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 .
Status of the Rejection
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 7-13 are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Devine (US 20090115190 A1).
Devine discloses a method and system for producing, shipping, distributing, and storing hydrogen including the system for controlling power distribution (Devine abstract). Devine further teaches system for producing hydrogen from renewable energy, wherein the system comprises a renewable-energy-based power generation system, a primary hydrogen production system, a secondary hydrogen production system (Devine abstract, [0009], [0013], Figs 2, 5, and 7, [0039], [0043], AND [0078]) and a controller (Devine [0009], and [00043]), wherein
an output end of the renewable-energy-based power generation system is connected to the primary hydrogen production system and the secondary hydrogen production system via an electrical conversion device (Devine [0067-0075];
a monitoring end of the controller is connected to the output end of the renewable-energy-based power generation system, and a control end of the controller is connected to the electrical conversion device (Devine [Fig. 5, [0066-0068], and [0075-0076]);
a capacity of the primary hydrogen production system is greater than or equal to a capacity of the secondary hydrogen production system (Devine [0076] AND [0081]).
Devine further teaches a method compromising: acquiring an operating parameter of the secondary hydrogen production system as a first threshold; acquiring an operating parameter of the primary hydrogen production system as a second threshold; monitoring, by the controller, an output electrical performance parameter of the renewable-energy-based power generation system in real time (Devine [0065] the wind turbines are located on real islands and real time wind power is observed, [0081, 0083).
Devine does not explicitly teach controlling the secondary hydrogen production system to be turned on or turned off based on whether the output electrical performance parameter being greater than the first threshold; and controlling the primary hydrogen production system to be turned on or turned off based on whether the output electrical performance parameter being greater than the second threshold, wherein the first threshold value is less than the second threshold value however, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for control of the overall system because operational parameters can be adjusted as shown (Devine [0076-0078]; increase or decrease in power depending on how much hydrogen is in the system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinally skill skilled in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Devine of controlling the system to utilize all the power that’s available in an economically feasible manner (Devine [0013], 0076, and [0082]).
Claim(s) 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devine (US 20090115190 A1) above, and further in view of Stemp et al. (WO 2010048706 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Devine does not teach that controlling the secondary hydrogen production system to be turned off and maintaining the primary hydrogen production system to be turned on, in a case where the output electrical performance parameter is greater than the second threshold and is less than a sum of the first threshold and the second threshold.
Stemp discloses a method for controlling a system for distributing electric power generated by a wind farm to multiple electrolyzer modules (Stemp abstract and [0015]). Stemp further teaches controlling the secondary hydrogen production system to be turned off and maintaining the primary hydrogen production system to be turned on, in a case where the output electrical performance parameter is greater than the second threshold and is less than a sum of the first threshold and the second threshold (Stomp Figures 3,4, and 5 [0057], and [0066]; the power vs voltage and Temp curves for each electrolyzer module obtained as shown in figure 5 represent acquiring operating parameters for both primary and secondary hydrogen production systems, total DC power in figure 4 accounts for monitoring by controller electrical performance of wind turbines, and figure 3 shows that turning ON and OFF any of the electrolyzers to go from primary to secondary hydrogen production systems and vice versa ).
PNG
media_image1.png
899
737
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 3: Obtained from Stemp)]It would have been obvious to one of ordinally skill skilled in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Stemp of incorporating a control system to those of Devine to effective control of the electrolyser modules to ensure load matching to the wind farm output (Stemp [0006]).
Regarding claim 9, Devine does not teach controlling the secondary hydrogen production system to be turned off and maintaining the primary hydrogen production system to be turned on, or controlling the secondary hydrogen production system and the primary hydrogen production system both to be turned on, in a case where the output electrical performance parameter is greater than a sum of the first threshold and the second threshold, and is less than a rated parameter of the primary hydrogen production system.
As disclosed above, Stemp discloses a method for controlling a system for distributing electric power generated by a wind farm to multiple electrolyzer modules (Stemp abstract and [0015]).
Stemp further teaches controlling the secondary hydrogen production system to be turned off and maintaining the primary hydrogen production system to be turned on, or controlling the secondary hydrogen production system and the primary hydrogen production system both to be turned on, in a case where the output electrical performance parameter is greater than a sum of the first threshold and the second threshold, and is less than a rated parameter of the primary hydrogen production system (Stemp [0057] and Figure 3 ; the power vs voltage and Temp curves for each electrolyzer module obtained as shown in figure 5 represent acquiring operating parameters for both primary and secondary hydrogen production systems, total DC power in figure 4 accounts for monitoring by controller ele3ctrical performance of wind turbines, and figure 3 shows that turning ON and OFF any of the electrolyzers to go from primary to secondary hydrogen production systems and vice versa ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinally skill skilled in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Stemp of incorporating a control system to those of Devine to effective control of the electrolyser modules to ensure load matching to the wind farm output (Stemp [0006]).
Regarding claim 10, Devine does not teach that acquiring a sum of a rated parameter of the secondary hydrogen production system and a rated parameter of the primary hydrogen production system, as a third threshold; and controlling the energy storage unit or grid to be turned on and charged based on whether the output electrical performance parameter being greater than the third threshold.
As disclosed above, Stemp discloses a method for controlling a system for distributing electric power generated by a wind farm to multiple electrolyzer modules (Stemp abstract and [0015]).
Stemp further teaches acquiring a sum of a rated parameter of the secondary hydrogen production system and a rated parameter of the primary hydrogen production system, as a third threshold; and controlling the energy storage unit or grid to be turned on and charged based on whether the output electrical performance parameter being greater than the third threshold (Stemp [0018], [0026-0027] [0035], and [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinally skill skilled in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Stemp of incorporating a control system to those of Devine to effective control of the electrolyser modules to ensure load matching to the wind farm output (Stemp [0006]).
Regarding claim 11, Devine does not teach controlling the energy storage unit or grid to be turned on and charged based on whether the output electrical performance parameter being less than the first threshold.
As disclosed above, Stemp discloses a method for controlling a system for distributing electric power generated by a wind farm to multiple electrolyzer modules (Stemp abstract and [0015]).
Stemp further teaches controlling the energy storage unit or grid to be turned on and charged based on whether the output electrical performance parameter being less than the first threshold (Stemp [0026-0027] , [0035], and [0047] ; the power vs voltage and Temp curves for each electrolyzer module obtained as shown in figure 5 represent acquiring operating parameters for both primary and secondary hydrogen production systems, total DC power in figure 4 accounts for monitoring by controller ele3ctrical performance of wind turbines, and figure 3 shows that turning ON and OFF any of the electrolyzers to go from primary to secondary hydrogen production systems and vice versa ).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinally skill skilled in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Stemp of incorporating a control system to those of Devine to effective control of the electrolyser modules to ensure load matching to the wind farm output (Stemp [0006]).
Regarding claim 12, Stemp further teaches controlling the energy storage unit or grid to be turned on and discharge based on whether the output electrical performance parameter being less than an operating parameter for a hot standby condition, wherein the operating parameter for the hot standby condition is less than the first threshold (Stemp [0015] and [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinally skill skilled in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Stemp of incorporating a hot standby function to those of Devine to provide a safe operating condition that could "self-heal" and allow the electrolyzer module to return to normal operating status (Stemp [0059]).
Regarding claim 13, Devine does not teach that a power generation capacity of the renewable-energy-based power generation system is in a range of one to two times of the rated parameter of the primary hydrogen production system.
As disclosed above, Stemp discloses a method for controlling a system for distributing electric power generated by a wind farm to multiple electrolyzer modules (Stemp abstract and [0015]).
Stemp further teaches that power generation capacity of the renewable-energy-based power generation system is in a range of one to two times of the rated parameter of the primary hydrogen production system (Stemp [0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinally skill skilled in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Stemp of power generation capacity of the renewable-energy-based power generation system is in a range of one to two times of the rated parameter of the primary hydrogen production system to those of Devine to understand the power capacity of both systems and determine the number of electrolyzers needed to be deployed for connection to windfarms (Stemp [0005]).
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks filed January 20, 2026, page 9, Applicant argues that Devine has not disclosed the technical feature of "a capacity of the primary hydrogen production system is greater than or equal to a capacity of the secondary hydrogen production system" in claim 7 because Devine describes that the power regulator 43 increases electricity power flowing to the component to increase the production rate of hydrogen, which is obviously different from the solution of configuring the capacity of the primary hydrogen production system to be greater than or equal to the capacity of the secondary hydrogen production system.
This argument is deemed to be unpersuasive. It is noted that the capacity of the hydrogen production system may be relative and depends on the operating condition of the production system. Claim 1 does not clearly define what is the absolute capacity of hydrogen production system. Moreover, Devine specifically teaches that “one or more of the electrolyzers may be configured to have a higher output based on the size, energy, and the amount of water that is processed” (paragraph 88). Therefore, Devine clearly teaches or suggests the use of electrolyzers having different capacities.
Applicant further argues on page 9-10 that Devine has not disclosed the technical features of "acquiring an operating power of the secondary hydrogen production system as a first threshold; acquiring an operating power of the primary hydrogen production system as a second threshold" in claim 7, and based on the first threshold and the second threshold (that is, based on the operating power of the secondary hydrogen production system and the operating power of the primary hydrogen production system), the secondary hydrogen production system and the primary hydrogen production system are respectively controlled to be turned on or turned off.
This argument is deemed to be unpersuasive. Claim 7 generally recites a step of acquiring operating power of one system as a threshold and of another system as another threshold. The thresholds are not particularly limited but could be any arbitrary value deemed to be a threshold. The claim also doesn’t specify what or who is acquiring is acquiring the operating power. These claim limitations could also be construed as mental steps. Nevertheless, since Devine teaches that electrolyzers can have different output based on energy (paragraph 88), i.e., different power thresholds, Devine implicitly teaches acquiring the operating power thresholds of different electrolyzers. Furthermore, since Devine capable of determining the level hydrogen production of electrolyzers (paragraph 78) including the use of hydrogen sensors (paragraph 80), Devine implicitly teaches acquiring the operating power of each electrolyzer. Addressing the controlling of the hydrogen production system in response to the thresholds, Devine teaches “electrical cut off switches may allow one or more of the electrolyzer units to be selectively used to generate hydrogen. For example, if power output generated by the wind farm is greater than a target power output level, an electrolyzer unit may be selectively used by closing the electrical switch which allows the flow of electrical power to the electrolyzer unit“ (paragraph 91). Thus, Devine teaches turning on and off electrolyzer units. While this is based on the power output of the wind farm, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill control the electrolyzer units based on additional parameters such as hydrogen output from the hydrogen sensor associated with the electrolyzers in order to minimize interruption of the hydrogen production.
Applicant further argues on page 11 that Devine does not teach a step-by-step turn on-turn off control is performed on the primary hydrogen production system and the secondary hydrogen production system.
This argument is deemed to be unpersuasive. While claim 7 recites multiple steps, they are distinct and do not all depend from each other. Devine teaches turning on and off the electrolyzers (paragraph 91). As addressed above, Devine teaches changing the rate of hydrogen production based on the change in the power output of the power generation source (paragraph 81). While not explicitly stated, Devine implicitly teaches the acquiring, monitoring, and controlling of the hydrogen production systems as discussed above.
Examiner Comment:
Examiner notes that claims 10 and 11 recite the phrase “the energy storage or grid” which lacks antecedent basis. It is suggested that the applicant amend the claim limitations in a future response to correct the antecedent basis issue.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure.
US 20070079611 teaches a controller 20 receives electrolyzer operating conditions data through the signal line 22. Using an internal algorithm it sends signals to the generator(s) 11 to adjust its operating parameters to maximize the energy delivery to those required by the electrolyzer 30 (paragraph 35).
WO 2017149606 A1 teaches a first and second electrolyzer for hydrogen production having different capacities to improve the durability of the electrolyzers.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LUAN V VAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8521. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at (571) 272-4729. 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.
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights