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 .
Claims 1-9 are pending in the application.
Examiner’s Note: The examiner has cited particular passages including column and line numbers, paragraphs as designated numerically and/or figures as designated numerically in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claims, other passages, paragraphs and figures of any and all cited prior art references may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing an eventual response, to fully consider the context of the passages, paragraphs and figures as taught by the prior art and/or cited by the examiner while including in such consideration the cited prior art references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. MPEP 2141.02 VI: “PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS."
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/23/2024 and 10/22/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6, 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1:
Step 1: The claim(s) recite(s) a processing apparatus, which is a mechanical and/or electrical device. Thus, the claim is to a machine, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One:
The limitations of “creating an operation plan,” determining or including “a demand response possible amount for each unit time,” and basing that plan on “a demand response consideration for the each unit time” recite an abstract idea in the mental-process grouping.
More particularly, these limitations encompass evaluating demand-response considerations, determining how much demand response can be provided during respective time periods, and organizing the determinations into an operating schedule. Such evaluation, judgment, and planning can be performed in the human mind or by a person using pen and paper. Mental evaluations and judgments are abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
For example, a human facility operator could review a table identifying demand-response considerations for successive time periods, determine the amount by which operation of the hydrogen-production facility could be adjusted during each period, record the amounts in a schedule, and provide that schedule to another person. Merely requiring a processor to perform these evaluations does not prevent the limitations from reciting a mental process. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
To the extent that the recited “demand response consideration” represents compensation, pricing, or another economic incentive for participation in a demand-response program, the limitations additionally recite a certain method of organizing human activity, namely a commercial or economic practice involving the planning of energy consumption in view of an economic demand-response incentive.
The additional step of “outputting data including the operation plan” constitutes the communication of the result of the abstract planning process and does not itself remove the claim from the identified abstract-idea grouping.
Accordingly, claim 1 recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claimed “processor” merely provides a generic computer component for carrying out the abstract evaluation and planning process. The processor is invoked as a tool for performing the abstract idea and is not recited as improving processor operation, data storage, computer networking, or another computer technology.
The recitation that the operation plan is “for a hydrogen production facility” merely limits the abstract planning process to a particular technological environment or field of use. Claim 1 does not require the processor to control the hydrogen-production facility, change an operating parameter of the facility, supply power to the facility, cause electrolysis, produce hydrogen, or otherwise bring about a physical change in the facility.
The second step of “outputting data including the operation plan” is no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a generic data-output function. The output occurs after the plan has been created and merely communicates the result of the abstract evaluation. It therefore constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(f)–(h); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Considering claim 1 as a whole, the claim does not:
Improve the functioning of a computer or another technology, apply the exception using a particular machine integral to performance of the exception, transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply the exception in another meaningful manner beyond using a generic processor to generate and output an operating plan.
Therefore, claim 1 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claimed processor performs only its ordinary functions of processing information and outputting data. Merely implementing an abstract planning process on a generic processor does not provide an inventive concept. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, 223–26 (2014).
Similarly, outputting data is a conventional computer function performed at a high level of generality. The claim does not recite a particular data-output architecture, specialized processor, unconventional data structure, or other technical arrangement that limits the claim to a specific technological implementation.
The ordered combination likewise amounts only to using a generic processor to create and communicate the result of an abstract operating-planning process. Each additional element performs its ordinary function, and the combination does not impose a meaningful limitation on the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claim 1 does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception and is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 6:
Step 1: Claim 6 recites a hydrogen-production system which is a mechanical. Thus, the claim is to a machine, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: For the reasons provided with respect to claim 1, the limitations performed by the information-processing apparatus recite the abstract idea of evaluating demand-response information, determining a demand-response possible amount for respective time periods, preparing an operating plan, and communicating the resulting plan.
These limitations constitute a mental process because they encompass evaluations, judgments, and planning that can be performed mentally or with pen and paper. To the extent the demand-response consideration represents compensation or another economic incentive, the limitations also concern a commercial or economic practice.
The determination is not changed by presenting the abstract process as part of a system claim. System and apparatus claims can recite the same abstract mental or economic process as corresponding method claims. See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 226–27; MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(D).
Accordingly, claim 6 recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two: The additional elements of claim 6 include the information-processing apparatus, the data-output function, and the hydrogen-production facility. These elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The information-processing apparatus merely supplies generic computer implementation for the abstract planning process, and outputting the plan merely communicates the result of that process.
Although claim 6 nominally includes a hydrogen-production facility, the claim does not require the information-processing apparatus to control or otherwise change the operation of that facility. Claim 6 does not require the operation plan to be executed by the facility or require the facility to produce hydrogen in accordance with the plan. Nor does the claim recite any communication or control connection between the information-processing apparatus and the hydrogen-production facility.
Consequently, the hydrogen-production facility merely identifies the subject matter of the plan and places the abstract planning process in a particular technological environment. Limiting an abstract idea to a particular field of use does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Unlike a claim requiring a controller to apply the generated plan to change the electrical-power consumption or hydrogen-production rate of physical equipment, claim 6 ends with outputting data containing the plan. Any later use of that plan to operate the facility is not affirmatively recited.
Therefore, claim 6, considered as a whole, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The additional elements of claim 6, individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The information-processing apparatus performs only generic information-processing and data-output functions. The hydrogen-production facility is recited at a high level of generality and is not controlled, modified, or technically improved by the claimed information-processing operations. Its presence therefore does not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract planning process.
As an ordered combination, claim 6 amounts to no more than placing a generic computer that creates and outputs an operating plan alongside the conventional facility that is the subject of that plan. The claim does not recite an unconventional interface, control arrangement, or technological interaction between the information-processing apparatus and the hydrogen-production facility.
Accordingly, claim 6 does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception and is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Examiner note: Any assertion at Step 2B that the processor, information-processing apparatus, data-output function, or hydrogen-production facility is well-understood, routine, and conventional should be supported by an express statement in the specification, an applicant admission, a qualifying publication, or properly supported official notice consistent with MPEP § 2106.05(d) and the Berkheimer memorandum.
Claims 2–5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to a judicial exception—an abstract idea—without significantly more.
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further recites using mathematical programming on an objective function to derive the demand-response possible amount for each unit time, wherein the objective function includes a term representing earnings based on the demand-response possible amount, an amount of power associated with operation of the hydrogen-production facility, and the demand-response consideration. These limitations recite mathematical relationships and calculations and therefore fall within the mathematical-concepts grouping of abstract ideas. They also concern optimizing financial earnings from participation in a demand-response program and thus recite a fundamental economic practice.
Claim 3 further requires the objective function to include a cost term based on the amount of power used by the hydrogen-production facility and requires deriving that amount of power for each unit time. These limitations merely add another mathematical and economic variable to the claimed optimization—namely, the cost of electrical power—and therefore remain part of the mathematical calculation and economic-planning abstract idea.
Claim 4 further requires a constraint defining that the demand-response possible amount falls within a controllable operating range. This limitation merely imposes a mathematical boundary on a variable in the objective function. It does not require actually controlling the hydrogen-production facility or changing an operating parameter of physical equipment.
Claim 5 further requires a constraint defining that a calculated hydrogen remaining amount falls within a predetermined range. This limitation likewise adds a mathematical relationship or boundary to the optimization. Claim 5 does not require measuring an actual hydrogen amount, controlling the hydrogen-storage facility, or causing hydrogen to be stored or released.
The recited mathematical programming, objective function, earnings and cost terms, and constraint conditions do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Rather, these limitations constitute the abstract optimization itself. The claims merely use a generic processor to perform the calculations and output the resulting operation plan. Limiting the calculations to the field of hydrogen production does not provide a meaningful technological limitation, and outputting the plan constitutes insignificant post-solution activity.
The additional elements also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The processor performs only its ordinary information-processing functions, while the objective function and constraints merely provide additional mathematical details of the abstract optimization. Considered as an ordered combination, claims 2–5 amount to no more than implementing mathematical and economic optimization on a generic computer to create and communicate a hydrogen-facility operation plan.
Accordingly, claims 2–5 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not recite an inventive concept. Claims 2–5 are therefore ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, 217–26 (2014); SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163–68 (Fed. Cir. 2018); and MPEP §§ 2106.04(a)(2), 2106.04(d), and 2106.05.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, the claims are substantially similar to claim 1 that merely directed to the method and computer program to implement the system of claim 1, and do not correct the issues set forth above. The claims are likewise not eligible.
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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Akiba et al., International Patent Application Publication No. WO 2020/121447 A1 ("Akiba"), published June 18, 2020, corresponding to U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0381120.
Regarding claim 1, Akiba teaches an information processing apparatus comprising a processor, wherein the processor executes:
"The control device 30 is configured to include, for example, a CPU (Central Processing Unit) and includes a storage 302, a communicator 304, a first estimator 306, a first planner 308, a second planner 310, an image processor 312, a controller 313, a display controller 314, and a display 316. The control device 30 executes a program stored in the storage 302, thereby implementing respective functions of the communicator 304, the first estimator 306, the first planner 308, the second planner 310, the image processor 312, the controller 313, and the display controller 314." [Akiba, para. 0046; Fig. 2]
a first step of creating an operation plan for a hydrogen production facility
"As illustrated in FIG. 3, the first planner 308 plans, for each day, the first power, the power consumption of the entire hydrogen system 10, the second power supplied from the power grid 40, and the input power of the hydrogen production device 100. In addition, the first planner 308 plans, for each day, the liquefied hydrogen amount, the shipping amount of hydrogen, and the liquefied-hydrogen tank remaining amount." [Akiba, para. 0056; Fig. 3]
"In order to generate the short-term plan 506, the calculator 310 starts calculation . . . in such a manner that the evaluation function represented by Formula (1) has an extreme value." [Akiba, para. 0098; Fig. 13]
including a demand response possible amount for each unit time based on a demand response consideration for each unit time based on a demand response consideration for the each unit time; and
"The generator 310c illustrated in FIG. 2 generates an evaluation function in which . . . a value obtained by multiplying the reduced power amount in down DR by a third coefficient [and] a value obtained by multiplying the load increase/decrease amount in up DR by a fourth coefficient . . . are added for every unit time in the first period for which a plan is generated." [Akiba, para. 0086]
"Formula (8) represents the value obtained by multiplying the reduced power amount by the third coefficient." [Akiba, para. 0092; Formula 8]
"Expression (9) is a coefficient at the time t . . . . Expression (10) represents the possible amount of down DR at the time t, that is, the reduced power amount. Further, Expression (11) is a coefficient at the time t . . . . Expression (12) represents the possible amount of up DR at the time t, that is, the load increase/decrease amount. For example, Formula (8) corresponds to income [yen] by demand response." [Akiba, para. 0093; Expressions 9-12]
Akiba expressly identifies the reduced power amount and load increase/decrease amount as the possible amounts of down DR and up DR at time t, respectively. Akiba's time-dependent third and fourth price coefficients constitute the demand response consideration for the corresponding time t because Formula (8) multiplies the possible DR amounts by those coefficients and yields demand-response income. Akiba further states that the short-term plan and its evaluation function are in 30-minute units. [Akiba, para. 0122]
a second step of outputting data including the operation plan created in the first step.
"The first planner 308 then outputs the planned information to the image processor 312. Accordingly, the image processor 312 generates, for example, image data illustrated in FIG. 3 described above." [Akiba, para. 0065]
"The second planner 310 (FIG. 2) then outputs the result of calculation by the calculator 310 to the image processor 312. Accordingly, the image processor 312 generates the image data illustrated in FIG. 14 described above, for example." [Akiba, para. 0110]
"The display controller 314 displays the images generated by the image processor 312 on the display 316." [Akiba, para. 0053]
Regarding claim 2, Akiba teaches wherein the first step executes processing using mathematical programming on an objective function to derive the demand response possible amount for each unit time:
"As a method of making the long-term plan, a method of expressing input and output of a device by a mathematical expression and optimizing the input and output by mathematical optimization or metaheuristic may be used." [Akiba, para. 0065]
"The calculator 310d illustrated in FIG. 2 performs calculation in such a manner that the evaluation function represented by Formula (1) has a minimum value, as represented by Formula (16)." [Akiba, para. 0096]
"The calculator 310d of the second planner 310 performs calculation in such a manner that the evaluation function represented by Formula (1) has an extreme value, using the termination condition supplied from the first planner 308 as constraint conditions. A short-term plan is for a period of about one to three days and the evaluation function is in units of 30 minutes. In this calculation, the calculator 310d uses a baseline, the reduced power amount, and the load increase/decrease amount calculated by the first setter 310a and the second setter 310b." [Akiba, para. 0122]
the objective function includes a term indicating an earning based on the demand response possible amount for the each unit time of an amount of power related to an operation of the hydrogen production facility and the demand response consideration for the each unit time.
"Formula (8) represents the value obtained by multiplying the reduced power amount by the third coefficient." [Akiba, para. 0092; Formula 8]
"Expression (9) is a coefficient at the time t . . . . Expression (10) represents the possible amount of down DR at the time t, that is, the reduced power amount. Further, Expression (11) is a coefficient at the time t . . . . Expression (12) represents the possible amount of up DR at the time t, that is, the load increase/decrease amount. For example, Formula (8) corresponds to income [yen] by demand response." [Akiba, para. 0093]
Thus, Akiba's objective/evaluation function expressly contains, for every unit time t, an income term formed by multiplying each possible DR amount by its respective time-t price coefficient.
Regarding claim 3, Akiba teaches wherein the objective function further includes a term indicating a cost based on the amount of power related to operation of the hydrogen production facility for each unit time, and
"Formula (2) represents the value obtained by multiplying the power amount of the second power by the first coefficient when the unit time is 30 minutes, where t represents a unit time and T represents the first period." [Akiba, para. 0088; Formula 2]
"Expression (3) is a coefficient at a time t, and a value obtained by multiplying the coefficient represented by Expression (3) by 0.5 is the first coefficient. Expression (4) represents the power amount of the second power at the time t. For example, Formula (2) corresponds to expense [yen] of power purchase from the power grid 40." [Akiba, para. 0089; Expressions 3-4]
the first step further derives the amount of power related to operation of the hydrogen production facility for each unit time:
"a value/values of power corresponding to the hydrogen production amount for all or some of the unit times within the period of the short-term plan 506 is/are changed using the termination condition 504 as constraint conditions . . . . In this manner, the calculator 310d performs calculation in such a manner that the value of the evaluation function has an extreme value, using the termination condition 504 as constraint conditions." [Akiba, para. 0108; Fig. 15]
Akiba also discloses that the evaluation function is in 30-minute units and that the calculator uses the estimated renewable-power amount for each predetermined time t=30 minutes. [Akiba, para. 0122] Accordingly, Akiba derives the power amount associated with operation of the hydrogen production facility for each unit time.
Regarding claim 4, Akiba teaches a constraint condition on the objective function includes a constraint condition defining that the demand response possible amount falls within a controllable range in operation of the hydrogen production facility
"the second setter 310b calculates the reduced power amount that is a difference between the baseline and the actual power consumption amount based on the target amount of hydrogen to be generated by the hydrogen system 10 . . . ." [Akiba, para. 0074]
"the second setter 310b performs reduction by the reduced power amount corresponding to the Z slot 1102 . . . [and] calculates the hydrogen production amount when reduction by the reduction power amount is performed, based on efficiency of the hydrogen production device 100." [Akiba, para. 0081]
"the second setter 310b determines whether the target hydrogen amount 1200 . . . can be achieved while increasing the reduced power amount. The second setter 310b then sets the actual power consumption amount based on a limit value of the reduced power amount for which the target hydrogen amount 1200 . . . can be achieved." [Akiba, para. 0085]
"when calculating the extreme value of the evaluation formula (1), the calculator 310d sets the EC performance of the hydrogen production device 100 by using the baseline and the load reduction amount calculated by the first setter 310a and the second setter 310b as constraint conditions." [Akiba, para. 0114]
Thus, the possible down-DR amount is limited to the amount by which facility power can be reduced while the hydrogen-production target and electrolyzer performance constraints remain satisfied, thereby defining that the DR possible amount falls within the facility's controllable range.
Regarding claim 5, Akiba teaches a constraint condition on the objective function includes a constraint condition defining that a hydrogen remaining amount in a hydrogen storage facility determined according to the amount of power related to the operation of the hydrogen production facility falls within a predetermined range.
"The lower diagram illustrates the liquefied hydrogen amount that is the hydrogen production amount of the hydrogen production device 100, the liquefied-hydrogen tank remaining amount stored in the liquefied hydrogen tank 112, and the shipping amount of hydrogen." [Akiba, para. 0055; Fig. 3]
"the first planner 308 calculates the liquefied hydrogen amount for each day based on the liquefied-hydrogen tank remaining amount and the shipping amount . . . . Further, the first planner 308 calculates the input power of the hydrogen production device 100 for each day based on the liquefied hydrogen amount for each day . . . ." [Akiba, para. 0057]
"the calculator 310 performs calculation in such a manner that the evaluation function represented by Formula (1) has an extreme value, using necessary information among the liquefied-hydrogen tank remaining amount, the shipping amount of hydrogen, the target hydrogen remaining amount, the daily average overall plant power consumption of the entire hydrogen system 10, and the average EC input power . . . as constraint conditions . . . ." [Akiba, para. 0098]
"the first planner 308 performs planning so as to satisfy conditions such as being within the performance range of each device and being within the contracted power as constraint conditions . . . . By such processing, the first planner 308 plans . . . the target hydrogen storage amount (a lower limit) . . . ." [Akiba, para. 0065]
Akiba therefore uses the hydrogen-tank remaining amount and target hydrogen remaining amount as constraints when optimizing the plan, links hydrogen production to electrolyzer input power, and expressly identifies the target hydrogen storage amount as a lower limit. The resulting hydrogen remaining amount is consequently constrained to the predetermined storage range while being determined according to the planned facility power.
Regarding claim 6, Akiba teaches a hydrogen production system comprising:
a hydrogen production facility; and
an information processing apparatus.
"the hydrogen energy system 1 according to the present embodiment is a system that produces hydrogen, and is configured to include a hydrogen system 10, a renewable-energy power generator 20, and a control device 30." [Akiba, para. 0028; Fig. 1]
"The hydrogen system 10 includes a hydrogen production device 100, a hydrogen storage and supply device 102, and a hydrogen power generator 104." [Akiba, para. 0034; Fig. 1]
"the control device 30 is configured to include, for example, a CPU (Central Processing Unit) and includes a storage 302, a communicator 304, a first estimator 306, a first planner 308, a second planner 310, an image processor 312, a controller 313, a display controller 314, and a display 316. The control device 30 executes a program stored in the storage 302, thereby implementing respective functions of the communicator 304, the first estimator 306, the first planner 308, the second planner 310, the image processor 312, the controller 313, and the display controller 314." [Akiba, para. 0046; Fig. 2]
wherein the information processing apparatus executes:
a first step of creating an operation plan for the hydrogen production facility
"As illustrated in FIG. 3, the first planner 308 plans, for each day, the first power, the power consumption of the entire hydrogen system 10, the second power supplied from the power grid 40, and the input power of the hydrogen production device 100. In addition, the first planner 308 plans, for each day, the liquefied hydrogen amount, the shipping amount of hydrogen, and the liquefied-hydrogen tank remaining amount." [Akiba, para. 0056; Fig. 3]
"In order to generate the short-term plan 506, the calculator 310 starts calculation . . . in such a manner that the evaluation function represented by Formula (1) has an extreme value." [Akiba, para. 0098; Fig. 13]
Including a demand response possible amount for each unit time based on a demand response consideration for each unit time;
"The generator 310c illustrated in FIG. 2 generates an evaluation function in which . . . a value obtained by multiplying the reduced power amount in down DR by a third coefficient [and] a value obtained by multiplying the load increase/decrease amount in up DR by a fourth coefficient . . . are added for every unit time in the first period for which a plan is generated." [Akiba, para. 0086]
"Formula (8) represents the value obtained by multiplying the reduced power amount by the third coefficient." [Akiba, para. 0092; Formula 8]
"Expression (9) is a coefficient at the time t . . . . Expression (10) represents the possible amount of down DR at the time t, that is, the reduced power amount. Further, Expression (11) is a coefficient at the time t . . . . Expression (12) represents the possible amount of up DR at the time t, that is, the load increase/decrease amount. For example, Formula (8) corresponds to income [yen] by demand response." [Akiba, para. 0093; Expressions 9-12]
Akiba expressly identifies the reduced power amount and load increase/decrease amount as the possible amounts of down DR and up DR at time t. The time-dependent coefficients constitute demand response consideration because Formula (8) multiplies the possible DR amounts by the respective coefficients and produces demand-response income. Akiba further teaches that the short-term plan and evaluation function are in 30-minute units. [Akiba, para. 0122]
and a second step of outputting data including the operation plan created in the first step.
"The first planner 308 then outputs the planned information to the image processor 312. Accordingly, the image processor 312 generates, for example, image data illustrated in FIG. 3 described above." [Akiba, para. 0065]
"The second planner 310 (FIG. 2) then outputs the result of calculation by the calculator 310 to the image processor 312. Accordingly, the image processor 312 generates the image data illustrated in FIG. 14 described above, for example." [Akiba, para. 0110]
"The display controller 314 displays the images generated by the image processor 312 on the display 316." [Akiba, para. 0053]
Regarding claims 8 and 9, they are directed to a method of steps and computer program to implement the system as set forth in claim 1. Therefore, they are rejected on the same basis as set forth hereinabove.
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.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiba in view of Kumazawa et al., US Pub. No. 2022/0302708 (“Kumazawa”).
Regarding claim 7, Akiba teaches a power supply system associated with a power grid using power obtained from a renewable energy power generator that generates power using renewable energy, the power supply system comprising:
"The hydrogen energy system 1 . . . is configured to include a hydrogen system 10, a renewable-energy power generator 20, and a control device 30. FIG. 1 further illustrates a power grid 40 . . . ." [Akiba, para. 0028; Fig. 1]
"The renewable-energy power generator 20 includes a natural energy-derived power facility and generates the first power. This renewable-energy power generator 20 includes, for example, a photovoltaic power generator 22 using sunlight and a wind turbine generator 24 that generates power using wind." [Akiba, para. 0030]
Akiba teaches supplying renewable power to the grid because Formula (5) represents the amount of first power supplied to power grid 40, and Akiba states that Formula (5) "corresponds to income [yen] from selling power to the power grid 40." [Akiba, paras. 0090-0091; Formula 5]
a power conditioner device structured to adjust power generated by the renewable energy power generator;
"The hydrogen storage and supply device 102 is configured to include a power conditioner device 106 . . . ." [Akiba, para. 0038]
"The power conditioner device 106 is configured to include a converter, for example. The converter converts direct-current power output from the renewable-energy power generator 20 into predetermined alternating-current power." [Akiba, para. 0039]
a hydrogen production facility structured to produce hydrogen using renewable power adjusted by the power conditioner device;
"The hydrogen production device 100 is, for example, a water electrolysis device that produces hydrogen and oxygen by causing an electric current to pass through an alkaline solution. . . . This hydrogen production device 100 produces hydrogen by the first power generated by the renewable-energy power generator 20 and the second power supplied from the power grid 40 . . . ." [Akiba, para. 0035]
a hydrogen storage facility capable of storing and releasing produced by the hydrogen production facility;
"The hydrogen storage and supply device 102 stores therein the hydrogen produced by the hydrogen production device 100 and supplies liquefied hydrogen via the liquefied-hydrogen distribution network 50." [Akiba, para. 0036]
"The gaseous hydrogen tank 108 stores therein the gaseous hydrogen produced by the hydrogen production device 100. The gaseous hydrogen tank 108 is connected to the hydrogen production device 100 and the liquefier 110 via a pipe, and supplies the gaseous hydrogen to the liquefier 110." [Akiba, para. 0040]
"The liquefied hydrogen tank 112 stores therein the liquefied hydrogen supplied from the liquefier 110 and also supplies the liquefied hydrogen to the liquefied-hydrogen discharge device 114 via a pipe." [Akiba, para. 0042]
a fuel cell structured to generate power using hydrogen released from the hydrogen storage facility;
"The hydrogen power generator 104 generates power and heat using the hydrogen supplied from the hydrogen storage and supply device 102. . . . The hydrogen power generator 104 includes a fuel cell, for example." [Akiba, para. 0037]
"The decompression device 118 . . . decompresses the liquefied hydrogen supplied from the liquefied hydrogen tank 112 via the pipe, and supplies the decompressed hydrogen to the hydrogen power generator 104 via the pipe." [Akiba, para. 0045]
and control means structured to control at least an operation of the hydrogen production facility;
"The control device 30 controls the hydrogen system 10, the renewable-energy power generator, and the second power supplied from the power grid." [Akiba, para. 0031]
"The controller 313 controls each device in the hydrogen energy system 1 based on the long-term plan of the first planner 308 and the short-term plan of the first planner 308." [Akiba, para. 0052]
wherein the control means creates an operation plan for the hydrogen production facility including a demand response possible amount for each unit time based on a demand response consideration for the each unit time, and controls the hydrogen production facility based on the operation plan.
"As illustrated in FIG. 3, the first planner 308 plans, for each day, the first power, the power consumption of the entire hydrogen system 10, the second power supplied from the power grid 40, and the input power of the hydrogen production device 100. In addition, the first planner 308 plans, for each day, the liquefied hydrogen amount, the shipping amount of hydrogen, and the liquefied-hydrogen tank remaining amount." [Akiba, para. 0056; Fig. 3]
"In order to generate the short-term plan 506, the calculator 310 starts calculation . . . in such a manner that the evaluation function represented by Formula (1) has an extreme value." [Akiba, para. 0098; Fig. 13]
"The generator 310c . . . generates an evaluation function in which . . . a value obtained by multiplying the reduced power amount in down DR by a third coefficient [and] a value obtained by multiplying the load increase/decrease amount in up DR by a fourth coefficient . . . are added for every unit time in the first period for which a plan is generated." [Akiba, para. 0086]
"Expression (10) represents the possible amount of down DR at the time t, that is, the reduced power amount. . . . Expression (12) represents the possible amount of up DR at the time t, that is, the load increase/decrease amount. For example, Formula (8) corresponds to income [yen] by demand response." [Akiba, para. 0093]
"[T]he controller 313 . . . executes control based on the result of calculation by the calculator 310d." [Akiba, para. 0110]
Akiba does not expressly teach a storage battery capable of storing and discharging at least a part of renewable surplus power that is not supplied to the power grid and a hydrogen production facility structured to produce hydrogen by using at least a part of the surplus power that is not supplied to the power grid.
Kumazawa teaches a solar renewable generator connected to a power line capable of transmitting power to a distribution system, together with a storage battery, hydrogen production apparatus, hydrogen tank, and fuel-cell apparatus.
“The solar power generation apparatus 2 converts energy of sunlight into power and outputs the converted power to the power line 7… The renewable energy hydrogen system 1 includes a storage battery 101, a hydrogen production apparatus 102, a hydrogen tank 103 (first hydrogen accumulation apparatus), a fuel cell apparatus 104 (first power generation apparatus), a hydrogen supply apparatus 105, and a hydrogen tank 106 (second hydrogen accumulation apparatus).” [para. 0025; Fig. 1]
Specifically, Kumazawa teaches teach a storage battery capable of storing and discharging at least a part of renewable surplus power that is not supplied to the power grid.
“The storage battery 101 charges and discharges power in accordance with control information provided from the control apparatus 4… In a case of charging, the storage battery 101 charges surplus power. The surplus power includes power which is not consumed at the power consumer 3 and the load apparatus 9 and left among power generated at the solar power generation apparatus 2 and power received from the distribution system 8 as an example. In a case of discharging, the storage battery 101 discharges power accumulated inside the power line 7. The discharged power is consumed at the power consumer 3 (load) or the load apparatus 9 or transmitted to the distribution system 8.” [para. 0026]
Kumazawa further teaches a hydrogen production facility structured to produce hydrogen by using at least a part of the surplus power that is not supplied to the power grid. In particular, Kumazawa first determines that PV generation exceeds load consumption, then operates the hydrogen production apparatus, then charges the battery with the remaining surplus, and sells power to the grid only if the battery has reached its upper-limit threshold.
“The supply and demand balance determiner 403 determines whether or not the amount of power generated through PV power generation is equal to or greater than the amount of power consumption of the load such as the power consumer 3 and the load apparatus 9 as determination of balance of supply and demand (S41). In other words, the supply and demand balance determiner 403 determines whether the amount of power generated through PV power generation is insufficient or there is a surplus amount of power generated through PV power generation. In a case where a difference obtained by subtracting the amount of power consumption from the amount of power generated through PV power generation is less than 0 (in a case where the amount of power generated through PV power generation is insufficient), the processing proceeds to step S42, and in a case where the difference is equal to or greater than 0 (in a case where there is a surplus amount of power generated through PV power generation), the processing proceeds to step S51.” [para. 0069; Fig. 7]
“Meanwhile, in step S51, the controller 410 determines to cause the hydrogen production apparatus 102 to operate to produce hydrogen …In other words, the hydrogen production apparatus 102 produces hydrogen and accumulates the produced hydrogen in the hydrogen tank 106.” [para. 0074]
“In a case where the remaining amount of power of the storage battery 101 is less than the upper limit threshold, the controller 410 determines to charge the storage battery 101 with surplus power (surplus power exceeding power to be used at the hydrogen production apparatus 102) of power generated through PV power generation (S53). In a case where the remaining amount of power of the storage battery 101 is equal to or greater than the upper limit threshold, the controller 410 determines to sell power (transmit surplus power to the distribution system 8) (S54).” [para. 0075]
“In this manner, in a case where there is surplus power, the controller 410 determines to produce hydrogen to be supplied to an FCV with the highest priority and determines priority in order of charging of the storage battery (S53) and power selling (S54).” [para. 0077]
Thus, Kumazawa places hydrogen production and battery charging ahead of transmission surplus PV power to the distribution system. The surplus PV power consumed by the hydrogen production apparatus and stored in the battery in therefore power that is not supplied to the grid.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Akiba’s renewable energy hydrogen power supply system with the feature discussed above of Kumazawa so that is controller allocates the renewable power adjusted by power conditioner device 106. Akiba and Kumazawa are analogous references directed to computer controller renewable energy hydrogen systems connected to a power grid, and both allocate renewable power among hydrogen production and the grid. Kumazawa expressly recognizes the conventional objective of self-consuming renewable energy by combining a renewable energy hydrogen system with a storage battery, and implements that objective through the priority sequence. A persona of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate that known allocation sequence into Akiba to increase utilization of available renewable generation, retain otherwise exported or curtailed energy in electrical and hydrogen form, and make that stored energy available for later hydrogen production or grid-support operation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20210399575 to Nagino teaches another invention provides a planning apparatus for creating an operation plan for a hydrogen production system including a hydrogen generation apparatus, comprising: an acquisition portion for acquiring a demand response from a power operator; and an operation planning portion for creating the operation plan based on the demand response before a target period of the operation plan and at least one of a electricity price, a demand amount of hydrogen and an amount of stored hydrogen before the target period. Specifically, Nagino teaches the hydrogen production system 10 creates an operation plan with which the hydrogen can be produced so as to satisfy the hydrogen demand, taking the demand response from a power operator 20 into account, to accordingly operate the hydrogen generation apparatus 110 following the operation plan.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT HUY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7210. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamini S Shah can be reached at 571-272-2279. 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.
VINCENT H TRAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2115
/VINCENT H TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights