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 . 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.
DETAILED ACTION
The following FINAL Office Action is in response to communication filed on 10/30/2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
The Examiner has noted the Applicants claiming Priority from Foreign Application JP2021-151052 filed 09/16/2021.
IDS
The information disclosure statement filed on 1/23/2026 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 6-9, 11-12 are pending in this Final Office Action.
Claims 2-5 are cancelled by Applicant.
Claim 10 was previously withdrawn from consideration as directed to a non-elected invention.
Claims 1, 6-9, 11-12 are currently under examination and have been rejected as follows.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejections under 35 USC 101, is maintained. The 101 rejection is updated in view of the amendments.
The rejection under 35 USC 103 is maintained. The 103 rejection is updated in view of the amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s remarks pertaining to 35 USC 101:
Step 2A Prong 1:
Applicant argues on page 8 of remarks 10/30/2025:
“… the claims as amended recite the creation of an operation plan for a hydrogen production facility with particular specificity, including the use of an amount of energy consumed by the hydrogen production facility, a degradation loss of the hydrogen production facility, and a hydrogen production amount in a particular manner. And as explained in paragraphs [0052] and [0053] of the application, such an operation plan avoids inefficient low-load operation as much as possible and increases time for efficient high-load operation for suppression of deterioration of the hydrogen production facility. As such, the alleged abstract idea is clearly integrated into a practical application of improved operation of a hydrogen production facility.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims as amended do not appear to provide any further additional computer-based elements beyond the original “information processing apparatus”, “processor”, “hydrogen production system”, and “information processing apparatus”. The functions of these additional computer-based elements include examples such as “creating an operation plan… based on an amount of energy consumed… and a degradation loss”, and “outputting data including the operation plan”. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer performing functions of gathering and organizing data, making calculations, communicating and presenting data, etc.) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. While an entrepreneurial solution for challenges in hydrogen production facilities is proposed in the claims, technological improvements to the computers themselves are not apparent. Therefore, these functions can be viewed as not meaningfully different than a business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general-purpose computer as tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(i). The claims are directed to an abstract idea and the judicial exception does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding Applicant’s remarks pertaining to 35 USC 103:
Applicant argues on page 9 of remarks 10/30/2025:
“… paragraph [0216] [of Wichmann] suggests, if anything, a fleet robustness index determined according to a rate of degradation, not a degradation acceleration rate determined according to a hydrogen production amount. Furthermore, paragraph [0225] states that power sharing configurations may minimize, reduce, or apportion fleet degradation, which is not an implication of an inverse relationship between a degradation rate and production. Moreover, none of the referenced portions of Wichmann says anything about a degradation acceleration rate, which an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand to be a different parameter from a degradation rate.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The contested features including a degradation acceleration rate and an inverse relationship between degradation and production are found previously in dependent claims 4 and 5 respectively, now limitations in the independent claims as amended.
First, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Examiner interprets the amended claim limitation “the second term includes a degradation acceleration rate determined according to a hydrogen production amount of the hydrogen production facility in the unit time” to be taught by Wichmann at mid-¶ [0216] (see 103 rejection section below). A further example supporting an accelerating degradation rate is found at Wichmann ¶ [0218] (Those economic ramifications may include degradation to asset performance, wear to components, expended useful part-life (i.e., the portion of the useful life of a component that is expended during a period of operation), as well as other measures of value. Such as, for example, costs related to emissions, regulatory fees, fuel consumption, as well as other variable costs that are dependent upon output level [EN: production]. As will be appreciated, because the degradation and the expenditure of useful part-life for a particular asset may accrue in a nonlinear fashion…). Additionally, Examiner interprets the function of factoring degradation rate and degradation acceleration rate terms to into the mathematical programming for control of the hydrogen production facility to be for the purpose of optimizing a cost/benefit relationship between the cost of production versus output. Further support for the concept of acceleration rate in this relationship can be found at Wichmann mid-¶ [0003] (It will be appreciated that an average variable cost curve [EN: analogous to degradation rate] may represent a cumulative cost divided by a cumulative power output for a given point, and an incremental variable cost curve [EN: analogous to degradation acceleration rate] may represent a change in cost divided by a change in power output. An incremental Variable cost curve may be obtained, for example, by taking a first derivative of an input-output curve of the powerplant that represents cost per hour versus power generated). Examiner submits one skilled in the art would be able to apply the mathematical concept of taking the derivative of a rate function to achieve an acceleration rate function in application to the degradation factor disclosed in the same reference.
Second, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Examiner interprets the amended claim limitation “the degradation acceleration rate is configured to be relatively large when the hydrogen production amount of the hydrogen production facility in a certain unit time is relatively small, and to be relatively small when the hydrogen production amount of the hydrogen production facility in a certain unit time is relatively large” to be taught by Wichmann at mid-¶ [0225] (see 103 rejection section below) because configuring power sharing configurations to minimize degradation and thus maximize power generation represents an inverse relationship, albeit not of hydrogen production, but this deficiency is addressed in combination with secondary reference Nagino (see 103 rejection section below). Examiner points to an additional of an inverse relationship between production and degradation rate at Wichmann mid-¶ [0086] (Model 60 may also include an algorithm 603 that correlates the heat rate [EN: degrading factor] of the gas turbine at different power output levels [EN: production] of the engine. As discussed, heat rate represents the efficiency of a gas turbine engine or other power generating unit, and is inversely related to efficiency. A lower heat rate indicates a higher thermodynamic performance efficiency).
Accordingly, the rejection under 35 USC 103 is maintained. The 103 rejection is updated below in view of the amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 6-9, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 6 are directed to an apparatus or article of manufacture which is a statutory category.
Claims 7-9 are directed to a system or machine which is a statutory category.
Claim 11 is directed to a method or process which is a statutory category.
Claim 12 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium or article of manufacture which is a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong One: The claims recite, describe, or set forth a judicial exception of an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Specifically, the claims recite, describe or set forth mitigating risk and mathematical relationships including: “creating an operation plan for a hydrogen production facility based on an amount of energy consumed by the hydrogen production facility and a degradation loss of the hydrogen production facility”, “using a mathematical programming on an objective function is executed to create an operation plan”, “the objective function includes a first term indicating a cost based on the amount of energy consumed by the hydrogen production facility and a second term indicating a cost based on the degradation loss of the hydrogen production facility”, “cost based on the amount of energy consumed… for each unit time”, “cost based on degradation loss… for each unit time”, “degradation acceleration rate according to a hydrogen production amount”, and “degradation acceleration rate is… relatively large when the hydrogen production amount… is relatively small, and to be relatively small when the hydrogen production amount … is relatively large”, at independent claims 1, 7, 11, 12; “an operation plan for each of a plurality of hydrogen production facilities is created” at dependent claim 6; and “instruct the hydrogen production facility to produce hydrogen based on the data including the operation plan output” at dependent claim 8. Managing efficient energy production costs and degradation loss falls within mitigating risk as it pertains to fundamental economic principles in the larger abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II), and using a mathematical objective function optimizing efficiency through balancing production with degradation falls within mathematical relationships under the larger abstract grouping of Mathematical Concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I)1. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Independent claims 1, 7, 11, 12 recite the following additional computer-based elements: “information processing apparatus”, “processor”, “hydrogen production system”, and “information processing apparatus”. The functions of these additional computer-based elements include examples such as “creating an operation plan… based on an amount of energy consumed… and a degradation loss”, and “outputting data including the operation plan”. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer performing functions of gathering and organizing data, making calculations, communicating and presenting data, etc.) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Therefore, these functions can be viewed as not meaningfully different than a business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general-purpose computer as tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(i). The claims are directed to an abstract idea and the judicial exception does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: According to MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), considering whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claims fail to recite the technological details of how the actual technological solution to the actual technological problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover an entrepreneurial and thus abstract solution to an entrepreneurial problem with no technological details on how the technological result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 8, 9 recite the additional element “instruction device”. The function of this additional element includes “instruct the hydrogen production facility to produce hydrogen based on the data”. The additional elements are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer performing functions of communicating and presenting data, etc.) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Further, dependent claim 6 merely incorporate the additional computer-based elements recited in claim 1 along with further narrowing of the abstract idea of claims 1 and its execution of the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually and in combination fail to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) and for the same reasons they also fail to provide significantly more (Step 2B). Thus, claims 1, 6-9, 11-12 are reasoned to be patent ineligible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
Examiner Note: Some rejections will contain bracketed comments preceded by an “EN” that will denote an examiner note. This will be placed to further explain a rejection.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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, 6-9, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Wichmann et al. US 20150185716 A1, hereinafter Wichmann in view of
Nagino US 20210405603 A1, hereinafter Nagino. As per,
Regarding Claims 1, 7, 11, 12: Wichmann teaches:
(Claim 1) An information processing apparatus comprising a processor, wherein the processor executes:
(Claim 7) A [..] production system comprising: a [..] production facility; and
an information processing apparatus, wherein the information processing apparatus executes:
(Claim 11) An operation plan creation method, wherein a computer executes:
(Claim 12) A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program that causes a computer to execute:
a first step of creating an operation plan for a [..] production facility based on an amount of energy consumed by the [..] production facility and a degradation loss of the [..] production facility (Wichmann end-[0086]: In the case of steam turbine system 50, digital model 62 may include an algorithm 620 that correlates the power output [EN: production] of the steam turbine system to the energy added by HRSG duct firing system 52, such as the amount of fuel consumed by duct firing. ¶ [0135]: …the first or primary model 305 models current performance parameters 308 of the power plant 302 [EN: production facility]. These current performance parameters 308 may include, but are not limited to, conditions corresponding to the level of turbine degradation, conditions corresponding to the level of turbine efficiency (e.g., the heat rate or fuel [EN: energy consumed] to power output [EN: production] ratio). ¶ [0150]: Once tuned, the method may then use the tuned model 507 to simulate proposed operation [EN: operation plan] of the powerplant.); and
a second step of outputting data including the operation plan created in the first step (Wichmann mid-[0133]: The commands generated by the controller 303 can cause actuators on the turbine to, for example, adjust valves between the fuel supply and combustors so to regulate fuel flow, splits and type of fuel. Actuators may adjust inlet guide vanes on the compressor, or activate other control setpoints on the turbine. It will be appreciated that the controller 303 may be used to generate the first and/or the second models, as described herein, in addition to facilitating control of the power plant. The controller 303 may receive operator and/or present modeled output (or any other system output)).
in the first step, processing using a mathematical programming on an objective function is executed to create an operation plan for the hydrogen production facility (Wichmann End-¶ [0148]: As will be appreciated, the optimization may be based upon one or more performance objectives 516 in which a cost function is defined. ¶ [0150]: …According to certain embodiments, a next step of the present method includes determining which simulated operation is preferable given defined performance objectives 516. In this manner, optimized modes of operating the power plant may be determined),
the objective function includes a first term indicating a cost based on the amount of energy consumed by the hydrogen production facility (Wichmann mid-¶ [0099]: It will be appreciated that accurate incremental cost data is necessary for economic dispatch to function optimally. Such incremental cost data has primary components that include fuel cost and incremental fuel consumption. Mid-[0215]: The optimization procedures may consider one or more of the following inputs: health and performance degradation; power generation schedules; grid frequency; maintenance and inspection schedules; fuel availability; fuel costs; fuel usage patterns and predictions…) and
a second term indicating a cost based on the degradation loss of the hydrogen production facility (Wichmann mid-¶ [0158]: According to alternative embodiments, simulation outputs include predicted values for hot gas path temperatures for one or more of thermal generating units of the power plant 501, which may be used to calculate a consumed component life cost. This cost reflects a predicted degradation cost associated with the hot gas path components that results from the simulated operation),
the first term indicates a cost based on the amount of energy consumed by the hydrogen
production facility for each unit time, the second term indicates a cost based on the degradation loss of the hydrogen production facility for each unit time (Wichmann ¶ [0006]: Machine degradation that occurs over time is another difficult to quantify fact, which may have a significant effect on the performance of the generating units. It will be appreciated that rate of degradation, replacement of worn components, timing of maintenance routines, and other factors impact the short term performance of the plant, and thus need to be accounted for when generating cost curves during the dispatching process as well as when assessing the long term cost-effectiveness of the plant. As an example, gas turbine life typically is impacted by operating patterns that include rates of consumption impacted by hours of operation, load, transients and transient rates of load change, and number of starts. If a gas turbine or a component thereof reaches its starts limit before its hours limit, it must be repaired or replaced, even if it has hours-based life remaining. Hours based life in a gas turbine may be prolonged by reducing firing temperature, but this reduces efficiency of the gas turbine, which increases cost of operation. Conversely, increasing the firing temperature increases efficiency, but shortens gas turbine life and increases maintenance and/or replacement costs. In a similar way, the operations cycles of a turbine such as its being turned off or ramped up rapidly do affect the life consumption rate of the apparatus as well as the fuel quantity consumed. As will be appreciated, life cycle cost of a thermal engine is dependent on many complex factors, while also representing a significant consideration in the economic efficiency of the power plant),
the second term includes a degradation acceleration rate determined according to a hydrogen production amount of the hydrogen production facility in the unit time (Wichmann mid-¶ [0216]: The fleet robustness index may include, for example, an optimization according to several factors that is applicable to a given demand or fleet output level. These factors may include: thermal and mechanical stresses; degradation or losses, including rate of degradation; cost of generation; and/or fuel consumption. ¶ [0218]: Those economic ramifications may include degradation to asset performance, wear to components, expended useful part-life (i.e., the portion of the useful life of a component that is expended during a period of operation), as well as other measures of value. Such as, for example, costs related to emissions, regulatory fees, fuel consumption, as well as other variable costs that are dependent upon output level [EN: production]. As will be appreciated, because the degradation and the expenditure of useful part-life for a particular asset may accrue in a nonlinear fashion…. Mid-¶ [0003]: It will be appreciated that an average variable cost curve [EN: analogous to degradation rate] may represent a cumulative cost divided by a cumulative power output for a given point, and an incremental variable cost curve [EN: analogous to degradation acceleration rate] may represent a change in cost divided by a change in power output. An incremental Variable cost curve may be obtained, for example, by taking a first derivative of an input-output curve of the powerplant that represents cost per hour versus power generated), and
the degradation acceleration rate is configured to be relatively large when the hydrogen production amount of the hydrogen production facility in a certain unit time is relatively small, and to be relatively small when the hydrogen production amount of the hydrogen production facility in a certain unit time is relatively large (See Wichmann inverse relationship between degradation rate and production at mid-¶ [0225]: First, for example, preferred power-sharing configurations may minimize, reduce, or advantageously apportion fleet degradation, which may significantly impact [EN: increase] generating capacity and efficiency [EN: production] over future operating periods. Second, an adviser function may be configured using the described components so to optimize or, at least, enhance maintenance intervals by which degradation losses, both recoverable and non-recoverable, are mitigated. Monitoring and predicting the rate of degradation and scheduling/conducting maintenance procedures effectively, such as compressor washes or filter cleanings, will ensure that the gas turbine operates most efficiently). Also see additional example of inverse relationship between production and degradation rate at Wichmann mid-¶ [0086] (Model 60 may also include an algorithm 603 that correlates the heat rate [EN: degrading factor] of the gas turbine at different power output levels [EN: production] of the engine. As discussed, heat rate represents the efficiency of a gas turbine engine or other power generating unit, and is inversely related to efficiency. A lower heat rate indicates a higher thermodynamic performance efficiency).
Although Wichmann teaches creating an operation plan for a production facility, Wichmann does not specifically teach creating an operation plan for a hydrogen production facility.
However, Nagino in analogous art of production facility operations teaches or suggests:
creating an operation plan for a hydrogen production facility (Nagino ¶ [0015]: FIG. 1 illustrates a configuration of hydrogen production system 10 according to the present embodiment. The hydrogen production system 10 produces hydrogen according to the operation plan generated based on the prediction result of predicting the respective demand for hydrogen. ¶ [0016]: The hydrogen production system 10 includes a utility grid 20, a power generation apparatus 30, a steam reforming apparatus 40, a hydrogen production apparatus 50, a hydrogen storage apparatus 60, a transportation means 70, a power generation source certification apparatus 80 and a planning apparatus 90).
Nagino and Wichmann are found as analogous art of production facility operations. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Wichmann’s power plant generating unit control enhancement system and method to have included Nagino’s teachings around creating an operation plan for a hydrogen production system. The benefit of these additional features would have augmented known operation planning methods for industrial production plants in application to the burgeoning hydrogen production industry. The predictability of such modifications and/or variations, would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by Wichmann in view of Nagino (see MPEP 2143 G).
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of production facility operations. In such combination each element would have merely performed the same function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements, as evidenced by Wichmann in view of Nagino above, the to- be combined elements would have fit together like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claim 6: Wichmann / Nagino teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Wichmann further teaches:
in the first step, an operation plan for each of a plurality of hydrogen production facilities is created based on an amount of energy consumed by each of the plurality of hydrogen production facilities and a degradation loss of each of the plurality of hydrogen production facilities (Wichmann mid-¶ [0218]: For example, degradation model may be developed that calculate accrued equipment degradation and losses given the values for selected performance indicators. Such degradation then may be used to calculate the economic ramifications or cost result for each of the competing operating modes. Those economic ramifications may include degradation to asset performance, wear to components, expended useful part-life (i.e., the portion of the useful life of a component that is expended during a period of operation), as well as other measures of value. Such as, for example, costs related to emissions, regulatory fees, fuel consumption, as well as other variable costs that are dependent upon output level. As will be appreciated, because the degradation and the expenditure of useful part-life for a particular asset may accrue in a nonlinear fashion as well as being dependent on dynamic and/or location specific variables, significant cost savings may be achieved over time by distributing the output level of the fleet so to minimize overall fleet degradation, particularly if that minimization is shared across the assets so to minimally impact overall fleet generating capacity and efficiency).
Regarding Claim 8: Wichmann / Nagino teaches all the limitations of claim 7 above.
Although Wichmann teaches creating an operation plan for a production facility, Wichmann does not specifically teach a device to send instructions to the facility to produce hydrogen according to the operation plan.
However, Nagino in analogous art of production facility operations teaches or suggests:
an instruction device structured to instruct the hydrogen production facility to produce hydrogen based on the data including the operation plan output from the information processing apparatus (Nagino ¶ [0223]: Then, the control unit 140 [EN: instruction device] controls each apparatus of the hydrogen production system 10 while managing each type of hydrogen by the storage management unit 145 according to the generated planning data (S760). The control unit 140 may transmit instructions in accordance with the generated planning data to each apparatus of the hydrogen production system 10 for control. The control unit 140 may output the planning data to a plurality of management apparatuses 150).
Nagino and Wichmann are found as analogous art of production facility operations. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Wichmann’s power plant generating unit control enhancement system and method to have included Nagino’s teachings around a device to send instructions to the facility to produce hydrogen according to the operation plan. The benefit of these additional features would have augmented known operation planning methods for industrial production plants in application to the burgeoning hydrogen production industry. The predictability of such modifications and/or variations, would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by Wichmann in view of Nagino (see MPEP 2143 G).
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of production facility operations. In such combination each element would have merely performed the same function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements, as evidenced by Wichmann in view of Nagino above, the to- be combined elements would have fit together like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claim 9: Wichmann / Nagino teaches all the limitations of claim 8 above.
Although Wichmann teaches creating an operation plan for a production facility, Wichmann does not specifically teach a hydrogen production facility producing hydrogen based on the instructions received.
However, Nagino in analogous art of production facility operations teaches or suggests:
the hydrogen production facility produces hydrogen based on an instruction from the instruction device (Nagino ¶ [0015]: …The hydrogen production system 10 produces hydrogen according to the operation plan generated based on the prediction result of predicting the respective demand for hydrogen. ¶ [0223]: Then, the control unit 140 [EN: instruction device] controls each apparatus of the hydrogen production system 10 while managing each type of hydrogen by the storage management unit 145 according to the generated planning data (S760)).
Nagino and Wichmann are found as analogous art of production facility operations. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Wichmann’s power plant generating unit control enhancement system and method to have included Nagino’s teachings around a hydrogen production facility producing hydrogen based on the instructions received. The benefit of these additional features would have augmented known operation planning methods for industrial production plants in application to the burgeoning hydrogen production industry. The predictability of such modifications and/or variations, would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by Wichmann in view of Nagino (see MPEP 2143 G).
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of production facility operations. In such combination each element would have merely performed the same function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements, as evidenced by Wichmann in view of Nagino above, the to- be combined elements would have fit together like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
The following art is made of record and considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Harikumaran; Jayakrishnan et al. US 20210079544 A1, Method of configuring a water electrolysis system.
Kim; Ho Suk et al. US 20240263321 A1, Water electrolysis system improving durability by preventing performance degradation inside water electrolysis stack.
Doland; George J. US 20070079611 A1, Renewable power controller for hydrogen production.
Homma; Atsuko et al. US 20210355590 A1, Hydrogen-oxygen generation system and hydrogen-oxygen generation method.
Sanner; Gunnar US 20140001767 A1, Sanner cycle energy system.
Borm; Oliver et al. US 20230155150 A1, Operating method for a solid oxide cell system.
Zhang; Xinjian US 20220267917 A1, System for producing hydrogen from renewable energy and control method thereof.
Gu Yu et al. US 20230041986 A1, Direct-current coupling hydrogen production system and control method therefor.
Ohuchi et al. US 20130008311 A1, Exhaust gas treatment system.
Mitsushima et al. US 20230408444 A1, Accelerated evaluation method for anode.
Duque Lopez et al. WO 2018189409 A1, System for monitoring and controlling an electrolysis stack and methods for minimizing the degradation of the stack and maximum hydrogen production with said system.
Philippe Mocoteguy, Annabelle Brisse. 2013. A review and comprehensive analysis of
degradation mechanisms of solid oxide electrolysis cells. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 38 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.09.045
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 REED M. BOND whose telephone number is (571) 270-0585. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
/REED M. BOND/Examiner, Art Unit 3624 January 30, 2026
/HAMZEH OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624 January 30, 2026
1 MPEP 2106.04(a): “examiners should identify at least one abstract idea grouping, but preferably identify all groupings to the extent possible”.