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 .
Claims 21-40 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 21, line 4, “such that electrolyzer” should reach “such that the electrolyzer”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 24-25 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.
Claims 24-25 recite the limitation "the one or more StatComs" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. “StatComs” are listed in claim 1 as part of a list of “one or more reactive-power compensation devices” which may be selected from. The recitations of claims 24-25 therefore lack antecedent basis for situations in which the StatComs are not among the selected reactive-power compensation devices.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 21-22, 24 and 26-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brochard (EP 3839102 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Brochard discloses a method for producing hydrogen (see e.g. Paragraph 0017, system for producing hydrogen by electrolysis of water), the method comprising:
determining an amount of reactive power for an electrolyzer of a hydrogen-production installation connected to a power grid to generate (see e.g. Paragraph 0021, lines 2-7, Paragraph 0039, lines 1-2, and Paragraphs 0037 and 0106, calculate/determine reactive power compensation, i.e. generation to balance consumption by harmonic polluters, required from installation including electrolyser connected to a public network, i.e. power grid); and
controlling operations of the electrolyzer such that the electrolyzer generates substantially the determined amount of reactive power (see e.g. Paragraph 0021, lines 10-14, controlling at least one harmonic filter supplying power to the electrolyser to perform the reactive power compensation, i.e. generation), wherein the operations of the electrolyzer are controlled by one or more reactive-power compensation devices selected from the group consisting of capacitor banks and static synchronous compensators (StatComs) (see e.g. Paragraph 0042, lines 1-4, Paragraphs 0072 and 0098, and Table 1, each harmonic filter comprising at least one capacitor or capacitor bank for reactive power compensation and at least one harmonic filter being static reactive power compensation and harmonic filtering (STATCOM) equipment).
Regarding claim 22, Brochard discloses controlling operations of the electrolyzer comprising controlling power electronics of the electrolyzer such that the power electronics generate substantially the determined amount of reactive power (see e.g. Paragraph 0021, lines 10-14, controlling at least one harmonic filter supplying power to the electrolyser to perform the reactive power compensation, i.e. generation)
Regarding claim 24, Brochard discloses controlling the power electronics of the electrolyzer comprising controlling the one or more StatComs such that the one or more StatComs generate substantially the determined amount of reactive power (see e.g. Paragraph 0021, lines 10-14, and Paragraph 0098, controlling at least one harmonic filter, such as STATCOM, supplying power to the electrolyser to perform the reactive power compensation, i.e. generation).
Regarding claim 26, Brochard discloses controlling operations of the electrolyzer further comprising adjusting hydrogen-production operations of the electrolyzer (see e.g. Paragraph 0020, lines 32-33, and Paragraph 0021, line 14, control of electrolysis to produce hydrogen on the basis of available active power).
Regarding claim 27, Brochard discloses controlling operations of the electrolyzer further comprising adjusting hydrogen-production operations of the electrolyzer to increase an amount of reactive power that the power electronics can generate (see e.g. Paragraph 0020, lines 32-33, Paragraphs 0046 and 0065, control of electrolysis to produce hydrogen on the basis of available active power, with power/current provided to electrolyser based on residual active power remaining after that necessary for reactive power compensation, thereby requiring decreased hydrogen production for increased reactive power generation).
Regarding claim 28, Brochard discloses controlling operations of the electrolyzer comprising controlling hydrogen-production operations of the electrolyzer (see e.g. Paragraph 0020, lines 32-33, and Paragraph 0021, line 14, control of electrolysis to produce hydrogen on the basis of available active power).
Regarding claim 29, Brochard discloses controlling hydrogen-production operations of the electrolyzer comprising controlling a rate at which the electrolyzer produces hydrogen (see e.g. Paragraph 0020, lines 32-33, Paragraphs 0046 and 0065, control of electrolysis to produce hydrogen on the basis of available active power, with power/current provided to electrolyser, and thereby rate of hydrogen production, based on residual active power remaining after that necessary for reactive power compensation).
Regarding claim 30, Brochard discloses determining an aggregate amount of reactive power for the hydrogen-production installation to generate, the hydrogen-production installation comprising a number of electrolyzers including the electrolyzer (see e.g. Paragraph 0021, lines 2-7, Paragraph 0039, lines 1-2, and Paragraphs 0043 and 0106, calculate/determine reactive power compensation, i.e. generation to balance consumption by harmonic polluters, required from installation including plurality of electrolysers);
determining a respective amount of reactive power for each electrolyzer of the number of electrolyzers to generate; and controlling respective operations of each electrolyzer of the number of electrolyzers such that the hydrogen-production installation generates substantially the aggregated amount of reactive power (see e.g. Paragraph 0021, lines 10-14, and Paragraph 0069, lines 4-9, determined setpoint and regulation of each harmonic filter and associated electrolyzer connected in parallel for the required reactive power compensation).
Regarding claim 31, Brochard discloses the aggregate amount of reactive power to generate being determined such that the hydrogen-production installation maintains a substantially constant reactive-power generation (see e.g. Paragraph 0069, lines 9-10, reactive power compensation ensured at all times, i.e. constantly).
Regarding claim 32, Brochard discloses the aggregate amount of reactive power to generate being determined such that the hydrogen-production installation maintains a substantially constant power factor (see e.g. Paragraphs 0106 and 0113, reactive power compensation controlled such that power factor is as close as possible to a set point, i.e. constant value).
Regarding claim 33, Brochard discloses the aggregate amount of reactive power to generate being determined such that a voltage at a connection between the hydrogen-production installation and the power grid is held substantially within a threshold (see e.g. Paragraph 0020, last two lines, and Paragraph 0062, dynamic stabilization of voltage at PCC connection with the public network, i.e. grid, via load absorption on the capacitor of the harmonic filter performing reactive power compensation).
Regarding claim 34, Brochard discloses the amount of reactive power to generate being determined based on a power-factor threshold of the power grid (see e.g. Paragraphs 0106 and 0113, reactive power compensation controlled such that power factor is as close as possible to a target set point, i.e. threshold, at the PCC connection to the public network, i.e. grid).
Regarding claim 35, Brochard discloses controlling operations of the electrolyzer comprising controlling an amount of real power the electrolyzer consumes such that the electrolyzer generates substantially the determined amount of reactive power (see e.g. Paragraph 0020, lines 32-33, Paragraphs 0046 and 0065, control of electrolysis to produce hydrogen on the basis of available active power, i.e. real power, with power/current provided to electrolyser based on residual active power remaining after that necessary for reactive power compensation).
Regarding claim 36, Brochard discloses the amount of reactive power to generate being determined based on reactive-power capability of one or more power sources connected to the power grid (see e.g. Paragraph 0085, reactive power compensation accounting for additional renewable electrical energy production units connected to the network, i.e. grid).
Regarding claim 37, Brochard discloses the amount of reactive power to generate being determined based on reactive-power capability of one or more loads connected to the power grid (see e.g. Paragraph 0039-0040 and 0042, reactive power compensation accounting for reactive power consumed by at least one non-linear load connected to the public network, i.e. grid).
Regarding claim 38, Brochard discloses a system for producing hydrogen (see e.g. Paragraph 0017, system for producing hydrogen by electrolysis of water), the system comprising:
a connection to a power grid configured to receive electrical power from the power grid (see e.g. Fig. 2, PCC 230 for receiving electrical energy from public network, i.e. grid, 231);
one or more electrolyzers configured to receive the electrical power and to produce hydrogen (see e.g. Fig. 2, electrolyzers 250,251 receiving power to produce hydrogen; Paragraph 0043); and
a controller (see e.g. Paragraphs 0061-0062, centralized controller managing activity of harmonic filters) configured to:
determine an amount of reactive power for the one or more electrolyzers to generate (see e.g. Paragraph 0021, lines 2-7, Paragraph 0039, lines 1-2, and Paragraph 0106, calculate/determine reactive power compensation, i.e. generation to balance consumption by harmonic polluters, required from installation including the electrolysers); and
control respective operations of the one or more electrolyzers such that the one or more electrolyzers collectively generate substantially the determined amount of reactive power (see e.g. Paragraph 0021, lines 10-14, controlling at least one harmonic filter supplying power to the electrolyser to perform the reactive power compensation, i.e. generation), wherein operations of the one or more electrolyzers are controlled by one or more reactive-power compensation devices selected from the group consisting of capacitor banks and static synchronous compensators (StatComs) (see e.g. Paragraph 0042, lines 1-4, Paragraphs 0072 and 0098, and Table 1, each harmonic filter comprising at least one capacitor or capacitor bank for reactive power compensation and at least one harmonic filter being static reactive power compensation and harmonic filtering (STATCOM) equipment).
Regarding claim 39, Brochard discloses the controller being further configured to determined the amount of reactive power to generate such that the system is balanced (see e.g. Paragraph 0021, lines 2-7 and 10-14, Paragraph 0039, lines 1-2, and Paragraph 0106, generated reactive power compensating for, i.e. balancing, reactive power consumption by harmonic polluters).
Regarding claim 40, Brochard discloses an electrolyzer for producing hydrogen (see e.g. Paragraph 0017 and Paragraph 0019, lines 5-6, system for producing hydrogen by electrolysis of water with at least one electrolyser), the electrolyzer comprising:
a hydrogen-production stack configured to receive direct current (DC) power and water to produce hydrogen (see e.g. Fig. 2, electrolysers 250/ 251 receiving power in the form of DC current to produce hydrogen; Paragraph 0043, lines 1-2);
power electronics configured to receive alternating current (AC) power, cover the AC power into DC power, and to provide the DC power to the hydrogen-production stack (see e.g. Fig. 2, harmonic filters 220/ 221 absorbing AC current and outputting DC current, acting as AC/DC converters supplying the DC current to the electrolysers 250/251; Paragraph 0042, Paragraph 0043, lines 1-2, and Paragraph 0065, lines 1-2); and
a controller configured to receive a control signal and to control operations of the electrolyzer such that the electrolyzer generates reactive power according to instructions of the control signal (see e.g. Paragraph 0021, lines 2-7 and 10-14, and Paragraphs 0062 and 0106, controller controlling at least one harmonic filter supplying power to the electrolyser to perform the reactive power compensation, i.e. generation, based on calculation, i.e. control signal), wherein the operations of the electrolyser are controlled by one or more reactive-power compensation devices selected from the group consisting of capacitor banks and static synchronous compensators (StatComs) (see e.g. Paragraph 0042, lines 1-4, Paragraphs 0072 and 0098, and Table 1, each harmonic filter comprising at least one capacitor or capacitor bank for reactive power compensation and at least one harmonic filter being static reactive power compensation and harmonic filtering (STATCOM) equipment).
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.
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 23 and 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brochard in view of Hunt et al. (U.S. 2022/0065162).
Regarding claim 23, Brochard teaches all the elements of the method of claim 22 as stated above. Brochard does not explicitly teach controlling the power electronics of the electrolyzer comprising controlling a plurality of pulse-width modulator rectifiers of the power electronics such that the power electronics generate substantially the determined amount of reactive power. Brochard does however teach the power electronics comprising a plurality of rectifiers of any type, such as one including IGBT switches (see e.g. Paragraph 0040, lines 4-7, harmonic filters may be rectifier bridges of any type).
Hunt teaches a power plant including a hydrogen generation system to balance active and reactive loads on a grid power system (see e.g. Abstract) comprising a converter, i.e. rectifier, for converting alternating current to direct current for an electrolyzer (see e.g. Paragraph 0078, lines 1-7), wherein the converter may be a power conversion system using IGBTs and PWM (pulse width modulation) that is suitable for providing active and reactive power services to the grid (see e.g. Paragraph 0085).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rectifiers of Brochard to comprise power conversion systems including PWM as taught by Hunt as a suitable particular type of rectifier including IGBTs that can provide direct current to an electrolyzer as well as active and reactive power services to a power grid. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding claim 25, Brochard teaches all the elements of the method of claim 22 as stated above. Brochard further teaches controlling the power electronics of the electrolyzer comprising controlling the one or more StatComs such that the one or more StatComs generate substantially the determined amount of reactive power (see e.g. Paragraph 0021, lines 10-14, and Paragraph 0098, controlling at least one harmonic filter, such as STATCOM, supplying power to the electrolyser to perform the reactive power compensation, i.e. generation). Brochard does not explicitly teach further controlling a plurality of pulse-width modulator rectifiers such that that the one or more StatComs generate substantially the determined amount of reactive power. Brochard does however teach the power electronics comprising a plurality of rectifiers of any type such as one including IGBT switches (see e.g. Paragraph 0040, lines 4-7, harmonic filters may be rectifier bridges of any type).
Hunt teaches a power plant including a hydrogen generation system to balance active and reactive loads on a grid power system (see e.g. Abstract) comprising a converter, i.e. rectifier, for converting alternating current to direct current for an electrolyzer (see e.g. Paragraph 0078, lines 1-7), wherein the converter may be a power conversion system using IGBTs and PWM (pulse width modulation) that is suitable for providing active and reactive power services to the grid (see e.g. Paragraph 0085).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified some of the rectifiers of Brochard to comprise power conversion systems including PWM as taught by Hunt as an additional suitable type of rectifier including IGBTs that can provide direct current to an electrolyzer as well as active and reactive power services to a power grid. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOFOLUWASO S JEBUTU whose telephone number is (571)272-1919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/M.S.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795