METHOD FOR COORDINATED CONTROL OF ELECTRO-HYDROGEN INTEGRATED SYSTEM BASED ON BLOCKCHAIN SMART CONTRACT

DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Response to Arguments 2. Applicant's arguments received 07/23/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Detailed response is given in sections 4-7 as set forth below in this Office action. Applicant argues (REMARKS, p.2-3): PNG media_image1.png 378 661 media_image1.png Greyscale Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in detail in section 4 below, Examiner considers that both additional limitations/elements of “electro-hydrogen integrated system” and “[A method] … performed by the electro-hydrogen integrated system” are recited at a high level of generality. Under the BRI, said “electro-hydrogen integrated system” encompasses an administration/management/service organization including basic facilities, services, installations, generic computer equipment, management personals, etc. needed for the functioning of the organization for “participating in economic dispatch” (see Spec. US 20240006646 A1, [0002], [0011]). The claim does not include any specifics of the components, the component’s structure/configuration/functions, and physical interconnection therebetween of said system which is/are essential to the claimed invention’s function or operation. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “link” or “apply” the recited abstract idea in a generic water electrolysis hydrogen production technology environment. As such, the recited “an electro-hydrogen integrated system” does not integrate the identified judicial exception into a practical application. Further, said system can cover generic computer equipment such as a general-purpose computer. As such, the newly added additional limitation “[A method] … performed by the electro-hydrogen integrated system” appears to merely recite the use of a generic processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or to perform functions in its ordinary capacity, e.g., receive, store, or transmit data. However, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant further argues (REMARKS, p.3-4): PNG media_image2.png 503 651 media_image2.png Greyscale Examiner respectfully disagrees. As illustrated in detail in section 4 below, focusing on what the inventors have invented exactly, it is deemed that the “core” of the pending claims is directed to an abstract idea of coordinated control of an electro-hydrogen system. The claims, however, do not recite any qualified additional limitation/element that integrates the identified abstract idea (math + mental) into a practical application under step 2A or reflects an “inventive concept” under step 2B of the Alice framework. Applicant further argues (REMARKS, p.4): PNG media_image3.png 127 641 media_image3.png Greyscale Examiner respectfully disagrees. After carefully reviewing Applicant’s arguments in reference to the currently amended claims, Examiner asserts that the pending claims of the present application do not provide any qualified improvement under MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(a). At most, they recite an improved abstract idea, and an improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.” It is held that simply setting forth advantages (i.e. benefits) of use without providing any rational/evidence to how/why the claimed elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception could be treated as mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)), but not qualified for an improvement (i.e. enhancement) in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field. The key is to show that the claim goes beyond just performing a calculation and provides a practical application or significant improvement through the use of that calculation. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and 2106.05(a). The rest of the Applicant’s arguments are reliant upon the issues discussed above and are deemed unpersuasive as well. The rejections are therefore maintained. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 3. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 101 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. 4. Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are evaluated for patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 using the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) as follows: Step 1: Claims 1-9 are directed to a method and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter. Step 2A: This step asks if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry: in prong 1 it is determined whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then in prong 2 it is determined if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. Analyzing claim 1 under prong 1 of step 2A, the claim limitations in the abstract idea are highlighted in bold; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”: A method for coordinated control of an electro-hydrogen integrated system based on a blockchain smart contract, performed by the electro-hydrogen integrated system, comprising: constructing a clearing model for the electro-hydrogen integrated system having a fuel cell facility and a power-to-hydrogen (P2H) production facility, wherein an objective function of the clearing model is represented by: PNG media_image4.png 53 229 media_image4.png Greyscale , where PNG media_image5.png 20 24 media_image5.png Greyscale represents a set of measurement moments, Φ G   represents a set of generator units, PNG media_image6.png 20 27 media_image6.png Greyscale represents a set of hydrogen sources; PNG media_image7.png 27 25 media_image7.png Greyscale represents an electric quantity produced by a generator unit PNG media_image8.png 17 15 media_image8.png Greyscale , PNG media_image9.png 27 25 media_image9.png Greyscale represents a hydrogen amount produced by a hydrogen source PNG media_image10.png 19 13 media_image10.png Greyscale at a t moment; and PNG media_image11.png 27 24 media_image11.png Greyscale represents a cost coefficient of the generator unit PNG media_image8.png 17 15 media_image8.png Greyscale producing electricity at the PNG media_image12.png 16 9 media_image12.png Greyscale moment, PNG media_image13.png 27 23 media_image13.png Greyscale represents a cost coefficient of the hydrogen source PNG media_image10.png 19 13 media_image10.png Greyscale producing hydrogen at the PNG media_image12.png 16 9 media_image12.png Greyscale moment; introducing Lagrange multipliers into a power balance constraint and a hydrogen