inserted in the protrusion in view of the teachings of Kuramoto where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., preventing leaks between the area of interest and the vacuum pump [Kuramoto; 0003]
Regarding Claim 20, Zhao, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 18 and does not teach where a sealing member is configured to seal a space between the protrusion and the connection port is provided on an outer peripheral surface of the connection port.
However, Kuramoto teaches a fluid pump system [0001] where a sealing member [annular sealing member 18, Figure 3] is configured to seal a space between the protrusion [inner space 27a, Figure 3] and the connection port [hose 15, Figure 3] is provided on an outer peripheral surface of the connection port [at flange 15a of hose 15, Figure 3] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, providing a sealing ring, to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., preventing leaks between the area of interest and the vacuum pump [Kuramoto; 0003]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have a sealing member configured to seal a space between the protrusion and the connection port is provided on an outer peripheral surface of the connection port in view of the teachings of Kuramoto where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., preventing leaks between the area of interest and the vacuum pump [Kuramoto; 0003].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEONA LAUREN BANKS whose telephone number is (571)270-0426. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30- 6:00 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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 5712705054. 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.
/KEONA LAUREN BANKS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763