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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-3, are rejected as unpatentable under 35 USC 102 being anticipated by Ref: US 8288888 B2 Hinatsu et al(Oct 16, 2012), hereinafter Hinatsu.
Claim 1, Hinatsu teaches, “A control device for operatively connecting an electrolyser to a variable power source, the control device comprising: one or more energy storage devices; ( Fig 1
PNG
media_image1.png
655
944
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig 1 Hinatsu
Item 2 reads on variable power source and item 12 reads on energy storage devices , col 9 line 11-13 “12 may include but are not limited to a utility electrical grid, a local electrical grid, dump resistive loads, or energy storage”
a controller; (Fig 1 item 11)
“a sensor configured to sense output power of the variable power source and report a sensed power to the controller;” (Fig 4 “WIND FARM OUTPUT POWER” reads on “output power of variable power source” and Fig 1 item 3 reads on “report senses power” and Fig 1 item 11 reads on “to the controller”)
PNG
media_image2.png
623
1017
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig 4 Hinatsu
“and an electrical power converter, configured to convert a first portion of the output power of the variable power source into an input power to an electrolyser stack, wherein the controller is configured to set the state of operation of the electrolyser stack and the first portion of the output power, wherein the control device is configured to control at least one operating parameter change of the electrolyser stack.”(Fig 1 item 9 reads on converter, Fig 1, item 11 output reads on “first portion of output power the variable power source” and item 10 reads “into an input power to an electrolyser stack,” and “ and the first portion of the output power, wherein the control device is configured to control at least one operating parameter change of the electrolyser stack” and Fig 1, item 10 reads on “controller is configured to set the state of operation of the electrolyser stack”, col 8, il 53-54 “electrolyser module controllers monitor and control all the functions of the electrolyser module”)
Claim 2, Hinatsu further teaches “wherein the controller is configured to change an operating parameter of the electrolyser continuously.” (Hinatsu, col 11, il 2, “error mitigation approach is continuously determine the actual power imbalance…. on the grid and feed these data to the dispatch controller so it can adjust the power settings to the electrolyser modules proportionately” reads on “operating parameter change continuously”)
Claim 3, Hinatsu further teaches, “wherein the controller is configured to change an operating parameter of the electrolyser with a rate of change below a threshold rate of change.” (Fig 5, current ramp rate reads on “rate of change” and “current set point cannot exceed” reads on “below a threshold”)
PNG
media_image3.png
653
997
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig 5 of Hinatsu
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.
Claim 4-5,9,11,12,13,14,18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinatsu and further in view of Ref: US 20150333935 Gardner et al, ( Nov 19, 2015) hereinafter Gardner.
Claim 4, Hinatsu teaches the limitations of claim 1,
Hinatsu is silent on “wherein the controller is configured to change an operating parameter of the electrolyser with a second order rate of change below a threshold second order rate of change.”
Gardner teaches “wherein the controller is configured to change an operating parameter of the electrolyser with a second order rate of change below a threshold second order rate of change.” (Gardner pg 2 [0030] “Second derivative of PD current should be constrained in order to limit the magnitude of voltage transient” and pg 3 [0036] “lines do not exceed a threshold limit”)
Hinatsu controls electrolyser current and selected ramp rate to accommodate variable power. Gardner teaches that power converter system abrupt power transition can be further constrained by second derivative of current by threshold limit.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine Hinatsu’s converter-controlled electrolyser current ramp with second derivative of current threshold and smooth the transition by applying a known method to yield predictable result. (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.)
Claim 5 , Hinatsu teaches the limitations of claim 1,
Hintasu is silent of “wherein the controller is configured to change an operating parameter of the electrolyser smoothly.”
Gardner teaches “wherein the controller is configured to change an operating parameter of the electrolyser smoothly. (Gardner, [0036] "This smoother ramp-up of current dynamically reduce dV/dt” and “does not exceed a threshold limit”)
Therefore, it would been obvious for POSITA before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine the teaching of Hinatsu with Gardner’s smoothing transition from one state to another via slew rate(dI/dt) threshold and acceleration(d^2I/d^2t) threshold and prevent non-optimal operating parameters according to known method to yield predictable results. (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.)
