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 .
Applicant Response
In Applicant’s Response dated 03/09/2026, Applicant amended Claims 2, 6, 8 – 15, 17 – 19 and 21 – 25; and argued against all objections and rejections previously set forth in the Office Action dated 09/08/2025.
In light of Applicant’s amendments and remarks, the previously set forth objections are withdrawn.
In light of Applicant’s amendments and remarks, the previously set forth rejection of Claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112 is withdrawn.
Status of the Claims
Claims 2, 6, 8, 11, 12, 19 and 23 – 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, Claims 1, 11 – 14, 18, 19 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and Claims 2, 6, 8 – 10, 15, 17 and 21 – 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Examiner Note
The Examiner cites particular columns, line numbers and/or paragraph numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant(s). Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 2, 6, 8, 11, 12, 19 and 23 – 25 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.
Regarding Claims 23 – 25, Claim limitation “means for connecting …” and “wireless communication means…” in claim 23 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. After despite reviewing of the disclosure, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the functions in the claims.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Due to at least their dependency upon Claim 23, Claims 24 and 25 are also indefinite.
Regarding claims 2, 6, 8, 11, 12, 19 and 25, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the use of the phrase “preferably” indicate that the features are optional and not required by the claim language. Therefore, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Accordingly, for purposes of examination, the examiner is considering the features associated with “preferably” as optional and not required by the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 11 – 14, 18, 19 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bag et al. (WO 2016/055084) (hereinafter, Bag) (cited in IDS dated 09/15/2023).
Regarding Claim 1, Sun teaches a microgrid (See Bag’s Abstract) comprising:
a plurality of devices including at least:
one or more primary devices (Bag in page 1, lines 15 – 18, teaches Microgrids are part of the structure for so called distributed generation aiming at producing electrical power locally from many small energy sources which are called distributed generators (DGs) or micro sources. Bag in page 7 lines 9 – 11 and Fig. 1, further teaches that during islanding 12, the microgrid loses connectivity to the main grid 10 and a static transfer switch 13 broadcasts this information to the microgrid components 14-19), and
one or more auxiliary devices (Bag in page 2 lines 6 – 11, teaches that the operational performance of the microgrid, together with components such as DGs, storage, loads etc., as well as the microgrid controller, can be improved with efficient and reliable communication of this information from the measured point to the individual controllers. Bag in page 4 lines 12 – 13 and Fig. 1, further teaches that the DGs in a microgrid try to provide maximum real power to fulfil the load demands. Bag in page 9 lines 6 – 8, further teaches wireless nodes or routers 30a-30k act as access points for the microgrid components to communicate with each other and the control unit),
the plurality of devices being configured to form an at least partially connected mesh network for wireless communication of information between the devices (Bag in page 4 line 33 – page 5 line 9, teaches that the wireless communication network is configured to communicate non-time critical data using point-to-point connection between the microgrid components and the controller during normal operation and to broadcast time critical data to all the receiving nodes in the wireless mesh network during islanding. Thereby, when a wireless communication network is used, the operation of the microgrid can be improved both during normal operation and islanding and, moreover, data communication only among the required components can be achieved which improves the reliability of the microgrid),
wherein at least one of the one or more auxiliary devices is controlled in dependence on communicated information relating to the operation of at least one of the one or more primary devices (Bag in page 2 lines 5 – 7, further teaches that the various type of control actions from DGs and the microgrid controller within a microgrid require measurements and switch status. Bag in page 7 lines 9 – 11 and Fig. 1, further teaches that during islanding 12, the microgrid loses connectivity to the main grid 10 and a static transfer switch 13 broadcasts this information to the microgrid components 14 - 19).
Regarding Claim 11, Bag teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Bag further teaches:
wherein the information relating to the operation of at least one of the one or more primary devices comprises a measurement of a parameter of a process carried out by the primary device, preferably wherein the measurement is taken by a sensor of the primary device (Bag in page 2 lines 5 – 11, teaches that the various types of control actions from DGs and the microgrid controller within a microgrid require measurements and switch status. The operational performance of the microgrid, together with components such as DGs, storage, loads etc., as well as the microgrid controller, can be improved with efficient and reliable communication of this information from the measured point to the individual controllers. Bag in page 3 lines 27 – 29, further teaches that normal operation of the microgrid can also be improved in terms of regulation and reactive support with exchange of relevant measurements).
Regarding Claim 12, Bag teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Bag further teaches:
wherein the information relating to the operation of at least one of the one or more primary devices comprises: a pressure, preferably relating to the pressure of fluid output from the primary device; a temperature, preferably relating to the temperature of an electrolyte when the primary device is an electrolyser; a flowrate, preferably relating to the pressure of fluid input to or output from the primary device; an active status indicative of whether the primary device is active or inactive; a voltage, an amperage, an energy demand of the primary device, a water level, a water conductivity, errors, and a cumulative run time or cumulative inactive time of the primary device (Bag in page 4 lines 12 – 15, teaches that the DGs in a microgrid try to provide maximum real power to fulfil the load demands. The system voltage is maintained by the main grid. However, in weak grid or off grid operation, reactive support from the DGs is required in many scenarios. Bag in page 4 lines 30 – 34, further teaches that the wireless communication network supports quality of service related to non-time critical data (e.g. power, voltage, etc.) and time critical data (e.g. grid connection failure).
Regarding Claim 13, Bag teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Bag further teaches:
comprising one or more tertiary devices, wherein at least one of the one or more tertiary devices is controlled in dependence on communicated information relating to the operation of at least one of the one or more auxiliary devices (Bag in page 2 lines 5 – 7, further teaches that the various type of control actions from DGs and the microgrid controller within a microgrid require measurements and switch status. Bag in page 7 lines 9 – 11 and Fig. 1, further teaches that during islanding 12, the microgrid loses connectivity to the main grid 10 and a static transfer switch 13 broadcasts this information to the microgrid components 14 – 19).
Regarding Claim 14, Bag teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Bag further teaches:
wherein the at least partially connected mesh network is a fully connected mesh network (Bag in page 4 line 33 – page 5 line 9, teaches that the wireless communication network is configured to communicate non-time critical data using point-to-point connection between the microgrid components and the controller during normal operation and to broadcast time critical data to all the receiving nodes in the wireless mesh network during islanding. Thereby, when a wireless communication network is used, the operation of the microgrid can be improved both during normal operation and islanding and, moreover, data communication only among the required components can be achieved which improves the reliability of the microgrid).
Regarding Claim 18, Bag teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Bag further teaches:
wherein one or more of the primary and auxiliary devices is connected to a central computing/control means (Bag in page 4 line 33 – page 5 line 9, teaches that the wireless communication network is configured to communicate non-time critical data using point-to-point connection between the microgrid components and the controller during normal operation and to broadcast time critical data to all the receiving nodes in the wireless mesh network during islanding. Thereby, when a wireless communication network is used, the operation of the microgrid can be improved both during normal operation and islanding and, moreover, data communication only among the required components can be achieved which improves the reliability of the microgrid).
Regarding Claim 19, Bag teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Bag further teaches:
wherein each device comprises a communication module for communicating information between the devices, preferably wherein the primary and auxiliary devices communicate via any one or more of a wireless personal area network protocol, a wireless local-area network protocol, and Radio (Bag in page 4 line 33 – page 5 line 9, teaches that the wireless communication network is configured to communicate non-time critical data using point-to-point connection between the microgrid components and the controller during normal operation and to broadcast time critical data to all the receiving nodes in the wireless mesh network during islanding. Thereby, when a wireless communication network is used, the operation of the microgrid can be improved both during normal operation and islanding and, moreover, data communication only among the required components can be achieved which improves the reliability of the microgrid).
Regarding Claim 26, this claim merely recites a method for controlling devices in a microgrid as similarly recited in claim 1. Accordingly, Bag discloses/teaches every limitation of Claim 26, as indicated in the above rejection of Claim 1.
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 2, 6, 8 – 10, 15, 21 and 23 – 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bag in view of Joos et al. (US 2013/0317959) (hereinafter, Joos).
Regarding Claim 2, Bag teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1.
However, Bag does not specifically disclose wherein the primary device is an electrochemical device, preferably wherein the electrochemical device is an electrolyser, more preferably an AEM electrolyser, yet more preferably an anion exchange membrane (AEM) electrolyser with a dry cathode.
Joos teaches an electrolyser operates within an energy system, for example to provide grid services, energy storage or fuel, or to produce hydrogen from electricity produced from renewable resources (See Joos’ Abstract).
Joos in par 0036 – 0037, further teaches that in order to increase its potential to provide grid services, an electrolyser is preferably configured to have one or more of the ability to operate at frequently, quickly or widely variable rates or electricity consumption, to operate at a specified rate of power consumption, and to permit control by a grid operator. One or more of these attributes can also be useful when not providing services to a typical large operating authority controlled grid. For example, in order to produce hydrogen from renewable energy, an electrolyser may be connected directly, or in a microgrid, to an electrical generator.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Joos with the teachings as in Bag to have an electrolyser connected to the microgrid of Bag as disclosed in Joos. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively provide a device that can provide grid services, energy storage or fuel, or to produce hydrogen from electricity produced from renewable resources (See Joos’s Abstract).
Regarding Claim 6, Bag teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1.
However, Bag does not specifically disclose wherein the one or more auxiliary devices are balance of plant devices for the primary device, preferably wherein one auxiliary device provides a balance of plant device for multiple primary devices, and wherein each of the one or more primary devices are physically connected to at least one of the one or more auxiliary devices, preferably wherein one auxiliary device is physically connected to multiple primary devices, more preferably wherein the physical connection facilitates a transfer of fluid or electricity between the devices.
Joos teaches wherein the one or more auxiliary devices are balance of plant devices for the primary device, preferably wherein one auxiliary device provides a balance of plant device for multiple primary devices (Joos in par 0086 – 0088 and Fig. 4, teaches various elements of the balance of plant 94 of the electrolyser 12. Each stack assembly 80 has a thermostat 90 located in the stack assembly 80 or in an oxygen outlet 102. The thermostat 90 is connected to a flow control valve 100 in a water input line 104 leading to the stack assembly 80. The flow of water is provided from a set of parallel pumps 108. Hydrogen is produced from a hydrogen outlet 122 of each stack assembly and travels to a hydrogen separator 124. Separated water 126 flows to a make up water tank 128. Make up water tank 128 also receives deionized make up water 130 when required. A pump 108 pumps make up water into the water recirculation circuit when the water level in the oxygen separator 110 drops to a specified minimum), and
wherein each of the one or more primary devices are physically connected to at least one of the one or more auxiliary devices, preferably wherein one auxiliary device is physically connected to multiple primary devices, more preferably wherein the physical connection facilitates a transfer of fluid or electricity between the devices (Joos in par 0086 – 0088 and Fig. 4, teaches various elements of the balance of plant 94 of the electrolyser 12. Each stack assembly 80 has a thermostat 90 located in the stack assembly 80 or in an oxygen outlet 102. The thermostat 90 is connected to a flow control valve 100 in a water input line 104 leading to the stack assembly 80. The flow of water is provided from a set of parallel pumps 108. Excess cooling water is produced with the oxygen and travels from the oxygen outlet 102 to an oxygen separator 110. The separated water 114 returns to the pumps 108 through a cooling device, such as a radiator 116 and fan 118. A recirculation valve 120 is modulated in response to the current drawn by pumps 108 to allow water recirculation in the event that closing flow control valves 100 are stressing the pumps 108. While the speed of the pumps 108, or the number of pumps 108 operating, may also be reduced, repeatedly varying the speed of the pumps 108 causes them to wear rapidly. Hydrogen is produced from a hydrogen outlet 122 of each stack assembly and travels to a hydrogen separator 124. Separated water 126 flows to a make up water tank 128. Make up water tank 128 also receives deionized make up water 130 when required. A pump 108 pumps make up water into the water recirculation circuit when the water level in the oxygen separator 110 drops to a specified minimum).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Joos with the teachings as in Bag to have an electrolyser connected to the microgrid of Bag as disclosed in Joos. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively provide a device that can provide grid services, energy storage or fuel, or to produce hydrogen from electricity produced from renewable resources (See Joos’s Abstract).
Regarding Claim 8, Bag in view of Joos teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 6. Joos further teaches:
wherein the balance of plant device is at least one of: - a water tank for supplying water to the primary device via the physical connection; - a dryer for drying a gas stream, preferably a hydrogen gas steam, received from the primary device via the physical connection; or - a compressor for compressing a gas stream, preferably a hydrogen gas steam, received from the primary device via the physical connection (Joos in par 0053 and Fig. 2, teaches that the electrolyser 12 shown comprises a core 50, interim storage 52 and a compressor 54. Interim storage 52 and compressor 54 are preferred but optional since some electrolysers 12 can be operated to output hydrogen at a pressure high enough to be injected into the natural gas system 30. Joos in par 0088, teaches that hydrogen is produced from a hydrogen outlet 122 of each stack assembly and travels to a hydrogen separator 124. Separated water 126 flows to a make up water tank 128. Make up water tank 128 also receives deionized make up water 130 when required).
Regarding Claim 9, Bag teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1.
However, Bag does not specifically disclose wherein the control of the auxiliary device comprises: activating, deactivating, or restarting the auxiliary device in dependence on the communicated information relating to the operation of at least one of the one or more primary devices.
Joos teaches an electrolyser operates within an energy system, for example to provide grid services, energy storage or fuel, or to produce hydrogen from electricity produced from renewable resources (See Joos’ Abstract).
Joos in par 0043, further teaches that the communications link 28 may, for example, allow the grid operator 26 to convey a dispatch order and to receive a message indicating acceptance, denial or modified acceptance of a dispatch order by the controlled asset 22, 24. Joos in par 0086 and Fig. 4, further teaches that the flow of water is provided from a set of parallel pumps 108. The number of pumps 108 is one more than the number required to provide the maximum design water flow such that a pump 108 may be removed for servicing. By using the flow control valves 100 to control the temperature of individual stack assemblies 80, fluctuations in the operating speed of the pumps 108 are reduced and a single pump set can be used for multiple stack assemblies 80. Water flow through a stack assembly 80 also shuts down and restarts automatically as the stack assembly 80 transitions between off or standby and operating modes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Joos with the teachings as in Bag to have an electrolyser connected to the microgrid of Bag as disclosed in Joos. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively provide a device that can provide grid services, energy storage or fuel, or to produce hydrogen from electricity produced from renewable resources (See Joos’s Abstract).
Regarding Claim 10, Bag teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1.
However. Bag does not specifically disclose wherein the control of the auxiliary device comprises setting a process setpoint for a process carried out by the auxiliary device or controlling a power level of the auxiliary device in dependence on the communicated information relating to the operation of at least one of the one or more primary devices.
Joos teaches an electrolyser operates within an energy system, for example to provide grid services, energy storage or fuel, or to produce hydrogen from electricity produced from renewable resources (See Joos’ Abstract).
Joos in par 0079, further teaches that when operating to provide grid services, for example frequency regulation, the master controller 60 attempts to operate the DC power supplies 90 such that the electrolyser 12 consumes a specified amount of power. The amount of power may be specified by an operator considering a dispatch or market offering through communications link 28, or by direct control of the grid operator 26 through communications link 28. The controller 60 may reduce the power consumed by the DC power supplies 90 by the amount of power required by the balance of plant 94.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Joos with the teachings as in Bag to have an electrolyser connected to the microgrid of Bag as disclosed in Joos. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively provide a device that can provide grid services, energy storage or fuel, or to produce hydrogen from electricity produced from renewable resources (See Joos’s Abstract).
Regarding Claim 15, Bag teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1.
However, Bag does not specifically disclose wherein the mesh network is:
further connected to a database for the recording of the communicated information; or connected to the internet .
Joos teaches an electrolyser operates within an energy system, for example to provide grid services, energy storage or fuel, or to produce hydrogen from electricity produced from renewable resources (See Joos’ Abstract).
Joos in par 0070, further teaches that data relating to the production and use of the tagged hydrogen is collected in a computer and used to calculate an invoice for the sale of the tagged hydrogen or a record of the transfer of its other economic or regulatory attributes. Joos in par 0072, further teaches that during the time period of the dispatch order, information from a meter 84 (see FIG. 3) recording actual consumption by the electrolyser 12 is also sent to the grid operator 26.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Joos with the teachings as in Bag to have an electrolyser connected to the microgrid of Bag as disclosed in Joos. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively provide a device that can provide grid services, energy storage or fuel, or to produce hydrogen from electricity produced from renewable resources (See Joos’s Abstract).
Regarding Claim 21, Bag teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1.
However, Bag does not specifically disclose wherein a user can remotely monitor communicated information from a separate computing device.
Joos teaches an electrolyser operates within an energy system, for example to provide grid services, energy storage or fuel, or to produce hydrogen from electricity produced from renewable resources (See Joos’ Abstract).
Joos in par 0042, further teaches that the grid operator 26 may have communication to varying degrees with one or more of the generators 22 and loads 24 through one or more communications links 28. The grid operator has control, to varying degrees, over at least some of the generators 22 and loads 24. Controlled generators 22 and loads 24 may be called assets. Joos in par 0045, further teaches that the grid operator 26 may be a programmable logic controller, computer, or other programmable device rather than an agency or company employing people and using programmable devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Joos with the teachings as in Bag to have an electrolyser connected to the microgrid of Bag as disclosed in Joos. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively provide a device that can provide grid services, energy storage or fuel, or to produce hydrogen from electricity produced from renewable resources (See Joos’s Abstract).
Regarding Claim 23, Bag teaches a device (See Bag’s page 1 lines 15 – 18) comprising:
means for connecting to an at least partially connected mesh network comprising at least one other device devices (Bag in page 4 line 33 – page 5 line 9, teaches that the wireless communication network is configured to communicate non-time critical data using point-to-point connection between the microgrid components and the controller during normal operation and to broadcast time critical data to all the receiving nodes in the wireless mesh network during islanding. Thereby, when a wireless communication network is used, the operation of the microgrid can be improved both during normal operation and islanding and, moreover, data communication only among the required components can be achieved which improves the reliability of the microgrid); and
wireless communication means, the wireless communication means configured to wirelessly transmit or receive information to or from the at least one other device, said information relating to the operation of the device or the at least one other device in the network (Bag in page 2 lines 5 – 7, further teaches that the various type of control actions from DGs and the microgrid controller within a microgrid require measurements and switch status. Bag in page 7 lines 9 – 11 and Fig. 1, further teaches that during islanding 12, the microgrid loses connectivity to the main grid 10 and a static transfer switch 13 broadcasts this information to the microgrid components 14 - 19).
However, Bag does not specifically disclose that the device is an electrochemical device or balance of plant device.
Joos teaches an electrolyser operates within an energy system, for example to provide grid services, energy storage or fuel, or to produce hydrogen from electricity produced from renewable resources (See Joos’ Abstract).
Joos in par 0086 – 0088 and Fig. 4, teaches various elements of the balance of plant 94 of the electrolyser 12. Each stack assembly 80 has a thermostat 90 located in the stack assembly 80 or in an oxygen outlet 102. The thermostat 90 is connected to a flow control valve 100 in a water input line 104 leading to the stack assembly 80. The flow of water is provided from a set of parallel pumps 108. Hydrogen is produced from a hydrogen outlet 122 of each stack assembly and travels to a hydrogen separator 124. Separated water 126 flows to a make up water tank 128. Make up water tank 128 also receives deionized make up water 130 when required. A pump 108 pumps make up water into the water recirculation circuit when the water level in the oxygen separator 110 drops to a specified minimum.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Joos with the teachings as in Bag to have an electrolyser connected to the microgrid of Bag as disclosed in Joos. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively provide a device that can provide grid services, energy storage or fuel, or to produce hydrogen from electricity produced from renewable resources (See Joos’s Abstract).
Regarding Claim 24, Bag in view of Joos teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 23. Bag further teaches:
comprising a controller configured to control the device in dependence on received information relating to the operation of the at least one other device in the network (Bag in page 2 lines 5 – 7, further teaches that the various type of control actions from DGs and the microgrid controller within a microgrid require measurements and switch status. Bag in page 7 lines 9 – 11 and Fig. 1, further teaches that during islanding 12, the microgrid loses connectivity to the main grid 10 and a static transfer switch 13 broadcasts this information to the microgrid components 14 - 19).
Regarding Claim 25, Bag in view of Joos teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 23. Joos further teaches:
wherein the device is one or more of:
an electrolyser, preferably an anion exchange membrane (AEM) electrolyser, more preferably an AEM electrolyser with a dry cathode; a renewable power source; a dryer; a water tank; and a compressor (Joos teaches an electrolyser operates within an energy system, for example to provide grid services, energy storage or fuel, or to produce hydrogen from electricity produced from renewable resources (See Joos’ Abstract). Joos in par 0036 – 0037, further teaches that in order to increase its potential to provide grid services, an electrolyser is preferably configured to have one or more of the ability to operate at frequently, quickly or widely variable rates or electricity consumption, to operate at a specified rate of power consumption, and to permit control by a grid operator. One or more of these attributes can also be useful when not providing services to a typical large operating authority controlled grid. For example, in order to produce hydrogen from renewable energy, an electrolyser may be connected directly, or in a microgrid, to an electrical generator).
Claims 17 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bag in view of Seligson et al. (US 2015/0271022) (hereinafter, Seligson).
Regarding Claim 17, Bag teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Bag further teaches:
Bag in page 2 lines 6 – 11, teaches that the operational performance of the microgrid, together with components such as DGs, storage, loads etc., as well as the microgrid controller, can be improved with efficient and reliable communication of this information from the measured point to the individual controllers.
However, Bag does not specifically disclose wherein shortest path bridging is used for communication between the primary and auxiliary devices.
Seligson teaches implementations relate to configuration of networks using client device access of a remote server. A method includes requesting a management server from an end device for shortest path bridging (SPB) configuration information for the end device to communicate on an SPB network (See Seligson’s Abstract). Seligson in par 0044, further teaches that Shortest Path Bridging (SPB) (including such versions as Shortest Path Bridging-MAC, SPBM, SPBV), which is specified in the IEEE 802.1aq standard, is a computer networking technology that simplifies the creation and configuration of networks, while enabling multipath routing. One or more end devices such as end device 210 can also be coupled directly to edge server device 202, e.g., without an intermediate connection to edge configuration device 204.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Seligson with the teachings in Bag to use SPB network as the communication network in Bag as disclosed in Seligson. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an enhanced network that enable multipath routing and secure communications (See Seligson par 0044 and 0118).
Regarding Claim 22, Bag teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Bag further teaches:
Bag in page 2 lines 6 – 11, teaches that the operational performance of the microgrid, together with components such as DGs, storage, loads etc., as well as the microgrid controller, can be improved with efficient and reliable communication of this information from the measured point to the individual controllers.
However, Bag does not specifically disclose wherein each device has a unique identifier code.
Seligson in par 0116, further teaches that the identity information identifies the end device and/or one or more accounts/users associated with the end device. The identity information can include an identifier (e.g., user name or account name) and password. Identity information can include an identification of a type of the end device. For example, types can include a wireless access point, a cell phone, a tablet computer, a laptop computer, a printer, a desktop computer, or other type of device, e.g., based on a predetermined mapping of identifiers to device types. Seligson in par 0118, further teaches that the authentication module determines and verifies whether the end device is authentic, e.g., a valid device allowed to connect to the SPB network of SPB cloud 211.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Seligson with the teachings in Bag to use SPB network as the communication network in Bag as disclosed in Seligson. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an enhanced network that enable multipath routing and secure communications (See Seligson par 0044 and 0118).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(1)Applicant argues: that the applicant does not concede that the recited “means” limitations must be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) in the manner asserted. Even if any such limitation were interpreted under 112(f), the office action’s statement that the disclosure is “devoid of any structure” and fails to “clearly” link” structure to the claimed functions is not consistent with the specification. Here, the specification expressly identifies and associates structure for the “wireless communication means”. For example, it states: “preferably, each device comprises means for wirelessly transmitting and receiving data/information, such as a known wireless transceiver.” Application at page 2, lines 17 – 18. This disclosure identities well-understood communication structure, including a communication module/wireless transceiver, and expressly ties that structure to the claimed wireless communication functionality.
Likewise, the “means for connecting to an at least partially connected mesh network” is not left unsupported. The specification further describes that each device is provided with a communication module adapted to facilitate “the transmission and receipt of wirelessly transmitted data,” (e.g., Application at bottom of page 9) and describes that the devices form an at least partially connected mesh network for wireless communication. A person of skill would understand that participation in such a mesh network is implemented by the disclosed communication module/transceiver in combination with associated control (e.g., firmware/software implementing network discovery, association, and mesh communication functions). Accordingly, the specification provides corresponding structure for the recited functions, and withdrawal of the 112(f) rejection of claims 23-25 is respectfully requested.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As correctly indicated by the applicant, the specification recites “preferably, each device comprises means for wirelessly transmitting and receiving data/information, such as a known wireless transceiver.” However, the user of the term “preferably” turn this statement in an optional structure and not clearly defining the structure that link to the claimed functions.
With respect to the “wireless communication means”, the specification as indicated by the applicant recites the use of a communication module to facilitate the transmission and receipt of wirelessly transmitted data. However, this portion of the disclosure or anywhere else, describe the corresponding structure associated with the “wireless communication means” that clearly link to the claimed functions.
Accordingly, the examiner maintain the previously set forth rejection of Claims 23 – 25 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
(2) Applicant argues: with regard to claims 2, 6, 8, 11 – 12 , 19 and 25 that Applicant respectfully submits that the mere use of optional/alternative phrasing does not render a claim indefinite per se (See MPEP 2173.05(h)(II). Accordingly, the relevant question is whether the challenged “preferably” phrasing creates any ambiguity as to claim scope; Applicant submits it does not, and withdrawal of the 112(b) rejection is respectfully requested.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As indicated above with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C> 112(b) the use of the phrase “preferably” indicate that the features are optional and not required by the claim language.
Therefore, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Furthermore, the use of the phrase “preferably” introduces ambiguity regarding the scope of the invention, because it is unclear whether the options associated with the phrase “preferably” are mandatory.
Accordingly, the examiner maintain the previously set forth rejection.
(3) Applicant argues: that even assuming (arguendo) Bag generally discloses microgrid components, Claim 1 is not anticipated because Bag does not disclose the claim limitation requiring that at least one auxiliary device is controlled in dependence on communicated information relating to the operation of at least one primary device. The Office action’s citation describes general communication and dissemination of status information, but do not described controlling any device in dependence on communicated operational information of another device. Bag does not clearly disclose this claimed primary/auxiliary distinction (or any identification of which cited components are “primary” vs “auxiliary”) and does not disclose the recited control dependency of an auxiliary device based on communicated operational information of a primary device.
The Office action’s citations regarding “control actions… require measurements and switch status” and broadcast of islanding information from a static transfer switch describe general communication needs and dissemination of islanding status, but they do not disclose the relationship that at least one auxiliary device is controlled in dependence on communicated information relating to the operation of at least one primary device. Accordingly, Bag fails to disclose all elements of Claim 1.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 1 recites “wherein at least one of the one or more auxiliary devices is controlled in dependence on communicated information relating to the operation of at least one of the one or more primary devices”
Bag in page 2 lines 5 – 8, teaches that the various types of control actions from DGs and the microgrid controller within a microgrid require measurements and switch status.
Bag in page 4 lines 12 – 15, teaches that the DGs in a microgrid try to provide maximum real power to fulfil the load demands. The system voltage is maintained by the main grid. However, in weak grid or off grid operation, reactive support from the DGs is required in many scenarios.
Bag in page 4 lines 26 – 33, further teaches that the microgrid communication system further includes a controller, a switch and microgrid components. The wireless communication network supports quality of service related to non-time critical data(e.g. power, voltage, etc.) and time critical data (e.g., grid connection failure).
Accordingly, Bag clearly discloses communication in a microgrid, communicating data associated with the status of the different components of the microgrid. The system voltage is maintained by the main grid, however, in weak grid or off grid operation, the DG provide the reactive power, thus, Bag clearly discloses a plurality of devices (DG1 and DG2) that are controlled in dependence to the information associated with other devices (grid 10 and switch).
Accordingly, Bag discloses “wherein at least one of the one or more auxiliary devices is controlled in dependence on communicated information relating to the operation of at least one of the one or more primary devices” as claimed.
(4) Applicant argues: that with respect to claim 23, Bag is directed to a microgrid communication system and does not clearly disclose an electrochemical or balance of plant device having the recited ‘means for connecting’ to an at least partially connected wireless mesh network and ‘wireless communication means’ configured to exchange device-level operational information with at least one other device as claimed. Joos describes an electrolyser and associated balance-of-plant components in an energy system, but does not disclose connecting such a device to a wireless mesh network as claimed, nor does it supply the missing device-level mesh-connectivity features relied on by the Office. The Office's rationale for combination is stated at a high level (grid services/energy storage/hydrogen production) and does not explain why a person of ordinary skill would modify Bag's particular communication scheme to arrive at the claimed device. Accordingly, withdrawal of the § 103 rejection of claim 23 is respectfully requested.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 23 recites “means for connecting to an at least partially connected mesh network comprising at least one other device devices; and wireless communication means, the wireless communication means configured to wirelessly transmit or receive information to or from the at least one other device, said information relating to the operation of the device or the at least one other device in the network”
Bag in page 4 line 33 – page 5 line 9, teaches that the wireless communication network is configured to communicate non-time critical data using point-to-point connection between the microgrid components and the controller during normal operation and to broadcast time critical data to all the receiving nodes in the wireless mesh network during islanding. Thereby, when a wireless communication network is used, the operation of the microgrid can be improved both during normal operation and islanding and, moreover, data communication only among the required components can be achieved which improves the reliability of the microgrid. Bag in page 7 lines 9 – 11 and Fig. 1, further teaches that during islanding 12, the microgrid loses connectivity to the main grid 10 and a static transfer switch 13 broadcasts this information to the microgrid components 14 - 19).
Accordingly, Bag discloses a wireless communication network that is providing data between the devices within a microgrid, thus, Bag clearly discloses a means for connecting with the plurality of devices. Furthermore, Bag by providing wireless communication to transmit the critical data, teaches a wireless communication means.
Bag discloses the grid and a plurality of devices within the microgrid, however, does not specifically disclose that the device is an electrochemical device or balance of plant device.
As correctly indicated by the applicant Joos describes an electrolyser and associated balance-of-plant components in an energy system (See Joos’s Abstract and Joos par 0086 – 0088 and Fig. 4).
Accordingly, Bag discloses a plurality of devices, a means for connecting with another device withing a mesh network and a wireless communication means to wirelessly transmit and receive data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Joos with the teachings as in Bag to have an electrolyser connected to the microgrid of Bag as disclosed in Joos. Bag discloses the microgrid and a plurality of devices connected within the microgrid. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively provide a device that can provide grid services, energy storage or fuel, or to produce hydrogen from electricity produced from renewable resources (See Joos’s Abstract).
Accordingly, the examiner maintain that Bag in view of Joos teaches or suggest claim 23 as claimed.
Applicant's remaining arguments with respect to claims are substantially encompassed in the arguments above, therefore examiner responds with the same rationale.
For at least the foregoing reasons, Examiner maintains prior art rejections.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ARIEL MERCADO VARGAS whose telephone number is (571)270-1701. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ARIEL MERCADO-VARGAS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118