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 § 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.
Claims 1-15 are 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “electrical energy”, and the claim also recites “in particular a selective electrical voltage and current” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 15 recites the broad recitation “electrical energy”, and the claim also recites “in particular a selective electrical voltage and current, respectively” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the energy storage unit" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8, 9, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inukai et al (JP 2019-022381 A).
Regarding claim 1, Inukai et al teach (see figs. 1 and 2, paragraphs [0001]-[0005], [0010]-[0011], and [0017]) an electrolysis system comprising a plurality of electrically interconnected microgrids (each microgrid corresponding to the electrolysis units as claimed), each microgrid comprising an electrolysis assembly (122a, 122b) configured to generate an electrolysis product (hydrogen gas) from a supply medium (water) in a plurality of electrolysis cells in response to a direct electric current, and a photovoltaic assembly (111a, 111b) electrically coupled to the electrolysis units for providing a direct current generated from incident electromagnetic radiation (sunlight) to the electrolysis cells. The microgrids of Inukai et al were electrically interconnected for the selective transmission of electrical energy between any one of the microgrids and any another microgrid.
Regarding claim 2, Inukai et al teach (see paragraphs [0013], [0023], and [0027]-[0035]) providing a central monitoring and control system that transfers excess electricity from microgrids that have excess energy production at any given moment to microgrids that have an energy production deficit at that given moment, which is a “control parameter” as claimed.
Regarding claim 3, the control parameter of Inukai et al was based upon the total energy output of the photovoltaic assemblies (“generated electricity”).
Regarding claim 4, the central monitoring and control system of Inukai et al, described above, also acted as a power splitting unit electrically connected to each microgrid and being configured to selectively route electrical energy between any two of the electrolysis units.
Regarding claim 5, the central monitoring and control system of Inukai et al, described above, also acted as a control unit configured to control the distribution of electrical energy produced by the photovoltaic assemblies between the electrolysis assemblies depending upon both the operating state of the photovoltaic assemblies (“generated electricity”) and the operating state of the electrolysis assemblies (“electricity used for hydrogen production”).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, the microgrids of Inukai et al each included (see paragraph [0016]) an energy storage unit (battery 142) configured to store at least a part of the electrical energy generated by the photovoltaic assembly.
Regarding claims 11-14, the microgrids of Inukai et al were connected to a main power line (60, see paragraph [0038]) wherein a distribution unit (DC/AC transformer 112a or 112b) is electrically arranged on the main power line (60). The combination of each DC/AC transformer (112a and 112b) acts as a power splitter to distribute the electrical energy in a continuous manner. Inukai et al teach that the control system (160a, 160b) of each microgrid was capable of individually adjusting the amount of electrical energy provided to the respect electrolysis assembly. Note that the distribution units (112a, 112b) were electrically connected to the energy storage units (142a, 142b) via an AC/DC converter (141a, 141b).
Regarding claim 15, Inukai et al teach a method for generating an electrolysis product (hydrogen gas) comprising generating electrical energy from sunlight (electromagnetic radiation) by means of photovoltaic assemblies of a plurality of a microgrids (electrolysis units as claimed), distributing the generated electrical energy between electrolysis assemblies (122a, 122b) of the plurality of microgrids by means of an electrical interconnection (60) between the microgrids, and generating the electrolysis product (hydrogen gas) from a supply medium (water) by providing the distributed electrical energy to a plurality of electrolysis cells (122a, 122b) of the electrolysis assemblies, wherein the electrically intercoupled electrolysis units enabled the selective transmission of electrical energy between any pair of the electrolysis units.
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 6, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inukai et al (JP 2019-022381 A) in view of Bacha et al (“Photovoltaics in Microgrids: An Overview of Grid Integration and Energy Management Aspects”).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the electrolysis system of Inukai et al was designed as a plurality of interconnected microgrids isolated from a main electric power grid.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have sought to provide a connection to a regular power grid in the electrolysis system to help provide additional power to the microgrid from the main electric grid or to permit the microgrid to provide power to the local users during main grid outages if the cost of connection to the main electric grid was not large. This connection to the main grid would have been suitable for providing electrical energy from the main grid to the electrolysis cells or to provide excess electrical energy generated by the photovoltaic assemblies to the main grid.
Evidence of the known capabilities and motivations to connect a microgrid to the main electric grid are seen in Bacha et al. Bacha et al teach (see Integration in Microgrids section on page 6) that excess photovoltaic energy generation of a microgrid may be exported to a connected main grid and/or may be useful for main grid stability (frequency and voltage regulation) and/or for optimizing local energy resources.
Regarding claim 10, the electrolysis system of Inukai et al was designed as a plurality of interconnected microgrids isolated from a main electric power grid. However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have sought to provide a connection to a regular power grid in the electrolysis system to help provide additional power to the microgrid from the main electric grid or to permit the microgrid help in providing power to the main electric grid during outages if the cost of connection to the main electric grid was not large. Such a connection to the main electric grid would have permitted the energy storage unit (142) to have been charged from the main electric grid when the photovoltaic assemblies were not producing electrical energy. This concept is well documented in the prior art and known as an Uninterruptable Power Supply (UPS) or an emergency battery backup.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARRY D WILKINS III whose telephone number is (571)272-1251. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/HARRY D WILKINS III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights