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 1-15 and 17-20 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because: the text of block 408 does not match the description in paragraph 0063 of the instant specification; and the text of block 410 does not match the description in paragraph 0064 of the instant specification, instead appearing to refer to the description of paragraph 0067.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5, 13-14 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 6, “based an amount” should read “based on an amount”
In claim 2, line 3, “determining that the” should read “determining
In claim 3, line 3, “determining that the” should read “determining
In claim 4, line 3, “determining that the” should read “determining
In claim 5, line 3, “determining that the” should read “determining
In claim 13, line 7, “by a power” should read “by the power”.
In claim 14, line 15, “consumed of the” should read “consumed by the”.
In claim 19, line 10, “consumed of the” should read “consumed by the”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6, 8-9 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fairlie (U.S. 2005/0165511).
Regarding claim 1, Fairlie discloses a method for controlling hydrogen production (see e.g. Paragraph 0084, and Paragraph 0100, lines 1-2, method for controlling energy network including hydrogen-producing electrolysers), the method comprising:
determining a variability in an amount of power consumed by a power consumer (see e.g. Paragraph 0093 and Table 1, compiled energy demand profile, i.e. variability throughout the day, of conventional consumer loads on network);
determining an amount of power for a hydrogen-production installation to consume based on an amount of power produced by a power producer, the amount of power consumed by the power consumer, and the variability in the amount of power consumed by the power consumer (see e.g. Paragraph 0101, lines 1-7, and Paragraphs 0095 and 0102-0103, determined mismatch between demand information including the consumer demand profile, i.e. variability, and information of availability of power from power generating stations); and
controlling hydrogen production at one or more electrolyzers of the hydrogen-production installation such that the one or more electrolyzers consume substantially the determined amount of power (see e.g. Paragraph 0104, lines 1-10, and Paragraph 0105, hydrogen production operation of one or more electrolyzers to bring the determined demand/availability mismatch closer to a match).
Regarding claim 2, Fairlie discloses determining the amount of power for the hydrogen production-installation to consume comprising determining the amount of power for the hydrogen-production installation to consume based on a percentage of the amount of power produced by the power producer (see e.g. Paragraph 0104, lines 3-10, and Paragraph 0104, control of electrolysers to consume a portion, i.e. percentage, of power from power sources, based on availability).
Regarding claim 3, Fairlie discloses determining the amount of power for the hydrogen production-installation to consume comprising determining the amount of power for the hydrogen-production installation to consume based on a percentage of an amount by which the amount of power produced by the power producer exceeds a threshold (see e.g. Paragraph 0103, lines 5-10, and Paragraph 0104, lines 3-10, control of electrolysers to consume excess availability of power beyond a provision for excess availability, i.e. threshold).
Regarding claim 4, Fairlie discloses determining the amount of power for the hydrogen production-installation to consume comprising determining the amount of power for the hydrogen-production installation to consume based on a percentage of the amount produced by the power producer less the amount of power consumed by the power consumer (see e.g. Paragraph 0104, lines 3-10, and Paragraph 0111, lines 1-12, control of electrolysers based on mismatch amount by which availability exceeds demand).
Regarding claim 5, Fairlie discloses determining the amount of power for the hydrogen production-installation to consume comprising determining the amount of power for the hydrogen-production installation to consume based on a percentage of an amount by which the amount of power produced by the power producer, less the amount of power consumed by the power consumer, exceeds a threshold (see e.g. Paragraph 0103, lines 5-10, Paragraph 0104, lines 3-10, and Paragraph 0111, lines 1-12, control of electrolysers based on mismatch amount by which availability exceeds demand beyond a certain provision for excess availability, i.e. threshold).
Regarding claim 6, Fairlie discloses determining the amount of power for the hydrogen production-installation to consume comprising determining the amount of power for the hydrogen-production installation to consume to balance the variability in the amount of power consumed by the power consumer (see e.g. Paragraph 0094 and Paragraph 0104, lines 1-10, electrolysers dynamically matches, i.e. balances, availability accounting for the changing demand profile, i.e. variability, of conventional loads).
Regarding claim 8, Fairlie discloses the method further comprising determining an amount of power for each electrolyzer of the one or more electrolyzers to consume ; and controlling hydrogen production at the one or more electrolyzers of the hydrogen-production installation comprising controlling hydrogen production at each electrolyzer of the one or more electrolyzers such that each electrolyzer of the one or more electrolyzers consume substantially the determined amount of power (see e.g. Paragraph 0104, lines 7-17, and Paragraphs 0027, 0109, and 0117, determining and implementing which specific electrolysers to commence or scale back hydrogen production/power consumption, and/or scheduling and controlling power consumption of each electrolyser unit).
Regarding claim 9, Fairlie discloses controlling hydrogen production at the one or more electrolyzers of the hydrogen-production installation comprising controlling a respective amount of hydrogen that each of the one or more electrolyzers produces such that the one or more electrolyzers consume substantially the determined amount of power (see e.g. Paragraph 0027 and Paragraph 0069, lines 2-12, controller setting production rate and hence power consumption of each electrolyser to act as responsive load).
Regarding claim 14, Fairlie discloses a system for producing hydrogen (see e.g. Fig. 1, network 50 including hydrogen-producing electrolysers; Paragraph 0084), the system comprising:
one or more electrolyzers configured to consume power and to produce hydrogen (see e.g. Fig. 1, electrolysers 78 converting electricity into hydrogen; Paragraph 0084); and
a controller (see e.g. Fig. 1, controller 102; Paragraph 0091, lines 1-2) configured to:
receive an indication of an amount of power produced by a power producer (see e.g. Paragraph 0095, lines 1-2, and Paragraph 0102, controller receives power availability information reflecting energy/power output from generating stations);
receive an indication of an amount of power consumed by a power consumer (see e.g. Paragraph 0093 and Paragraph 0101, lines 1-7, controller receives power demand information regarding conventional consumer loads);
determine a variability in the amount of power consumed by the power consumer (see e.g. Paragraph 0093 and Table 1, compiled energy demand profile, i.e. variability throughout the day, of conventional consumer loads on network);
determine an amount of power for the one or more electrolyzers to consume based on the amount of power produced by the power producer, the amount of power consumed by the power consumer, and the variability in the amount of power consumed by the power consumer (see e.g. Paragraph 0101, lines 1-7, and Paragraphs 0095 and 0102-0103, determined mismatch between demand information including the consumer demand profile, i.e. variability, and information of availability of power from power generating stations); and
control hydrogen production at the one or more electrolyzers such that the one or more electrolyzers consume substantially the determined amount of power (see e.g. Paragraph 0104, lines 1-10, and Paragraph 0105, hydrogen production operation of one or more electrolyzers to bring the determined demand/availability mismatch closer to a match).
Regarding claim 15, Fairlie discloses the system comprising both the power producer and the power consumer (see e.g. Fig. 1, network 50 including electrical power generating stations 54 and conventional consumer loads 92; Paragraphs 0082 and 0088).
Claims 10-13 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krogh et al. (WO 2023104267 A1); claims 10 and 18 evidenced by Günther (“Power Grid Frequency—Why is it Important?”, CLOUGLOBAL, 2022).
Regarding claim 10, Krogh discloses a method for controlling hydrogen production (see e.g. Page 1, lines 6-7, and Page 4, lines 5, method for operating electrolyser system producing hydrogen), the method comprising:
determining a frequency of alternating-current power provided by a power grid to a hydrogen-production installation (see e.g. Page 5, lines 7-8 and 16-17, monitoring of grid frequency of a grid from which electrolyser receives energy; “grid frequency” being a description of alternating current power supply, as evidenced by Günther, see e.g. Günther Page 2, lines 1-3);
determining an amount of power for the hydrogen-production installation to consume based on the frequency; and controlling hydrogen production at one or more electrolyzers of the hydrogen-production installation such that the one or more electrolyzers consume substantially the determined amount of power (see e.g. Page 5, lines 7-10 and 16-17, power consumption by electrolysers determined and adjusted according to monitored frequency).
Regarding claim 11, Krogh discloses determining to increase an amount of power the hydrogen-production installation is consuming based on the frequency being greater than a high threshold (see e.g. Fig. 4, power imported by electrolysers from grid increased up to a max when grid frequency is above a reference frequency, i.e. threshold; Page 5, lines 7-8, and Page 14, lines 32-34).
Regarding claim 12, Krogh discloses determining the amount of power for the hydrogen-production installation to consume being further based on both an amount of power consumed by a power consumer and an amount of power produced by a power producer (see e.g. Page 5, lines 7-13 and 18-26, power consumed by electrolyser adjusted according to availability of power, e.g. being reduced when private consumers are using large amounts of power or being varied according to weather when grid includes power delivered by PV or wind turbines).
Regarding claim 13, Krogh discloses the method further comprising determining a variability in an amount of power consumed by a power consumer connected to the power grid; and determining the amount of power for the hydrogen-production installation to consume comprises determining the amount of power for the hydrogen-production installation to consume to balance the variability in the amount of power consumed by the power consumer (see e.g. Page 5, lines 7-13 and 18-24, control of power consumption by electrolysers based on learned grid behavior, such as forecast consumption profiles, i.e. consumption variability).
Regarding claim 18, Krogh discloses a system for producing hydrogen (see e.g. Page 1, lines 6-7, and Page 4, line 5, electrolyser system producing hydrogen), the system comprising:
a connection to a power grid configured to receive alternating-current power from the power grid (see e.g. Fig. 1, grid connection 8 for receiving power from grid 7 with a grid frequency, Page 5, lines 16-17, and Page 12, lines 3-4; “grid frequency” being a description of alternating current power supply, as evidenced by Günther, see e.g. Günther Page 2, lines 1-3);
one or more electrolyzers configured to consume power and to produce hydrogen (see e.g. Fig. 1, electrolyser modules 3 producing hydrogen; Page 11, lines 33-34 and Page 4, line 5); and
a controller (see e.g. Fig. 1, control system 9; Page 12, lines 4-6) configured to:
receive an indication of a frequency of the alternating-current power provided by the power grid (see e.g. Page 5, lines 7-8 and 16-17, control system monitoring of grid frequency, i.e. AC power frequency, of grid from which electrolyser receives energy);
determine an amount of power for the one or more electrolyzers to consume based on the frequency; and control hydrogen production at the one or more electrolyzers such that the one or more electrolyzers consume substantially the determined amount of power (see e.g. Page 5, lines 7-10 and 16-17, power consumption by electrolysers determined and adjusted by control system according to monitored frequency).
Regarding claim 19, Krogh discloses the controller being further configured to both receive an indication of an amount of power produced by a power producer and receive an indication of an amount of power consumed by a power consumer; and determine the amount of power for the one or more electrolyzers to consume further based on both the power produced by the power producer and the power consumed by the power consumer (see e.g. Page 5, lines 7-13 and 18-26, power consumed by electrolyser adjusted by control system according to availability of power as indicated by collected consumption and delivery information/profiles, e.g. being reduced when private consumers are using large amounts of power or being varied according to weather when grid includes power delivered by PV or wind turbines).
Regarding claim 20, Krogh discloses the controller further being configured to determine a variability in an amount of power consumed by a power consumer connected to the power grid; and determine the amount of power for the one or more electrolyzers to consume further based on the variability (see e.g. Page 5, lines 7-13 and 18-24, control system adjusting power consumption by electrolysers based on learned grid behavior, such as forecast consumption profiles, i.e. consumption variability).
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 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fairlie in view of Krogh; as evidenced by Günther.
Regarding claim 7, Fairlie teaches all the elements of the method of claim 1 as stated above. Fairlie does not teach the method further comprising determining a frequency of alternating-current power provided by a power grid to the hydrogen-production installation; and determining the amount of power for the hydrogen-production installation to consume being further based on the frequency. Fairlie does however teach the hydrogen-production installation receiving power from a power grid (see e.g. Fig. 1, electrolysers 78 receiving electricity from grid 74; Paragraph 0084, lines 1-4), as well as the hydrogen-production installation being used to improve stability of an electricity grid (see e.g. Paragraph 0133).
Krogh teaches a method of operating an electrolyser system (see e.g. Abstract) comprising determining a frequency of alternating-current power provided by a power grid to the electrolyser system (see e.g. Page 5, lines 7-8 and 16-17, monitoring of grid frequency of a grid from which electrolyser receives energy; “grid frequency” being a description of alternating current power supply, as evidenced by Günther, see e.g. Günther Page 2, lines 1-3) and determining an amount of power for the electrolyser system to consume based on the frequency (see e.g. Page 5, lines 7-10 and 16-17, power consumption by electrolysers determined and adjusted according to monitored frequency), thereby supporting stability of the power grid (see e.g. Page 3, lines 31-33 and Page 5, lines 8-10).
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 method of Fairlie to comprise determining a frequency of AC power provided by the grid and determining the power consumption of the hydrogen-production installation based on this frequency as taught by Krogh as an additional suitable method for improving the stability of the electrical 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 17, Fairlie teaches all the elements of the system of claim 14 as stated above. Fairlie does not teach the controller further being configured to receive an indication of a frequency of alternating-current power provided by a power grid to the one or more electrolyzers; and determine the amount of power for the one or more electrolyzers to consume further based on the frequency. Fairlie does however teach the one or more electrolyzers receiving power from a power grid (see e.g. Fig. 1, electrolysers 78 receiving electricity from grid 74; Paragraph 0084, lines 1-4), as well as the one or more electrolyzers being controlled to improve stability of an electricity grid (see e.g. Paragraph 0133).
Krogh teaches an electrolyser system (see e.g. Abstract) comprising a controller (see e.g. Fig. 1, control system 9; Page 12, lines 4-6) configured to receive an indication of a frequency of the alternating-current power provided by a power grid (see e.g. Page 5, lines 7-8 and 16-17, control system monitoring of grid frequency grid from which electrolyser receives energy; ““grid frequency” being a description of alternating current power supply, as evidenced by Günther, see e.g. Günther Page 2, lines 1-3) and determine an amount of power for electrolysers of the system to consume based on the frequency (see e.g. Page 5, lines 7-10 and 16-17, power consumption by electrolysers determined and adjusted by control system according to monitored frequency), thereby supporting stability of the power grid (see e.g. Page 3, lines 31-33 and Page 5, lines 8-10).
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 controller of the system of Fairlie to further be configured to determine a frequency of AC power provided by the grid and determine the power consumption of the hydrogen-production installation based on this frequency as taught by Krogh as an additional suitable method for improving the stability of the electrical 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hinatsu et al. (U.S. 2010/0114395) discloses a method for distributing power to electrolyser modules, wherein power utilized by the electrolyser modules may be controlled based on an amount of power produced by a wind farm as well as a frequency of an AC grid providing power to the electrolyser modules.
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