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 7, 10, 11 and 13 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.
As to claim 10, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
As to claims 11 and 13, the claim recites the limitation “may be”. Rendering it unclear as to if the limitations are actually a part of the claimed invention.
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 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2021/0156039 A1 to Ballantine et al. (Ballantine).
As to claim 15, Ballantine teaches a method for allocating electrical energy within an electrolysis plant for producing oxygen and hydrogen, the electrolysis plant comprising a system control device (controller (142)); a management apparatus comprising a management control device (circuitry (126) in communication with the controller (142)), an electrolysis device (128) and a power distribution unit (106); the electrolysis plant further comprising a water supply unit (water module (112)), a hydrogen gas pressurization module (compression module (116)), a heat exchanger unit (114), the allocation method comprising the steps of detecting an amount of available power (a supply capacity that can be obtained and utilized) via a communication interface of the system control device, determining a target operating range for the management apparatus and transmitting this intended target operating range to the management apparatus, the method further comprising determining characteristic operating parameters of the electrolysis device (the condition of the electrolyzer, for example degradation) by a management control device (such as a cell current measurement device) of the management device to determine an target operating state for the electrolysis device (i.e. adjusting operating set points to offset the degradation) (Paragraphs 0004, 0004, 0013, 0015, 0018, 0019, 0029, 0022, 0029, 0044, 0045, 0047, 0049; Figure 1A).
As to claim 16, Ballantine teaches the method of claim 15. Ballantine further teaches that the management control device, via measuring for example the current and corresponding degradation of the electrolysis cell, determined an available processing capacity of the management apparatus, i.e. how much hydrogen the cell can actually produce (Paragraph 0045).
As to claims 17, 18, 19 and 20, Ballantine teaches the method of claim 15. Ballantine further teaches that the system control device provides power to the cell in view of the availability of power and in view of the device degradation detection including placing the cells in standby or shut down, thus a balancing between the available processing capacities of the management apparatus and the supply capacity, determining an adapted target operating range of the management apparatus, determining an adapted target working state on the basis of a target operating range and allocating an amount of electrical energy corresponding to a respective target working state (Paragraphs 0044-0049).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballantine.
As to claims 1, 4, 5 and 6, Ballantine teaches a method for allocating electrical energy within an electrolysis plant for producing oxygen and hydrogen, the electrolysis plant comprising a system control device (controller (142)); at least two management apparatus each comprising a management control device (circuitry (126) in communication with the controller (142)), an electrolysis device (128) and a power distribution unit (106); the electrolysis plant further comprising a water supply unit (water module (112)), a hydrogen gas pressurization module (compression module (116)), a heat exchanger unit (114), the allocation method comprising the steps of detecting an amount of available power (a supply capacity that can be obtained and utilized) via a communication interface of the system control device, determining a target operating range for each of the management apparatus and transmitting this intended target operating range to each of the management apparatus, the method further comprising determining characteristic operating parameters of each of the electrolysis devices (the condition of each electrolyzer, for example degradation) by a management control device (such as a cell current measurement device to measure input power lost, i.e. power consumption) of each of the management devices to determine a target operating state for each of the electrolysis device (i.e. adjusting operating set points to offset the degradation) (Paragraphs 0004, 0004, 0013, 0015, 0018, 0019, 0029, 0022, 0029, 0044, 0045, 0047, 0049; Figure 1A). Ballantine further teaches that the management control device, via measuring for example the current and corresponding degradation of the electrolysis cell, determines an available processing capacity of each the management apparatus, i.e. how much hydrogen the cell can actually produce (Paragraph 0045). Ballantine further teaches that the system control device provides power to the cells individually in view of the availability of power and in view of the device degradation detection including placing the cells in standby or shut down, allocating energy to each in view of the operating target of each cell, thus a balancing between the available processing capacities of each of the management apparatus and the supply capacity that can be obtained from and utilized by the electrical supply, determining an adapted target operating range of each of the management apparatus on a basis of this balancing, obtaining and utilizing the electrical energy from the electrical supply by allocating to each of the management apparatus according to the respective target operating range, determining an adapted target working state on the basis of a target operating range and allocating an amount of electrical energy corresponding to a respective target working state (Paragraphs 0044-0049).
Ballantine fails to specifically teach that each management apparatus comprises at least two electrolysis devices capable of separately being supplied electricity, detailing an embodiment with a single stack with each management apparatus. However, Ballantine specifically teaches that each module described can be provided in redundancy to reduce the likelihood of unscheduled interruption resulting from equipment failure (Paragraph 0015). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide each cell stack within the management apparatus in duplicate in order to allow for redundancy to reduce the likelihood of unscheduled interruption as taught by Ballantine.
As to claim 2, Ballantine teaches the method of claim 1. Ballantine further teaches that the electrical supply can be provided by an energy generating company (grid), an anergy generating community (local sources) and renewable energy (wind/hydroelectric/geothermal/photovoltaic) (Paragraph 0020).
As to claim 3, Ballantine teaches the method of claim 1. As discussed above, Ballantine teaches that the target operating range for the management apparatus includes a mode of operation, i.e. normal operation, and a corresponding amount of electrical power utilized (Paragraphs 0044-0049).
As to claim 7, Ballantine teaches the method of claim 1. Ballantine further teaches that the state detection device of a management apparatus includes an electrochemical impedance spectroscopy measurement, thus a sensor for each cell that is capable of being activated by means of the state detection device (Paragraph 0045).
As to claim 8, Ballantine teaches the method of claim 1. As discussed above, Ballantine teaches that the state characteristic monitored by the characteristic operating parameters include degradation, and thus efficiency and expected remaining service life.
As to claim 9, Ballantine teaches the method of claim 1. As discussed above, Ballantine teaches a control unit for implementing the power balancing, and thus a method wherein the processing capacity is determined from the working states and meta-information by the management control device.
As to claim 10, Ballantine teaches the method of claim 1. As discussed above, a current impedance measurement is utilized to determine the intended target operating state, thus a resistance function that provides a counter measure against a disadvantageous working state in terms of operating during degradation causing inefficient power loss (Paragraph 0045).
As to claim 11, Ballantine teaches the method of claim 10. Ballantine further teaches that the current impedance measurement can be utilize to block the provision of power to the electrolyzer (Paragraph 0045).
As to claim 12, Ballantine teaches the method of claim 1. As discussed above, a current impedance measurement is utilized to determine the intended target operating state and a corresponding target operating range, i.e. allocation of power, thus a resistance function that provides a counter measure against a disadvantageous working state in terms of operating during degradation causing inefficient power loss (Paragraph 0045).
As to claim 13, Ballantine teaches the method of claim 1. The method of Ballantine would be capable of being connected as claimed, i.e. “may be”, Ballentine specifically teach database programming and processors for distribution across devices (Paragraph 0062).
As to claim 14, Ballantine teaches the method of claim 1. As discussed above, Ballantine teaches that the system control operates based on current processing capacities, and furthermore Ballantine teaches that historical data such as supply capacity at different times of day can be taken into account (Paragraph 0020).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CIEL P Contreras whose telephone number is (571)270-7946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM to 4 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/CIEL P CONTRERAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights