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 1-20 are pending and under consideration for this Office Action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-10, 13, 15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hinatsu et al (US 9303325 B2).
Claim 1: Hinatsu discloses a method of controlling a modular system for hydrogen generation (see e.g. col 4, lines 57-col 5, lines 22), comprising:
monitoring a respective hydrogen production capacity of each core of a plurality of cores (see e.g col 16, lines 1-16; Fig 3) each core including an electrolyzer in electrical communication with a power supply (see e.g. #5 and #9 on Fig 1);
assessing energy available to the plurality of cores from one or more power sources (see e.g. col 17, lines 48-49; col 9, lines 40-53);
setting a respective operating set-point of each core in the plurality of cores such that the plurality of cores collectively meet a predetermined performance goal based on the hydrogen production capacity of each core and the energy available from the one or more power sources (see e.g. col 16, lines 49-67: “The electrolyser modules have an operating current window”); and
directing the available energy from the one or more power sources to the plurality of cores according to the respective operating set-point of each core (see e.g. col 15, lines 21-44; col 7, lines 16-39).
Claim 2: Hinatsu discloses that the predetermined performance goal includes maximizing hydrogen output using all of the available energy when the available energy is less than the energy required to meet hydrogen output demand (see e.g. col 17, lines 1-11; Fig 3) from hardware downstream of the plurality of cores (see e.g. col 1, lines 22-27).
Claim 3: Hinatsu discloses that setting the respective operating set-point of each core in the plurality of cores includes adding additional cores to the plurality of cores (see e.g. col 15, lines 63-65: “determining the number of active electrolyser modules (defined as electrolyser modules not under alarm or fault condition”; col 18, lines 30-31: “(ii) time out alarm state actions are (a) if recovered, then clear alarm status”), and the predetermined performance goal includes substantially constant voltage through the plurality of cores during full power operation (see e.g. col 19, lines 36-40).
Claim 4: Hinatsu discloses that if the respective hydrogen production capacity of one of the cores in the plurality of cores is less than a rated hydrogen output for the respective core, then setting the respective operating set-point of each core in the plurality of cores includes setting an operating set-point of at least one other core in the plurality of cores above a rated hydrogen output for the at least one other core (see e.g. col 18, lines 20-46).
Claim 6: Hinatsu discloses that monitoring the respective hydrogen production capacity of each core includes detecting power available to the respective electrolyzer of each core (see e.g. col 5, lines 28-29).
Claim 7: Hinatsu discloses that assessing the power available to the plurality of cores from the one or more power sources includes determining an amount of power available from an intermittent power source (see e.g. col 5, lines 28-29).
Claim 8: Hinatsu discloses that the predetermined performance goal includes balancing total power collectively required for the operating set-points of the plurality of cores with the amount of power available from the intermittent power source (see e.g. col 17, lines 1-11).
Claim 9: Hinatsu discloses that the predetermined performance goal includes maximum power point tracking of the intermittent power source such that the total power collectively required for the operating set-points of the plurality of cores corresponds to maximum available power from the intermittent power source without requiring excess power from other sources (see e.g. col 17, lines 1-11).
Claim 10: Hinatsu discloses that assessing the power available to the plurality of cores from the one or more power sources includes determining an amount of stored in one or more batteries in electrical communication with the respective power supply of each core (the power provided by the alternative power sources needs to be known so that it can compensate for the lack of power from the primary power sources, see e.g. col 8, lines 60-63).
Claim 13: Hinatsu discloses that the one or more power sources includes a wind power source (see e.g. col 6, lines 45-46) and an electric grid (see e.g. col 8, lines 60-62).
Claim 15: Hinatsu discloses that the predetermined performance goal includes a target overall efficiency of the plurality of cores (see e.g. col 17, lines 8-11).
Claim 19: Hinatsu discloses a method of controlling a modular system for hydrogen generation (see e.g. col 4, lines 57-col 5, lines 22), comprising:
monitoring a respective hydrogen production capacity of each core of a plurality of cores (see e.g col 16, lines 1-16; Fig 3) each core including an electrolyzer in electrical communication with a power supply (see e.g. #5 and #9 on Fig 1);
assessing energy available to the plurality of cores from one or more power sources (see e.g. col 17, lines 48-49; col 9, lines 40-53);
setting a respective operating set-point of each core in the plurality of cores such that the plurality of cores collectively meet a predetermined performance goal based on the hydrogen production capacity of each core and the energy available from the one or more power sources (see e.g. col 16, lines 49-67: “The electrolyser modules have an operating current window”); and
directing the available energy from the one or more power sources to the plurality of cores according to the respective operating set-point of each core (see e.g. col 15, lines 21-44; col 7, lines 16-39),
wherein, if the respective hydrogen production capacity of one of the cores in the plurality of cores is less than a rated hydrogen output for the respective core, then setting the respective operating set-point of each core in the plurality of cores includes setting an operating set-point of at least one other core in the plurality of cores above a rated hydrogen output for the at least one other core (see e.g. col 18, lines 20-46).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinatsu in view of Gibson et al (US 20050189234 A1).
Claim 14: Hinatsu does not explicitly teach that the one or more power sources includes a photovoltaic array, wherein the photovoltaic array is in direct electrical communication with one or more of the plurality of cores. Hinatsu discloses “alternative power sources” that are in direct electrical communication with one or more of the plurality of cores (see e.g. #13 and #5 in Fig 1). The alternative power sources can include batteries (see e.g. col 8, lines 60-64: “energy storage and electricity regeneration equipment such as flywheel, batteries (including redox flow batteries)”). Gibson teaches using batteries for a hydrogen generator (see e.g. abstract) wherein the batteries are charged using a photovoltaic array (see e.g. abstract; Fig 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the alternative power source of Hinatsu to include a photovoltaic array as taught in Gibson so that the batteries can be charged using a renewable energy source that does not rely on the wind already used as the primary power source in Hinatsu.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 11, 12, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 16-18 contain allowable subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 5: The prior art does not disclose nor render obvious all of the cumulative
limitations of claim(s) 5 with special attention given to the limitation claiming “monitoring the respective hydrogen production capacity of each core includes sending a signal to the power supply of the respective core to send a current interrupt or ripple function to the electrochemical stack and receiving a current interrupt impedance measurement of the electrochemical stack in response to the current interrupt or ripple function”. The closest prior art is Hinatsu. However, Hinatsu does not disclose doing an impedance measurement of the electrochemical stack in response to the current interrupt or ripple function. While impedance measurements are known in the art, there is no teaching or motivation that would make the above limitation of doing an impedance measurement of the electrochemical stack in response to the current interrupt or ripple function obvious.
Claim 11: The prior art does not disclose nor render obvious all of the cumulative
limitations of claim(s) 11 with special attention given to the limitation claiming “the start-up protocol including: testing the plurality of cores for leaks and electrical disconnections” The closest prior art is Hinatsu, which discloses a start-up protocol including ramping up the cores (see e.g. col 16, lines 1-6). However, Hinatsu does not disclose testing the plurality of cores for leaks and electrical disconnections during the start-up protocol and there is no teaching or motivation that would make these steps obvious in view of the system of Hinatsu.
Claim 12: The prior art does not disclose nor render obvious all of the cumulative
limitations of claim(s) 12 with special attention given to the limitation claiming “the shut-down protocol including…maintaining a voltage bias on the electrolyzer of each core; and reversing polarity of the power supply of each core”. The closest prior art is Hinatsu, which discloses a shut-down protocol (see e.g. col 9, lines 54-67). However, Hinatsu does not disclose maintaining a voltage bias on the electrolyzer of each core and reversing polarity of the power supply of each core during the shut-down protocol and there is no teaching or motivation that would make these steps obvious in view of the system of Hinatsu.
Claim 16: This claim contains the same allowable subject matter as claim 5 and the reasons for indicating allowable subject matter is the same,
Claim 20: This claim contains the same allowable subject matter as claim 5 and the reasons for indicating allowable subject matter is the same,
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER W KEELING whose telephone number is (571)272-9961. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM. 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.
/ALEXANDER W KEELING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795