DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to software per se - claim 25 recites “computer program” that is a computer software.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 and 13 recite “map one or more variables that characterize an operating state of the electrolyzer plant to one or more performance indicators of the electrolyzer plant” and “predicting using the simulation model for a given operating state of the electrolyzer plant one or more prediction values of at least one quantity”. The relationship between the one or more prediction values of at least one quantity and one or more performance indicators of the electrolyzer plant or the one or more variables are not clear.
Regarding claims 2-7 and 9-12, dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOLÅS EP 2212751 B1 in view of SEKI WO 2018168813 A1.
Regarding claim 1, KOLÅS teaches a method for establishing and/or improving a simulation model of an electrolyzer plant comprising at least one electrolyzer (Fig. 3 [0039] simulator for electrolysis cell process), the method comprising:
predicting using the simulation model for a given operating state of the electrolyzer plant one or more prediction values of at least one quantity (Fig. 3 [0040] estimated measurements is calculated using simulation model);
obtaining one or more measurement values of the same at least one quantity that relate to the same given operating state of the electrolyzer plant (Fig. 3 [0040] the estimated measurements are compared to the physical measurements);
determining at least one deviation of the one or more prediction values from the respective measurement values (Fig. 3 [0040] the estimated measurements are compared to the physical measurements; the deviation is used to adjust the simulation model);
determining from the deviation and the simulation model a contribution and/or an adjustment to the simulation model (Fig. 3 [0040] the estimated measurements are compared to the physical measurements; the deviation is used to adjust the simulation model); and
applying the contribution and/or the adjustment to the simulation model (Fig. 3 [0040] the deviation is used to adjust the simulation model such that the deviation is minimized).
KOLÅS does not explicitly further teach the simulation model is configured to map one or more variables that characterize an operating state of the electrolyzer plant to one or more performance indicators of the electrolyzer plant.
SEKI explicitly teaches in an analogous art that wherein the simulation model is configured to map one or more variables that characterize an operating state of the electrolyzer plant to one or more performance indicators of the electrolyzer plant ([0039] the process value indicating the performance of the facility).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KOLÅS to incorporate the teachings of SEKI, because they all directed to plant process control, to make the method wherein the simulation model is configured to map one or more variables that characterize an operating state of the electrolyzer plant to one or more performance indicators of the electrolyzer plant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to grasp the performance of the facility, as SEKI teaches in [0007].
Regarding claim 2, KOLÅS further teaches the given operating state and the measurement values are acquired during normal operation of the electrolyzer plant (Fig. 3 [0040] the process control inputs (u) and measurements (y) acquired).
Regarding claim 8, SEKI further teaches the quantity comprises the performance indicator and/or at least one physical quantity that the simulation model uses for the computation of the performance indicator from the variables ([0039] the process value indicating the performance of the facility).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KOLÅS to incorporate the teachings of SEKI, because they all directed to plant process control, to make the method wherein the quantity comprises the performance indicator and/or at least one physical quantity that the simulation model uses for the computation of the performance indicator from the variables. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to grasp the performance of the facility, as SEKI teaches in [0007].
Regarding claim 13, it is directed to a program of carrying out the method with similar limitations as set forth in claim 1. Since KOLÅS and SEKI teach the claimed system, they teach the method steps for implementing the system.
In addition, KOLÅS A computer program comprising machine-readable instructions stored on a tangible medium that, when executed on one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to carry out operations (Fig. 3 NMPC controller).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOLÅS in view of SEKI as applied to claims 1-2, 8 and 13 above, further in view of MOUSA US 20170040626 A1.
Regarding claim 3, neither KOLÅS nor SEKI explicitly further teaches the electrolyzer plant is steered into a given operating state that is not part of the normal operation of the electrolyzer plant, and the response of one or more measurement values to this steering is determined.
MOUSA explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the electrolyzer plant is steered into a given operating state that is not part of the normal operation of the electrolyzer plant, and the response of one or more measurement values to this steering is determined ([0036] introducing current and voltage perturbance for modeling responses).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KOLÅS and SEKI to incorporate the teachings of MOUSA, because they all directed to process control, to make the method wherein the electrolyzer plant is steered into a given operating state that is not part of the normal operation of the electrolyzer plant, and the response of one or more measurement values to this steering is determined. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to distinguish individual contributions affecting the performance, as MOUSA teaches in [0036].
Regarding claim 4, MOUSA further teaches voltage and/or current fluctuations are introduced into at least one electrolyzer cell of the electrolyzer plant, and a response of the current through the at least one electrolyzer cell, and/or of a voltage over the at least one electrolyzer cell to these voltage and/or current fluctuations is measured ([0036] introducing current and voltage perturbance for modeling responses).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KOLÅS and SEKI to incorporate the teachings of MOUSA, because they all directed to process control, to make the method wherein voltage and/or current fluctuations are introduced into at least one electrolyzer cell of the electrolyzer plant, and a response of the current through the at least one electrolyzer cell, and/or of a voltage over the at least one electrolyzer cell to these voltage and/or current fluctuations is measured. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to distinguish individual contributions affecting the performance, as MOUSA teaches in [0036].
Regarding claim 5, MOUSA further teaches only one of multiple variables that characterize the operating state is varied, and the response of the at least one quantity to this variation is measured ([0036] either current or voltage individual contributions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KOLÅS and SEKI to incorporate the teachings of MOUSA, because they all directed to process control, to make the method wherein only one of multiple variables that characterize the operating state is varied, and the response of the at least one quantity to this variation is measured. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to distinguish individual contributions affecting the performance, as MOUSA teaches in [0036].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOLÅS in view of SEKI and MOUSA as applied to claims 3-5 above, further in view of OKABE US 20220276311 A1.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of KOLÅS, SEKI and MOUSA does not explicitly further teach the temperature of at least one electrolyzer cell of the electrolyzer plant is chosen as the variable to be varied.
OKABE explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the temperature of at least one electrolyzer cell of the electrolyzer plant is chosen as the variable to be varied ([0094] equation 13, the T0 is the disturbance to storage cell temperature T).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KOLÅS, SEKI and MOUSA to incorporate the teachings of OKABE, because they all directed to process control, to make the method wherein the temperature of at least one electrolyzer cell of the electrolyzer plant is chosen as the variable to be varied. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to distinguish individual contributions affecting the performance, as MOUSA teaches in [0036].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOLÅS in view of SEKI as applied to claims 1-2, 8 and 13 above, further in view of NAGINO EP 3690792 A1.
Regarding claim 7, SEKI further teaches the performance indicator comprises at least one of:
a production quantity ([0088] production quantity);
a degradation state of at least one electrolyzer cell of the electrolyzer plant ([0037] deterioration of facility);
an energy efficiency of the electrolyzer plant ([0084] overall heat transfer coefficient); and
an amount of waste heat generated by the electrolyzer plant ([0084] overall heat transfer coefficient, 1-overall heat transfer coefficient is the portion of the waste heat generated by the plant).
Neither KOLÅS nor SEKI explicitly further teaches the production quantity is of hydrogen.
NAGINO explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the production quantity is of hydrogen (page 2 paragraph 2 from the bottom, hydrogen production by electrolysis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KOLÅS and SEKI to incorporate the teachings of NAGINO, because they all directed to process control, to make the method wherein the production quantity is of hydrogen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so that grasping the performance of the facility as SEKI teaches in [0007] can be extended to the hydrogen production facility.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOLÅS in view of SEKI as applied to claims 1-2, 8 and 13 above, further in view of Cella US 20220108262 A1 and CASASNOVAS WO 2023066469 A1.
Regarding claim 9, SEKI further teaches the contribution and/or the adjustment to the simulation model comprises at least one of:
a change to parameters in a parametrized function of the variables ([0040] adjust the parameter in the model).
Neither KOLÅS nor SEKI explicitly further teaches the contribution and/or the adjustment to the simulation model comprises at least one of:
a change to the set of variables;
a change of a function of the variables to a function of a different degree and/or type, and/or to a different function;
a change to a level of complexity of the simulation model; and
a change to a set of physical effects that are considered or neglected by the simulation model.
Cella explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the contribution and/or the adjustment to the simulation model comprises at least one of:
a change to the set of variables ([6748] modifying the set of inputs to the model);
a change of a function of the variables to a function of a different degree and/or type, and/or to a different function ([1050] changing a function within a model);
a change to a set of physical effects that are considered or neglected by the simulation model ([6748] [6777] modifying the set of inputs to the model, the set of inputs including a set of sensors data i.e. “a change to a set of physical effects”); and
CASASNOVAS teaches in an analogous art that the contribution and/or the adjustment to the simulation model comprises at least one of:
a change to a level of complexity of the simulation model (page 19 lines 24-26, use reduced order approximations of complex model).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KOLÅS and SEKI to incorporate the teachings of Cella and CASASNOVAS, because they all directed to process control, to make the method wherein the contribution and/or the adjustment to the simulation model comprises at least one of: a change to the set of variables; a change of a function of the variables to a function of a different degree and/or type, and/or to a different function; a change to a level of complexity of the simulation model; and a change to a set of physical effects that are considered or neglected by the simulation model. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to improve the model, as Cella teaches in [1050].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOLÅS in view of SEKI as applied to claims 1-2, 8 and 13 above, further in view of ZHANG WO 2022093271 A1.
Regarding claim 10, neither KOLÅS nor SEKI explicitly further teaches determining the contribution and/or the adjustment comprises fitting at least one function of the variables and/or of a computation result derived from the variables to a plurality of measurement values.
ZHANG explicitly teaches in an analogous art that determining the contribution and/or the adjustment comprises fitting at least one function of the variables and/or of a computation result derived from the variables to a plurality of measurement values ([0061] weighted average for regression models).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KOLÅS and SEKI to incorporate the teachings of ZHANG, because they all directed to process control, to make the method wherein determining the contribution and/or the adjustment comprises fitting at least one function of the variables and/or of a computation result derived from the variables to a plurality of measurement values. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to improve the model, as ZHANG teaches in [0056].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOLÅS in view of SEKI and ZHANG as applied to claim 10 above, further in view of YANG WO 2022062502 A1 and Nishida US 20190175079 A1.
Regarding claim 11, ZHANG further teaches during the fitting, the measurement values are weighted according to one or more of:
an estimate of their accuracy ([0061] weighted average of predicted values, the weight to the predicted value is based on the evaluation accuracy of the model).
The combination of KOLÅS, SEKI and ZHANG does not explicitly further teach during the fitting, the measurement values are weighted according to one or more of:
a frequency with which they occur;
their age.
YANG teaches in an analogous art that during the fitting, the measurement values are weighted according to one or more of:
a frequency with which they occur (page 11 paragraph 6 from the bottom, the ratio of occurrence frequency as the error weight); and
Nishida teaches in an analogous art that during the fitting, the measurement values are weighted according to one or more of:
their age ([0878] 70% for new value, 30% for old value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KOLÅS, SEKI and ZHANG to incorporate the teachings of ZHANG, YANG and Nishida, because they all directed to process control, to make the method wherein the contribution and/or the adjustment to the simulation model comprises at least one of: a change to the set of variables; a change of a function of the variables to a function of a different degree and/or type, and/or to a different function; a change to a level of complexity of the simulation model; and a change to a set of physical effects that are considered or neglected by the simulation model. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to evaluate the model, as ZHANG teaches in [0063].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOLÅS in view of SEKI as applied to claims 1-2, 8 and 13 above, further in view of ISHI JP 2009163507 A.
Regarding claim 12, neither KOLÅS nor SEKI explicitly further teaches tracking an evolution of a contribution and/or adjustment to the simulation model over time; and evaluating from the evolution a degradation behavior and/or an abnormal operating state of the electrolyzer plant.
ISHI explicitly teaches in an analogous art that tracking an evolution of a contribution and/or adjustment to the simulation model over time; and evaluating from the evolution a degradation behavior and/or an abnormal operating state of the electrolyzer plant (page 3 paragraphs 9 and 12, tracking heat transfer coefficient adjusted in the simulator, detecting the deterioration of the device performance based on the trend of the estimated heat transfer coefficient).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KOLÅS and SEKI to incorporate the teachings of ISHI, because they all directed to process control, to make the method wherein tracking an evolution of a contribution and/or adjustment to the simulation model over time; and evaluating from the evolution a degradation behavior and/or an abnormal operating state of the electrolyzer plant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to determine the deterioration state of the device, as ISHI teaches in page 3 paragraph 12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KLEIN EP 3805883 A1 teaches mapping variables to KPI.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Tang whose telephone number is (571)272-7437. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4 EST.
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 Shah can be reached on (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.
/M.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights