DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claims 10-19 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 31 July 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Groups I and II are in the same category (page 2 of the response) and Matsunaga et al. do not disclose the feature of a parallel arrangement of multiple DC/DC converter modules (pages 3-5 of the response). These arguments are not found persuasive because Group I is directed towards a power converter system and Group II is directed towards a power distribution system. Regarding Matsunaga et al., the restriction requirement indicated that the special technical feature included independent supply of voltage to electrolysis cell. The restriction requirement did not indicate the special technical features as including parallel arrangement of DC/DC converter modules. Matsunaga et al. disclose individual control of the voltage to each of the electrolytic cell stacks [0037].
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the common DC-link current" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what current is being referred to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/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 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.
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) 1-2, 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guilbert et al. (“Improved Hydrogen-Production-Based Power Management Control of a Wind Turbine Conversion System Coupled with Multistack Proton Exchange Membrane Electrolyzers”, Energies, March 2020, 13, 1239) and/or alternatively Claim(s) 1-2, 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guilbert et al. (2020).
Regarding claim 1, Guilbert discloses a power converter system that converts voltage for a plurality of electrolysis cell stack units (abstract, page 3 “2. Wind Turbine…” Figure 1) (= a power converter system for a plurality of electrolysis cell stack units), comprising:
An array configuration including parallel architecture of DC-DC converter (abstract) (= a parallel arrangement of multiple DC/DC converter modules);
Wherein each DC-DC converter module is configured to power an electrolyzer (EL) (Figure 1) (= wherein each DC/DC converter module is configured to power a single electrolysis cell stack unit);
PNG
media_image1.png
364
756
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1.
Guilbert discloses variable current (Table 2, page 15, “Regarding the influence of voltage”, page 14 “The approach proposed in this paper…”) (= wherein each DC/DC converter module is capable of supplying said electrolysis cell stack unit with a predetermined variation of current, power and/or voltage). Guilbert also discloses reversible voltage (page 7, line 7).
The claimed “such that near-thermoneutral operation at part load is enabled…cell stack unit and/or…causing said electrolysis cell stack unit to perform in fuel cell mode” is directed towards the manner of operating the claimed system and does not further limit the claimed structure. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus (MPEP § 2114 II). Moreover, Guilbert discloses that a reversible voltage is present and therefore it would have been obvious that the electrolysis cell stack unit would perform in fuel cell mode as the voltage is reversed. Regarding the claimed “electrolysis cell stack units” and “to power a single electrolysis cell stack unit”, the Examiner takes the position that Guilbert discloses a multistack of electrolyzers and therefore reasonably reads on the claimed phrases. The phrases use the term “unit” and Guilbert discloses three separate units of the multistack of electrolyzers. The claim language “and/or” renders the phrasing as a selection of one or the other in regards to supplying the current.
Regarding claims 2, 4 and 8, the instant claim (claim 2) is directed towards the manner of operating the claimed system and does not further structurally limit the claimed system. The device of Guilbert is capable of performing the claimed simultaneously apply a current, power and/or voltage without further modification. Moreover, Guilbert discloses individual control of the electrolyzers (page 16 “8. Conclusions). The claimed “periodical” of claim 4 is directed towards the manner of operating the claimed system. Regarding claim 8, the duration of current, power and/or voltage applied is directed towards the manner of operating the claimed system and does not further structurally limit the claimed system. Moreover, Guilbert discloses ms range (Figures 15-16).
Claim(s) 3, 5-6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guilbert et al. (2020) in view of O’Donnell et al. (US 2022/0170388).
Regarding claim 3, Guilbert discloses the DC-DC converter comprising switches (page 8, Figure 7). Gilbert fails to disclose wherein each DC/DC converter module further comprises one or more electronic switches configured to reverse the current supplied to the electrolysis cell stack unit, either for a fraction of or during the entire predetermined variation of current, power and/or voltage, resulting in fuel cell operation of the electrolysis cell stack unit.
In the same or similar field of variable renewable electricity to supply power to electrolysis units comprising DC/DC converters, O’Donnell discloses a system that switches between fuel cell mode (Figure 86) and electrolysis mode (Figure 85) [0044]. O’Donnell discloses that switches are controlled by control system (15) [0153]. O’Donnell discloses the system for switching between the two modes to provide a cooling effect without shutting down and warning up the unit [0763]. O’Donnell discloses that each stack may work independently such that one stack is cooling [0333], [0733]. O’Donnell generally discloses that fuel cells use essentially the same as electrolyzers in reverse [0732].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a system comprising an electronic switch because in the same field of endeavor, O’Donnell discloses switches used for an electrolysis mode and a fuel cell mode with the same unit in order to control a cooling effect.
Regarding claims 5-6, O’Donnell discloses coordinating the reversal of the current. O’Donnell additionally discloses DC/DC power conversion including an array of galvanically isolated individual converters [0044]. The combination of Guilbert in view of O’Donnell discloses a control unit connected to each of the DC/DC converter modules given the parallel arrangement of DC/DC converters connected to separate EL units. The claimed alternating manner is directed towards the manner of operating the claimed system. Claim 6 does not appear to require any further structural element to the claimed system.
Regarding claim 9, the instant claim appears to describe a relationship between the number of units and the duration of the current. The duration of the current is directed towards the manner of operating the claimed device and does not further structurally limit the claimed device. The number of DC/DC converters is the same as the number of electrolysis units of Guilbert. O’Donnell discloses an electrolysis mode and a fuel cell mode as described above. Selecting a duration of either mode would have been an obvious engineering design choice in order to accomplish the necessary cooling effect and desired product produced as disclosed in O’Donnell.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guilbert et al. (2020), in view of O’Donnell et al. (US 2022/0170388) and in further view of Taube (US 11,853,084).
Regarding claim 7, O’Donnell discloses the use of sensors integrated with the control system such as voltage and current sensors and switching equipment [0157], [0167]. O’Donnell discloses a feedback system [0178], [0216], [0566].
Guilbert in view of O’Donnell fail to disclose a proportional-integral-derivative controller.
In the same or similar field, Taube discloses a proportional-integral-derivative controller (PID controller) which is a control loop feedback controller. Taube discloses that a PID controller calculates an error value as the difference between a measured process variable and a desired value of the process variable and operates to minimize the differences between the measured value and the set point. Taube discloses a PID controller accomplishes this by use of an algorithm that uses three separate parameters—proportional (P), integral (I) and derivative (D) values interpreted at discrete increments of time where P depends on the current error, I depends of the accumulation of past errors, and D predicts future errors. The weighted sum of these three actions is used to adjust a process—in this case the proportion of oxygen represented by FiO2 (Col. 3 lines 42-56).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a system comprising a PID controller because Taube discloses that a PID controller is used as a feedback loop to minimize the difference between a measured value and a set point. Modifying Guilbert in view of O’Donnell with the PID of Taube would minimize errors in the system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
EP 2963761
CN 112491032
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEFANIE S WITTENBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-7594. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 am -4:00 pm 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, 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.
/Stefanie S Wittenberg/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
