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 .
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poldervaart US 7,119,460 in view of Borden US 7,453,164 and Shoup US 2005/0236278, alternatively also in view of Max US 6,673,249.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Poldervaart teaches a floating power generation system, comprising:
a marine vessel 152;
an energy conversion system (whatever generates the electricity) mounted on the marine vessel; and
a fuel storage system (whatever space the fuel occupies before being used) mounted on the marine vessel and fluidly connected to the energy conversion system (column 4, lines 24-35); and
a transportation system 162, 164 to transmit products to an off-vessel utility network (column 4, lines 36-43).
PNG
media_image1.png
198
561
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Poldervaart Figure 3
Poldervaart does not teach that the energy conversion system comprises a hydrogen fuel cell, or that the fuel storage system is configured to supply hydrogen fuel to the hydrogen fuel cell of the energy conversion system. Borden discloses a floating power generation system, comprising:
a marine vessel 10;
an energy conversion system mounted on the marine vessel, the energy conversion system comprising a hydrogen fuel cell 26; and
a fuel storage system 24 mounted on the marine vessel and fluidly connected to the energy conversion system, the fuel storage system configured to supply hydrogen fuel to the hydrogen fuel cell of the energy conversion system (column 5, lines 4-12).
PNG
media_image2.png
254
454
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- Borden Figure 1
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the floating power generation system of Poldervaart with hydrogen fuel cell electricity generation as taught by Borden in order to generate electricity without producing any emissions, and/or eliminate the need for natural gas supplies.
Neither Poldervaart nor Borden teach a water processing system mounted on the marine vessel and fluidly connected to the hydrogen fuel cell of the energy conversion system, the water processing system configured to receive a water byproduct from the energy conversion system. Shoup teaches a hydrogen fuel cell power generating system 20 comprising a water processing system 62 fluidly connected to the hydrogen fuel cell 24 of the energy conversion system, the water processing system configured to receive a water byproduct from the energy conversion system [0020]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the floating power generation system of Poldervaart and Borden with a water processing system as taught by Shoup in order to retain the generated water for future use.
Please note that (as stated above) Poldervaart teaches a transportation system 162, 164 to transmit products to an off-vessel utility network (column 4, lines 36-43). As modified, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the floating power generation system of Poldervaart and Shoup by enabling the delivery of water products off-vessel as taught by Poldervaart (in relation to produced gas & electricity) in order to circumvent storage limitations or enable delivery without needing to move the entire system.
Alternatively, Max teaches a system which produces fresh water as a by-product of liquid natural gas vaporization (column 4, lines 10-18), and then transmits the water byproduct to an off-vessel water utility network (pipeline 1896, column 16, lines 64-66). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the floating power generation system of Poldervaart, Borden and Shoup by enabling the delivery of water products off-vessel as taught by Max in order to circumvent storage limitations or enable delivery without needing to move the entire system.
Specifically regarding claim 11, the combination renders the claimed method steps obvious since such (directing the fuel, generating power, transmitting products) would be a logical manner of using the combination.
Regarding claim 2, Poldervaart, Borden and Shoup, together or also in view of Max teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Poldervaart also teaches that the marine vessel is a powership (as this is an arbitrary label) comprising a command module (whatever controls the energy conversion) communicably connected to the energy conversion system.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Poldervaart, Borden and Shoup, together or also in view of Max teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 1 and 11. Poldervaart also teaches an energy transformation system mounted on the marine vessel and connected to the energy conversion system, the energy transformation system configured to receive produced energy from the energy conversion system. In this case, whatever component relays generated energy through the transmission line 162 is considered to be the energy transformation system.
Alternatively, Borden also discloses an energy transformation system 28 mounted on the marine vessel 10 and connected to the energy conversion system, the energy transformation system configured to receive produced energy from the energy conversion system 26. In this case, whatever component relays energy produced by the fuel cell to the battery is considered to be the energy transformation system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the floating power generation system of Poldervaart with electricity storage as taught by Borden in order to enable the use of electricity on in other ship systems.
Specifically regarding claim 12, the combination renders the claimed method steps obvious since such (directing the power) would be a logical manner of using the combination.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Poldervaart, Borden and Shoup, together or also in view of Max teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 1 and 11. Shoup also teaches that the water processing system comprises a water storage tank 62, the water storage tank configured to receive and store the water byproduct from the energy conversion system [0020].
Regarding claims 6, 16 and 19, Poldervaart, Borden and Shoup, together or also in view of Max teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 1 and 11. Neither Poldervaart nor Borden teach that the hydrogen fuel cell is a first hydrogen fuel cell, the energy conversion system comprises a plurality of hydrogen fuel cells, and the plurality of hydrogen fuel cells comprises the first hydrogen fuel cell. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add a plurality of fuel cells in order to increase capacity or provide redundancy, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 7, Poldervaart, Borden and Shoup, together or also in view of Max teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Borden also teaches that the hydrogen fuel cell 26 comprises a proton exchange membrane fuel cell or solid oxide fuel cell (column 4, lines 33- column 5, line 3). In an alternative interpretation, Borden teaches that the electrolyzer 18 uses a proton exchange membrane, and that the fuel cell 26 could be a dual function fuel cell which also functions in reverse as an electrolyzer (column 4, lines 33- column 5, line 3), but does not explicitly state that the fuel cell is a proton exchange membrane fuel cell. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a proton exchange membrane in the fuel cell as taught for the electrolyzer of Borden in order to use the same setup or to rely on proven technology.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Poldervaart, Borden and Shoup, together or also in view of Max teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 1 and 11. As modified, Poldervaart also teaches that the marine vessel is a first marine vessel 152, and the floating power generation system further comprises:
a second marine vessel 144 separate from the first marine vessel;
a fuel storage tank (wherever the liquid fuel is received) mounted on the second marine vessel, the fuel storage tank configured to store hydrogen in liquid form;
a regasification system comprising a regasification unit mounted on the second marine vessel and fluidly connected to the fuel storage tank, the regasification system configured to convert liquid hydrogen from the fuel storage tank into gaseous hydrogen fuel; and
a fluid pipeline 150 fluidly connected to the regasification system and the fuel storage system, the fluid pipeline to transfer gaseous hydrogen fuel from the regasification system on the second marine vessel to the fuel storage system on the first marine vessel (column 4, lines 24-35).
Regarding claim 9, Poldervaart, Borden and Shoup, together or also in view of Max teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Borden does not explicitly teach that the fluid pipeline comprises a flexible hose extending between the regasification system and the fuel storage system. The examiner is taking official notice that flexible pipelines are well-known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the fluid pipeline of Poldervaart with a flexible hose in order to make the system more damage tolerant and/or accommodate misalignment. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a flexible material for the fluid pipeline in order to make the system more damage tolerant and/or accommodate misalignment, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claims 10 and 18, Poldervaart, Borden and Shoup, together or also in view of Max teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 1 and 11. As modified, Poldervaart also teaches:
a third marine vessel 142, the third marine vessel comprising a carrier ship having a second fuel storage tank configured to store hydrogen in liquid form; and
a second fluid pipeline (whatever transfers the fuel) fluidly connected to the second fuel storage tank of the third marine vessel and the fuel storage tank of the second marine vessel, the second fluid pipeline to transfer liquid hydrogen from the second fuel storage tank to the fuel storage tank of the second marine vessel (column 4, lines 24-35).
Regarding claim 13, Poldervaart, Borden and Shoup, together or also in view of Max teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 12. Poldervaart and Borden also teach directing, with the energy transformation system, the generated amount of power over a cable system coupled to the energy transformation system. In this case, the energy has to go somewhere, and whatever conducts it can be considered a cable.
Regarding claim 20, Poldervaart, Borden and Shoup, together or also in view of Max teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Poldervaart also teaches that the marine vessel is a powership or a power barge.
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Poldervaart, Borden and Shoup, together or also in view of Max teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 1 and 11. As modified, Poldervaart also teaches a pipeline (such as 162, 164) connected to the water processing system to transmit the water byproduct to the off-vessel water utility network.
Alternatively, Max teaches a pipeline 1896 connected to the water processing system to transmit the water byproduct to the off-vessel water utility network (column 16, lines 64-66). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the floating power generation system of Poldervaart, Borden and Shoup with a pipeline for delivery of water products off-vessel as taught by Max in order to circumvent storage limitations or enable delivery without needing to move the entire system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the newly added limitations in claims 1, 11 and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, the Graham factors can be analyzed as follows.
As reiterated by the Supreme Court in KSR, the framework for the objective analysis for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 is stated in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966). Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying factual inquiries. The factual inquiries enunciated by the Court are as follows:
Determining the scope and content of the prior art:
Poldervaart, Borden and Shoup all pertain to power generation, with Poldervaart and Borden specifically teaching floating power generation systems.
Ascertaining the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art:
Poldervaart and the current application both teach floating multi-ship power generation systems, the difference being that Poldervaart uses a natural gas fuel while the current application uses hydrogen.
Borden and the current application both teach floating hydrogen power generation systems, with the difference that Borden is contained on one ship while the current application uses multiple ships.
Shoup and the current application both teach hydrogen power generation systems, with the difference that Shoup is land-based while the current application floats at sea.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art:
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand how specific power generation features taught by Borden and Shoup could apply to the power generation system of Poldervaart
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, where Poldervaart teaches the general configuration of the multi-ship floating power generation system, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that there are many fuel sources that could be used, and also understand that the particular features taught by Borden and Shoup could prove useful in such an environment.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marc Burgess whose telephone number is (571)272-9385. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:30-15:00.
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, Marc Jimenez can be reached at 517 272-4530. 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.
/MARC BURGESS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
