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, 3-19, and 21-22 of the amended claim set received 11/26/2025 are pending. Claims 2 and 20 have been canceled. Claims 11-19 have been withdrawn.
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.
Claim 6 is 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 6 recites the limitation "the electrolyzer controller". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this a new claim element or if it corresponds to an element already defined.
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 1, 3-7, 10, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoermer (US 2012/0091730) in view of Li (US 8,936,704).
Regarding Claim 1, Li discloses in Figs. 1-2, a hydrogen production system comprising:
a plant controller 112 in communication with a power source 100, wherein the plant controller is configured to receive a control signal from the power source (see input connected to the power source), the control signal including a command to consume excess power from the grid system that results from changes in power source output or demand (112 measures the output of the power source 100 as read at col. 4, l. 45-col. 5, l. 3);
a plurality of electrolyzers (Fig. 1, 107; Fig. 2, 202-210);
a controller set point controller 101 in communication with the plant controller 112 and the plurality of electrolyzers; and
memory 104 having instructions stored therein executable by the set point controller 101 to operate the plurality of electrolyzers 107/202-210 (read col. 3, l. 48-col. 4, l. 14), the instructions comprising:
receiving an instruction signal indicating a power level available to operate the plurality of electrolyzers (read col. 5, ll. 10-17);
operating the plurality of electrolyzers at the power level available by controlling an amount of direct current provided to the plurality of electrolyzers (read col. 6, ll. 32-53, DC as read at col. 5, ll. 65-66); and
generating hydrogen gas with the plurality of electrolyzers to consume the power level available (read col. 4, ll. 37-42).
Li does not explicitly disclose where the power source is a grid system, the grid system managing electrical power distribution between renewable energy sources, power plants and consumers.
Stoermer discloses in Fig. 2, a hydrogen production system comprising a power source 2 and an electrolyzer 3 which generates hydrogen gas consuming the power level available from the power source (see figure), similar to that disclosed by Li. Stoermer teaches in the same figure, the power source comprises a grid system 2, the grid system managing electrical power distribution between renewable energy sources 1a and 1b, a power plant 10, and consumers (read e.g. paras. 0038 and 0059, the grid system 2 is connected to consumers), and an electrolyzer 3 which generates hydrogen gas consuming the power level available from the grid system (see figure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Li such that the power source is a grid system as taught by Stoermer because of the art recognized suitability of the grid system as a power source for electrolyzers generating hydrogen.
Stoermer teaches the grid system of the combination as discussed above but only discloses a single power plant as opposed to the claimed multiple power plants. However, it would have been obvious to have included a second power plant as part of a simple duplication of parts which results in only the expected results of increased power production capacity and flexibility.
Regarding Claim 3, Li in view of Stoermer teaches the claimed invention as discussed above. Li additionally discloses further comprising monitoring the instruction signal to change power consumption of the plurality of electrolyzers responsive to the instruction signal (read col. 6, ll. 32-45).
Regarding Claim 4, Li in view of Stoermer teaches the claimed invention as discussed above. Li additionally discloses wherein monitoring the instruction signal to change power consumption of the plurality of electrolyzers responsive to the instruction signal comprises:
receiving an instruction signal to reduce use of power from the grid system (read col. 6, ll. 40-45); and
reducing output of hydrogen gas from the plurality of electrolyzers (direct consequence of reduced power delivered to the plurality of electrolyzers).
Regarding Claim 5, Li in view of Stoermer teaches the claimed invention as discussed above. Li additionally discloses wherein: receiving the instruction signal to reduce use of power from the grid system comprises receiving an instruction signal to stop using power (read col. 4, ll. 37-44); and
reducing output of hydrogen gas from the plurality of electrolyzers comprises stopping output of hydrogen gas from the plurality of electrolyzers (electrolyzers require power/electricity to produce hydrogen, thus when no power is provided, production is stopped).
Regarding Claim 6, Li in view of Stoermer teaches the claimed invention as discussed above. Li additionally discloses in Fig. 1, wherein the plant controller 112 comprises a first communication interface; the electrolyzer controller 101 comprises a second communication interface: and the instruction signal (read col. 5, ll. 10-17) comprises an electronic communications data signal (see communication line between 112 and 101).
Regarding Claim 7, Li in view of Stoermer teaches the claimed invention as discussed above. Li additionally discloses wherein the instructions further comprise maintaining the plurality of electrolyzers in a standby mode (mode where some electrolyzers are powered off as read at col. 4, ll. 23-36) by:
maintaining a temperature of one or more of the plurality of electrolyzers at or above a minimum operating temperature (as some of the electrolyzers are powered in the standby mode described at col. 4, ll. 23-36, the powered cell are operating and necessarily at a minimum operating temperature).
Regarding Claim 10, Li in view of Stoermer teaches the claimed invention as discussed above. Li additionally discloses wherein maintaining the plurality of electrolyzers in the standby mode comprises: utilizing heat from an operating electrolyzer of the plurality of electrolyzers (the operating electrolyzers as described above) to pre-heat a non-operating electrolyzer of the plurality of electrolyzers (the operating electrolyzers of the plurality of electrolyzers 107/202-210 are adjacent to the non-operating electrolyzers and will provide heat to the non-operating electrolyzers).
Regarding Claim 21, Li in view of Stoermer teaches the claimed invention as discussed above. Stoermer teaches the grid system of the combination and additionally that the power plant managed by the grid system comprises a combined cycle power plant 10 (see Fig. 2) including a gas turbine engine and a steam system configured to drive turbines (read para. 0013, a GuD power plant or gas and steam turbine power plant), and consumers managed by the grid system comprise one or more of residential, commercial and industrial consumers (the consumers, mentioned in para. 0059, invariably fit one of these categories). Although Stoermer only teaches a single power plant, the combination as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 provides a plurality of the power plant.
Regarding Claim 22, Li in view of Stoermer teaches the claimed invention as discussed above. Li additionally discloses wherein the plant controller 112 is configured to: receive a first instruction signal from the grid system 100 to increase power consumption when renewable energy output increases due to favorable weather conditions and issue a control signal to the set point controller to increase output of the plurality of electrolyzers commensurately (if the power source/grid system 100 produces increased power, such as when renewable plants are generating more power, the output of the electrolyzers is increased as read at col. 5, ll. 4-24 and col. 6, ll. 32-40); and receive a second instruction signal from the grid system 100 to decrease power consumption when renewable energy output decreases due to unfavorable weather conditions and issue a control signal to the set point controller to decrease output of the plurality of electrolyzers commensurately (if the power source/grid system 100 produces decreased power, such as would be the case in unfavorable weather conditions with renewable plants producing less power, the output of the electrolyzers in decreased (read col. 6, ll. 40-45).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not teach or form a reasonable combination teaching the following in combination with the base and intervening claim limitations:
Regarding Claim 8, “wherein maintaining the plurality of electrolyzers in the standby mode comprises: heating the one or more of the plurality of electrolyzers using heat from a heat recovery steam generator.”
Regarding Claim 9, “wherein maintaining the plurality of electrolyzers in the standby mode comprises: heating the one or more of the plurality of electrolyzers using heat from an industrial heat process; or heating the one or more of the plurality of electrolyzers using heat from a power conversion device connecting the plurality of electrolyzers to the grid system.”
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues that Li does not disclose that current provided to electrolyzers is adjusted to control power consumption. However, Li provides that the electrolyzers 107 can be essentially activated or deactivated as read at col. 6, ll. 32-53, this represents controlling an amount of direct current provided to the electrolyzers.
Applicant’s other arguments with respect to the claim rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached Notice of References Cited.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENE D FORD whose telephone number is (571)272-8140. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached on (571) 270-5426. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/R.D.F/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/PHUTTHIWAT WONGWIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741