Claim 9 Hinatsu teaches “A device for operating an electrolyser connected to a variable power source”;(Hinatsu, Fig 1), “the device comprising a control circuit, where the control circuit is configured to apply a change to an operating parameter of the electrolyser”;(col 13, il 13, “controller 11 may be a PLC or a similar device reads on “control circuit” col 11, line 4 “dispatch controller so it can adjust the power settings to the electrolyser modules proportionately.” reads on “change to an operating parameter”), “wherein the change comprises a continuous change in the operating parameter value,”(col 11, il 1-2 “error mitigation approach is to continuously” reads on “continuous change”, “wherein the change comprises a rate of change less than a threshold rate of change.”(Hinatsu, Fig 5,
Current ramp rate and CURRENT SET POINT CANNOT EXCEED,4th box, FROM BLOCK 1 and PARAMETER/DTATABLES in FIG 5 reads threshold rate of change
PNG
media_image4.png
727
1156
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
46
344
media_image5.png
Greyscale
current ramp rate reads on “rate of change”)
Hinatsu is silent on “wherein the change comprises a second order rate of change less than a threshold second order rate of change.”
Gardner teaches “wherein the controller is configured to change an operating parameter of the electrolyser with a second order rate of change below a threshold second order rate of change.”
(Gardner pg 2 [0030] “Second derivative of PD current should be constrained in order to limit the magnitude of voltage transient” and pg 3 [0036] “lines do not exceed a threshold limit.”)
PNG
media_image6.png
146
441
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify Hinatsu’s converter-controlled electrolyser current ramp with second derivative of current threshold and smooth the transition and prevent non-optimal operating parameters using known technique to yield predictable result (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.)
Claim 11, Hinatsu teaches claim 9 and further teaches “wherein the control circuit comprises a controller or a processor and a repository connected to the control circuit, wherein the repository comprises controller or processor instructions configured to apply the change to the electrolyser.” (Hinatsu, col 8, il 29-35, “at least one dispatch controller 11 may be a PLC or similar device” reads on “controller or processor instruction to configured to apply change to the electrolyser” and a repository)
Therefore, it would been obvious for POSITA before the effective filing date of claimed invention to implement control circuit with processor with instruction configured to apply the changes to the electrolyser by applying a known method to yield predictable results(KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.)
Claim 12, Hinatsu teaches claim 9 and does not teach “wherein the control circuit comprises active components and passive components configured to apply the change to the electrolyser.”
Gardner teaches “wherein the control circuit comprises active components and passive components configured to apply the change to the electrolyser.” (Gardner Fig 4, active and passive elements 38, M1, M2,L5, Cout, [0036] and claim 1 “comprises of one or more active component”)
PNG
media_image7.png
292
585
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious for POSITA before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify Gardner teaching in Fig 4 to implement circuit to apply the change to the electrolyser by applying a known method to yield predictable results(KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.).
Claim 13 ,Hinatsu teaches claim 9 and does not teach “wherein the control circuit comprises passive components configured to apply the change to the electrolyser.”
Gardner teaches “wherein the control circuit comprises passive components configured to apply the change to the electrolyser.” (Gardner Fig 4, passive elements C3,C4,Cout, L3,L4, L5, and [0036])
PNG
media_image7.png
292
585
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would been obvious for POSITA before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify Hinatsu with Gardner teaching in Fig 4 to implement circuit to apply the change to the electrolyser by applying a known method to yield predictable results(KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.).
Claim 14 , Hinatsu teaches claim 9 and does not teach “wherein the passive components comprise an inductor or a capacitor.”
Gardner teaches “wherein the passive components comprise an inductor or a capacitor.” (Gardner Fig 4, passive elements C3,C4,Cout, L3,L4, L5, and [0036])
PNG
media_image7.png
292
585
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious for POSITA before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify Gardner teaching in Fig 4 to implement circuit consist of passive elements and apply the change to the electrolyser by applying a known method to yield predictable results(KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.).
Claim 17, Gardner teaches claim 9 and further teaches “wherein the change comprises a voltage-controlled change.”(Gardner, [0040], FIG. 4, “voltage-mode buck converter”, “V ouT is applied to the negative input of the difference amplifier 46, and a fixed reference voltage REF is applied to the positive input. The output of the difference amplifier 46 represents the deviation of V ouT from a target voltage. The slew rate limited amplifier 44 is a transconductance amplifier that feeds back its output to its negative input terminal, and a slew capacitor CsLEw determines the maximum rate of change at the output. The output supplies the control voltage to the PWM 38 to determine the duty cycle of the DC-DC converter.”
PNG
media_image8.png
518
1027
media_image8.png
Greyscale
reads on “change comprises a voltage-controlled change”)
It would have been obvious for POSITA before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the DC/DC converter control system of Hinatsu to implement Gardner voltage-mode feedback control so change operation of electrolyser is controlled response to converter output voltage relative to reference voltage. POSITA would be motivated to make this change because voltage feedback by a known technique to regulate output of DC/DC converter and controlling the rate of electrical transitions yielding predictable results. ( KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc)
Claim 18, Hinatsu teaches claim 9 and further teaches “wherein the change comprises a current-controlled change.”(Hinatsu Fig 6, and Abstract, “DC current supplied by at least one DC-DC power converter to each electrolyser is controlled to bring the DC current to the target current set point”)
PNG
media_image9.png
638
951
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Fig 6 shows operating parameter is current-controlled where electrolyser operating current controls maximum turn on or turn down current.
Therefore, it would been obvious for POSITA before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine the teaching of Hinatsu(Fig 6, Abstract) and Gardner teaching in Fig 4 to implement circuit for electrolyser to smooth transition from one state to another via slew rate(dI/dt) threshold and acceleration(d^2I/dt^2) threshold to keep operational parameter in preferred range by using a known method to yield predictable results. ( KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc)
Claim 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinatsu, Gardner and further in view of US 20160355938 A1 Juan et al (Dec 8, 2016) hereinafter Juan.
Claim 15, The combination Hinatsu and Gardner teaches claim 9 and silent on “wherein the passive component are in series between the variable power source and electrolyser”.
Juan teaches “wherein the passive components are in series between the variable power source and the electrolyser.” (Juan, pg 2. [0021] The inductor connects in series with the cells. It acts as an AC filter and as a DC driving means reads on “the passive component are in series” and electrolyser” )
Therefore, it would be obvious for POSITA before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply known method of Juan with variable power source of Hinatsu and Gardner’s control circuit to yield predictable result. (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.)
Claim 16, The combination Hinatsu and Gardner teaches claim 9, 13 and silent on “wherein the passive components are in parallel between the variable power source and the electrolyser”.
Juan teaches “wherein the passive components are in parallel between the variable power source and the electrolyser.” (Juan, pg 2. “The capacitor connects in parallel to the group of cells and in parallel to the DC source”, The value of the incorporated capacitor capacity is determined so that the Voltage variation on the capacitor, consequence of the circulating alternating current, is negligible at the operating frequency of the AC source. [0023] reads on “wherein the passive components are in parallel” and power source and electrolyser )
Therefore, it would be obvious for POSITA before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a known technique of Juan with variable power source of Hinatsu and Gardner’s control circuit to yield predictable result. (ref KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.)
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinatsu, Gardner and further in view of US 20150214826 A1 Wahby et al (Jul 30, 2015), hereinafter Wahby.
Claim 19, The combination of Hinatsu and Gardner teaches claim 9 and is silent on “wherein the change, at least in part, follows at least part of a linear function, a parabolic function, a circular function, an elliptical function, a sigmoidal function, a logistical function, a hyperbolic function, an exponential function, a spline function, a polynomial function, or a quadratic function.”
Wahby teaches “wherein the change, at least in part, follows at least part of a linear function, a parabolic function, a circular function, an elliptical function, a sigmoidal function, a logistical function, a hyperbolic function, an exponential function, a spline function, a polynomial function, or a quadratic function.” ([0020] “Rather than use a linear ramp for the peak current, an embodiment uses an exponential function to increase the target peak current.” “current each cycle is increased by
ramping the target peak current value, linearly, exponentially, or by some other appropriate function” reads on “linear and exponential function” and “Thus, using an exponential ramp for the peak current target can results in a smoother output voltage increase reads on “wherein the change, at least” )
Therefore, it would been obvious for POSITA before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine the teaching of Hinatsu and Gardner with Wahby’s known technique to improve similar device in the same way. (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc)
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinatsu, Gardner and further in view of US10044266B2 Childs et al (Aug 7, 2018), hereinafter Childs.
Claim 20, The combination of Hinatsu and Gardner teaches claim 9 and is silent on “wherein the change comprises steps, wherein the steps are determined by a digital to analog converter and an amplification circuit of a power converter, wherein the device comprises the digital to analog converter, the amplification circuit, and the power converter.”
Childs teaches “wherein the change comprises steps, wherein the steps are determined by a digital to analog converter and an amplification circuit of a power converter, wherein the device comprises the digital to analog converter, the amplification circuit, and the power converter.”( [col 6 il 54-61 “This current is 55 sampled at its peak each cycle, in PEAK SAMPLE 488. This is then compared to the OTA current in COMP 487, and connected to COUNTER 486. The COUNTER then sets the value of the servo current provided by IDAC 484. The loop acts to successively increment or decrement the COUNTER 60 each cycle, until the PEAK SAMPLE matches the OTA current.” reads on “change comprises steps” and IDAC and OTA reads on “digital to analog converter” and “amplification circuits and the power converter.” )
Therefore, it would been obvious for POSITA before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine the teaching of Hinatsu and Gardner with Childs’s known methods to yield predictable result. ( KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim, 6,7, 8 are allowed and claim 10 allowable.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 6, The combination of Hinatsu, Gardner teaches monitoring electrolyser condition and determining target operating parameters and ramping electrolyser toward operating condition and modifying operation based on monitored or predicted performance but does not teach where change is applied from initial operating state, a response associated with change is evaluated and whether response complies with expected response, the initial state and change are stored in permitted change table or a notification is provided to decrease a subsequent change associated with the initial state.
This provides state dependent adaptive control mechanism rather than conventional feedback.
Claim 7, The combination of Hinatsu, Gardner, Juan, Wahby and Childs does not teach estimating intermediate states and final state based on the operating parameter change and retrieve a
table of permitted change associated with respective state and determining smoothed change between previous and subsequent state based on such permitted change and applying the smoothed changes to the electrolyser.
Claim 8, The combination of Hinatsu, Gardner, Juan, Wahby and Childs does not teach state dependent transition planning of claim 7 and subsequent response-based validation and modification of information governing subsequent permitted change information.
Claim 10 is 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 10, The combination of Hinatsu, Gardner, Juan, Wahby and Childs teaches operating parameter cannot exceed a threshold but does not teach rate of change is continuous.
Conclusions
Claim(s), 1-5,9, 11-20 are rejected and Claim(s) 6,7,8 are allowed and claim 10 is objected to but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, WO 2014114348 A1 relates to detection and handling feed gas failure and purge flow failure in electrolyser cells, stacks or system and monitoring process being combined with appropriate actions to be taken in case of such failures situations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOIN UDDIN AHMED whose telephone number is (571)270-3785. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm ET.
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, EMAN ALKAFAWI can be reached 571-272-4448. 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.
/Mon Ahmed/
Paten Examiner
Art Unit 2858
09/30/2026
/EMAN A ALKAFAWI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 9/30/2026
