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 August 12, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that withdrawn claim 10 is directed to an electrolysis system with similar structural features recited in claim 1. Examining such claims involves a significant overlap of features and therefore would not create undue burden, and would require searching within similar classes and sub-classes. This is not found persuasive because:
The system of Claim 10 requires a control circuit configured to control the electrolysis system where the method of Claim 1 does not require a control circuit configured to control the electrolysis system.
The system of claim 10 requires wherein the electrolysis system is configured to carry out a method. The manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP § 2114).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Accordingly, claims 10-18 (apparatus) are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention.
Drawings
The drawings were received on December 27, 2023. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1
Line 8, please amend the word “it” to the words – the AC/DC converter --.
Claim 4
Line 4, please amend the word “it” to the words – the electrolyzer --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 9 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 9
Lines 1-4, recite “wherein the electrolyzer is connected to the output capacitor of the supply circuit or unit while a terminal of the electrolyzer is in a state in which it is at least largely free
of voltage, and the electrolyzer is put into the reverse mode while in a state connected to the supply circuit or unit”.
It is unclear from the claim language what the electrolyzer is connected to.
Line 2, “the output capacitor of the supply circuit or unit” lacks antecedent basis.
Antecedent basis must be laid for each recited element in a claim, typically, by
introducing each element with the indefinite article (“a” or “an”). See Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kincaid Properties, Inc., 626 F. Supp 493, 495 (N.D. Ga. 1985), aff'd, 810 F.2d 1113 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing P. Rosenberg, 2 Patent Law Fundamentals § 14.06 (2d. Ed. 1984)). Subsequent
mention of an element is to be modified by the definite article “the”, “said” or “the said,” thereby making the latter mention(s) of the element unequivocally referable to its earlier recitation.
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.
I. Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TW 201251296 (‘296) in view of DE 102004048703 (‘703).
Regarding claim 1, TW ‘296 teaches a method for a starting of an electrolysis system1
comprising an electrolyzer (= a homogenized regenerative solid oxide fuel cell) [ρ [0007]] and a
supply circuit or unit operating as a rectifier (= the composite grid-connected power converter 20 will perform reverse rectification) [ρ [0016]], wherein the supply circuit or unit has an AC terminal connected to an AC grid (= the AC terminal is coupled to an AC load and the mains power grid) [ρ [0006]], a DC terminal connected to the electrolyzer (= the DC terminal is coupled to a battery device) [ρ [0006]], and an AC/DC converter arranged between the AC terminal and the DC terminal (= the bidirectional converter is defined as having a DC terminal and an AC terminal according to the bridge circuit) [ρ [0006]], comprising:
• by operating the electrolyzer in a reverse mode as a DC voltage source, while the AC/DC converter is in a state in which it is connected to the electrolyzer and disconnected from the AC grid (= at this time, the composite grid-connected power converter 20 is disconnected from the mains power grid 70. The composite grid-connected power converter 20 receives the
DC power from the battery device 13, converts the DC power into AC output power, and then outputs the AC output power to the AC load 80 for power supply) [ρ [0014]],
• connecting the AC/DC converter to the AC grid (= at this time, the composite grid-connected power converter 20 is connected in parallel with the mains power grid 70) [ρ [0016]],
• reversing an operation of the electrolyzer from the reverse mode to a normal mode as
a DC load, wherein, during the reversing of the operation, a power flow between the AC grid
and the electrolyzer is completely or at least largely suppressed (= the composite grid-connected power converter 20 will perform reverse rectification, receive the AC power from the mains power grid 70, convert the AC power into DC output power, and output it to the battery device 13 for charging) [ρ [0016]], and
• operating the electrolyzer in the normal mode as a DC load with electrical power
which is drawn from the AC grid by way of the supply circuit or unit and which is rectified by way of the AC/DC converter (= the composite grid-connected power converter 20 will perform
reverse rectification, receive the AC power from the mains power grid 70, convert the AC power into DC output power, and output it to the battery device 13 for charging) [ρ [0016]].
TW ‘296 does not explicitly teach charging an output capacitor, which is connected to a DC converter terminal of the AC/DC converter.
DE ‘703 teaches that according to a suitable further development, the converter has a DC link capacitor on the DC side to smooth the initially pulsating DC current (ρ [0011]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by TW ‘296 by charging an output capacitor, which is connected to a DC converter terminal of the AC/DC converter, by operating the electrolyzer in a reverse mode as a DC voltage source, while the AC/DC converter is in a state in which it is connected to the electrolyzer and disconnected from
the AC grid. The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because having DC link capacitor on the DC side of the converter would have smooth an initially pulsating DC current.
Regarding claim 2, modified TW ‘296 teaches the method of at least claim 1 as applied above. Modified TW ‘296 does not explicitly teach wherein the output capacitor is charged to a DC voltage whose value corresponds to at least a rectified value of an AC voltage present at the AC terminal.
DE ‘703 teaches that to further ensure that the intermediate circuit capacitor is charged as gently as possible when the AC mains is switched on, a preferred further development
includes a series resistor in front of the intermediate circuit capacitor (ρ [0012]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the output capacitor taught by modified TW ‘296 with wherein the output capacitor is charged to a DC voltage whose value corresponds to at least a rectified value of an AC voltage present at the AC terminal. The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because charging the output capacitor to the rectified AC voltage peak would have prevented unwanted AC variations, e.g., current spikes and ripples, on the DC power supply ensuring a gentle charge.
Regarding claim 3, modified TW ‘296 teaches the method of at least claims 1 and 2 as applied above. Modified TW ‘296 does not explicitly teach wherein before connecting the AC/DC converter to the AC grid, generating an AC voltage by the AC/DC converter and synchronizing the generated AC voltage with an AC voltage present at the AC terminal of the supply circuit or unit.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by modified TW ‘296 with wherein before connecting the AC/DC converter to the AC grid, generating an AC voltage by the AC/DC converter and synchronizing the generated AC voltage with an AC voltage present at the AC terminal of the supply circuit or unit. The person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because synchronizing the grid would have safely matched the converter’s internal electrical output to the main power grid and would have prevented mismatched voltages.
Regarding claims 6/4, modified TW ‘296 teaches the method of at least claims 1-3 as applied above. Modified TW ‘296 does not explicitly teach wherein for reversing the operation, disconnecting the AC/DC converter from the electrolyzer is effected, and reversing the operation of the electrolyzer from the reverse mode to the normal mode is effected while the electrolyzer is in a state in which it is disconnected from the AC/DC converter, and wherein the AC/DC converter is connected to the electrolyzer again after reversing the operation has been effected, wherein disconnecting the AC/DC converter from the electrolyzer is effected only if the AC/DC converter is connected to the AC grid.
The subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (MPEP 2111.04(II)).
Regarding claims 7/5, modified TW ‘296 teaches the method of at least claims 1-4 and 6 as applied above. Modified TW ‘296 does not explicitly teach wherein the AC/DC converter is selectively connected to the electrolyzer via a low-impedance connection and a
high-impedance connection, and wherein for reversing the operation, disconnecting the low-impedance connection of the AC/DC converter from the electrolyzer is effected, reversing the operation of the electrolyzer from the reverse mode to the normal mode is effected in a disconnected state of the low-impedance connection between the AC/DC converter and the electrolyzer, and wherein the AC/DC converter is connected to the electrolyzer with low impedance again after reversing the operation has been effected, wherein disconnecting the low-impedance connection between the AC/DC converter and the electrolyzer is effected only if the AC/DC converter is connected to the AC grid.
The subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (MPEP 2111.04(II)).
II. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TW 201251296 (‘296) in view of DE 102004048703 (‘703) as applied to claims 1-7 above, and further in view of Langbauer et al. (“Pre-Charging of a DC-Link Capacitor from a High Voltage Battery,” IEEE 21st Workshop on Control and Modeling for Power Electronics (COMPEL) [2020 Nov 9], pp. 1-6).
Regarding claim 8, TW ‘296 and DE ‘703 teach the method of at least claims 1-7 as applied above. The references do not explicitly teach wherein a terminal of the electrolyzer having a DC voltage > 0V is connected to the output capacitor via a precharge resistor or via a DC/DC converter.
Langbauer teaches that pre-charging of DC-link capacitors limits the inrush current when connecting a power converter to the grid (page 1, abstract). A conventional pre-charge circuit comprises a resistor (page 1, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a terminal of the electrolyzer taught by modified TW ‘296 with wherein a terminal of the electrolyzer having a DC voltage > 0V is connected to the output capacitor via a precharge resistor or via a DC/DC converter because pre-charging of DC-link capacitors would have limited the inrush current when connecting a power converter to the grid where a conventional pre-charge circuit comprises a resistor as taught by Langbauer on page 1, abstract; and Fig. 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 9 define over the prior art of record because the prior art does not contain any language that teaches or suggests the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the electrolyzer is connected to the output capacitor of the supply circuit or unit while a terminal of the electrolyzer is in a state in which it is at least largely free of voltage, and the electrolyzer is put into the reverse mode while in a state connected to the supply circuit or unit. Therefore, a person skilled in the art would not have been motivated to adopt the above conditions, and a prima facie case of obviousness cannot be established.
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to EDNA WONG whose telephone number is (571) 272-1349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 AM- 3:30 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.
/EDNA WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
1 A preamble is not necessarily accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. In re Hirao 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
Prosecution Insights