energy balance constraint in the clearing model; decomposing the clearing model into a first clearing model of a power subsystem and a second clearing model of a hydrogen subsystem based on an optimal condition decomposition algorithm, solving the first clearing model and the second clearing model to obtain first Lagrange multipliers and first coupling variables of the power subsystem, and second Lagrange multipliers and second coupling variables of the hydrogen subsystem; storing the first Lagrange multipliers and the first coupling variables, the second Lagrange multipliers and the second coupling variables in the blockchain smart contract, exchanging the blockchain smart contract for multiple rounds through the power subsystem and the hydrogen subsystem and adjusting strategies of the power sub-system and the hydrogen subsystem to obtain an optimal solution of the clearing model, the optimal solution being a conversion amount between the electric quantity produced and the hydrogen amount produced and a conversion amount between electric energy and hydrogen energy; and providing a target electric quantity and a target hydrogen amount based on the optimal solution by controlling the electro-hydrogen integrated system. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the bold portion in each of the limitations (a), (b), (c) and (d) encompasses mathematical concepts and/or mental steps, e.g., mathematical relationships and/or mathematical calculations, and/or concepts that may be performed in the human mind, e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper. Specifically, claim 1 discloses constructing a clearing model for the electro-hydrogen integrated system, wherein an objective function of the clearing model is represented by: PNG media_image4.png 53 229 media_image4.png Greyscale , where PNG media_image5.png 20 24 media_image5.png Greyscale represents a set of measurement moments, Φ G   represents a set of generator units, PNG media_image6.png 20 27 media_image6.png Greyscale represents a set of hydrogen sources; PNG media_image7.png 27 25 media_image7.png Greyscale represents an electric quantity produced by a generator unit PNG media_image8.png 17 15 media_image8.png Greyscale , PNG media_image9.png 27 25 media_image9.png Greyscale represents a hydrogen amount produced by a hydrogen source PNG media_image10.png 19 13 media_image10.png Greyscale at a t moment; and PNG media_image11.png 27 24 media_image11.png Greyscale represents a cost coefficient of the generator unit PNG media_image8.png 17 15 media_image8.png Greyscale producing electricity at the PNG media_image12.png 16 9 media_image12.png Greyscale moment, PNG media_image13.png 27 23 media_image13.png Greyscale represents a cost coefficient of the hydrogen source PNG media_image10.png 19 13 media_image10.png Greyscale producing hydrogen at the PNG media_image12.png 16 9 media_image12.png Greyscale moment; construed as a mathematical concept; e.g., a mathematical calculation; introducing Lagrange multipliers into a power balance constraint and a hydrogen energy balance constraint in the clearing model; construed as a mental step and/or a mathematical concept; e.g., performable with pen and paper and/or a mathematical calculation; decomposing the clearing model into a first clearing model and a second clearing model on an optimal condition decomposition algorithm, solving the first clearing model and the second clearing model to obtain first Lagrange multipliers and first coupling variables and second Lagrange multipliers and second coupling variables; construed a mathematical concept; e.g., a mathematical calculation; storing the first Lagrange multipliers and the first coupling variables, the second Lagrange multipliers and the second coupling variables in the contract; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper; exchanging the contract for multiple rounds and adjusting strategies to obtain an optimal solution of the clearing model; and; construed as a mental step; e.g., observation. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the abovementioned steps in light of the specification has a scope that encompasses a mathematical relationship between variables or numbers and/or steps that may be performed in the human mind. It is therefore concluded under prong 1 of step 2A that claim 1 recites a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, i.e., mathematical concepts and/or mental steps. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A-C) and MPEP 2106.05(f). In prong 2 of step 2A it is determined whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional limitation/element: “an electro-hydrogen integrated system” at a high level of generality (see Spec. US 20240006646 A1, [0011]). Under the BRI, it encompasses an administration/management/service organization including basic facilities, services, installations, generic computer equipment, management personals, etc. needed for the functioning of the organization for “participating in economic dispatch” (see Spec. US 20240006646 A1, [0002]). The claim does not include any specifics of the components, the component’s structure/configuration/functions, and physical interconnection therebetween of said system which is/are essential to the claimed invention’s function or operation. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “link” or “apply” the recited abstract idea in a generic water electrolysis hydrogen production technology environment. As such, the generically recited “an electro-hydrogen integrated system” does not integrate the identified judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional limitation/element: “blockchain smart contract”. Under the BRI, this additional limitation merely represents known concepts for recording transaction related data (and can be performed using generic processors). The block chain, as recited in the claims, is merely used as a generic tool for storing and retrieving data. It is used as a tool to apply or generally link the claimed invention to a particular technological environment and does not perform any significant processing activity. Accordingly, the recited limitations of “blockchain smart contract” in instant clams of the present application do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 recites the additional limitation/element: “[A method] … performed by the electro-hydrogen integrated system”. As set for above, the “electro-hydrogen integrated system” is recited at a high level of generality. Under the BRI, said system covers generic computer equipment such as a general-purpose computer. As such that newly added additional limitation “[A method] … performed by the electro-hydrogen integrated system” appears to merely recite the use of a generic processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or to perform functions in its ordinary capacity, e.g., receive, store, or transmit data. However, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Claim 1 recites the additional limitation/element: “(e) providing a target electric quantity and a target hydrogen amount based on the optimal solution by controlling the electro-hydrogen integrated system”. Under the BRI, this additional element appears to merely collect and interpolate mathematical data, which is treated as an insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. In this instance, the BRI of controlling the electro-hydrogen integrated system includes indicating by an alarm or outputting a warning/message, which is construed as insignificant post-solution activity. See MPEP 2016.05(g). Also, employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application or add significantly more. See MPEP 2106.07(a).II. Claim 1 recites the additional limitations/elements: “having a fuel cell facility and a power-to-hydrogen (P2H) production facility”, “of a power subsystem”, “of a hydrogen subsystem”, “of the power subsystem”, “of the hydrogen subsystem”, “through the power subsystem and the hydrogen subsystem”, “of the power subsystem and the hydrogen subsystem”, and “the optimal solution being a conversion amount between the electric quantity produced and the hydrogen amount produced and a conversion amount between electric energy and hydrogen energy”. Analyzing under prong 2 of step 2A indicate that these additional elements encompass merely data characterization which can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the relevant technological environment. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h). Step 2B: In step 2B it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A merely represents implementation of the abstract idea using a generic processor/computer and use of a generic processor/computer. However, use of a computer or other machine in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g). The still further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h). It is therefore concluded under step 2B that claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Dependent claims 2-9 merely recite further details of the abstract idea of claim 1 and therefore do not represent any additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claims 10-19 are rejected under 35 USC 101 for the same reason as for claims 1-9 set forth above. In particular, under the BRI, the combination of the newly added limitations of “one or more processors; and a memory for storing instructions executable by the one or more processors” in claim 10 reads on a general-purpose computer performing a generic computer function of processing data. The generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using the general-purpose computer. It is held that performing an abstract idea using a general-purpose computer system would not amount to significantly more than the abstract algorithm itself. See, for example, Whitserve LLC v. Dropbox, Inc. and MPEP 2106.05(f). EXAMINER COMMENT 5. An, Qi & Wang, Jianxiao & Mujeeb, Asad & Wu, Chen & Xue, Guiyuan & Li, Gengyin. (2022). Decentralized Coordination Strategy for Integrated Electricity-Hydrogen Market. 10.1109/CEEPE55110.2022.9783397, hereinafter An, is regarded as the closest relevant art to the invention of claims 1, 10, and 19. An discloses a clearing model for the electro-hydrogen integrated system; e.g., see pg. 683, cols. 1-2, an objective function of the clearing model with the appropriate representation of values; e.g., see eqn. 1 and pg. 683, col. 2; introducing Lagrange multipliers into a power balance/hydrogen energy balance constraint into the clearing mode; e.g., see pg. 683, col. 1 and 685, col. 2; decomposing the clearing model into a first clearing model of a power subsystem and a second clearing model of a hydrogen subsystem; e.g., see pg. 683 col. 1 and pg. 685, cols. 1-2; storing the first Lagrange multipliers and the first coupling variables, the second Lagrange multipliers and the second coupling variables in the blockchain smart contract, changing, and adjusting; e.g., see pg. 686, col. 2. An, taken alone or in combination, does not teach or fairly suggest: use of a smart contract or blockchain, and also does not disclose controlling a system, taken in combination with the other limitations of claim 1. An is disqualified as prior art because the art falls under the exception of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A). W. Gan et al., "Multi-Network Coordinated Hydrogen Supply Infrastructure Planning for the Integration of Hydrogen Vehicles and Renewable Energy," in IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 2875-2886, March-April 2022, doi: 10.1109/TIA.2021.3109558, hereinafter Gan, is regarded as applicable prior art to the invention of claim 1. Gan discloses performing market-clearing calculations with a model with is disclosed in eqns. 22-27. Gan further discloses us of a Lagrange multiplier; e.g., see pg. 5, col. 2. Gan, taken alone or in combination, do not teach or fairly suggest: the specific objective function of the clearing model, a decomposition of the clearing model, storing Lagrange multipliers and controlling an electro-hydrogen integrated system, taken in combination with the other limitations of claim 1. Conclusion 6. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. Citation of Relevant Prior Art 7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 11,575,511 B2 to Covaci et al. relates to a system for simplifying executable instructions for optimized verifiable computation. US 10,984,433 B1 to Doner relates to a price optimization system. US 2017/0285587 A1 to Fife relates to two-stage control systems and methods for economical optimization of an electrical system. Contact information 8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUQIN SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-2280. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm. 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, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. 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. /X.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2857 /MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857