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 .
The reply filed 7/2/26 amended claims 15, 24,25,26, added new claims 32,33,34, cancelled claim 17 and argued rejection of claims.
Claim rejection 112(b)
Claims 33 and 24 are dependent on a canceled claim 22 and therefore, claims 24 and 33 are rejected as being dependent on claim 15. 112b on claims 24 and 33 for depending on a cancelled claim. In order to advance prosecution on the merits the claim should be considered depending from claim 32 to provide proper antecedent basis for the rectifier.
Claims 28-30, the applicant is advised to clarify his/her position, in light of claim 15, are the claims calling for a plurality of DC sources or the source stated in claim 15 should be a photovoltaic source or a windfarm to clarify the type of DC source?. Claim 28 recites “a power source”. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear if “a power source” refers back to “a DC power source” in claim 1 or is reciting an additional power source. Claim 30 has a similar indefiniteness issue with “a DC source”. Claim 29 is unclear because a wind energy plant is an AC source, and would require additional elements, such as a rectifier 15 to provide “a DC source”.
Drawing Objection
The applicant seems to be claiming multiple power inputs based on claim 15 and inferred in claims 28-30 based on its antecedent basis. Claims 32 and 34 appear to be claiming both an AC source and a DC source. Yet the applicant’s figures do not show the details of the claimed subject matter. It depends on the amendments to claim for antecedent purposes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 15, 16, 24, 25, 28-30, 32 and 33-34 are rejected under 35 USC 103 over Seymour et al. (US 2021/0363651) in view of Km et al. (US 2014/0117965).
Regarding claim 15, Seymour et al. teaches in (see fig. 1), an electrolysis plant for connection to a renewable energy plant, comprising: an electrolyzer (110, para 0068); and a circuit arrangement (108, 134, 118, and fig 1., para 0064) having an input for direct connection to a DC power source (DC hold up 120 is directly connected to the bus 118 [0073]; also PV 116 and regulator 108 is directly connected to the circuit arrangement 108, 134, 118) and an output connected to the electrolyzer (110); the circuit arrangement having an electrical filter device filter (134) and being configured for attenuating high-frequency signal components from the DC power source on the DC side without galvanic isolation via a transformer. The details of an example of dampers (134) which appear to be a filter-like circuit is shown in (see fig. 6, para 0072) with a LRC circuit or LC circuit.
Seymour fails to teach that the dampers are low pass filter or could be a low pass filter, even though it’s known in the art that LRC or RC or LC circuits can function as a low pass circuit, like those shown in (see fig. 6 of Seymour et al.).
Km teaches an energy solar powered system wherein power from a DC source (101, 105, 107) is filtered through a low pass filter (109).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a low pass filter in the circuit arrangement, as taught by Km into that of Seymour thus making it possible to remove high frequency signals and to provide an accurate DC signal as an output in (see para 0030 of Km).
Regarding claim 16, The combination wherein the high-frequency signal components to be attenuated originate in the power source in (see KM @ para 0030 solar voltage gets regulated and then fed to the low pass filter).
Regarding claim 25, see the explanation as set forth regarding claim 32, The combination teaches wherein filter device is connected in series between said rectifier (DC/DC converter) and the electrolyzer (see Seymour, fig. 1, damper (134) modified considering Km teaching (109, low filter).
Regarding claims 28-29, see the explanation as set forth regarding claim 30. Furthermore, the combination including Seymour teaches wind and photovoltaic plants in (see fig. 1 of Seymour et al.)
Regarding claim 30, see the explanation as set forth regarding claim 15. The combination teaches a plurality of DC sources (such as shown by Km et al. of fig. 1) with a plurality of PV arrays when incorporated into Seymour to maximize power output for the electrolyzer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Km into that of Seymour thus making it possible to maximize DC power output.
The limitation “Claim 30 comprising: an electrolysis plant and a renewable energy plant, renewable energy plant having a photovoltaic plant forming a DC source with an output; the electrolysis plant being connected to said output of said photovoltaic plant”. Claim 15 calls for a DC source and claim 30 calls for an additional DC source thus read by the examiner as a plurality of DC sources.
Regarding claim 32, The combination teaches further comprising a rectifier, 115 having an output connected to said input of said circuit arrangement and an input to be connected to an external AC source (see AC source, 102, windfarm, 114) via a rectifier (106, 115 AC/DC, para 0102 of Seymour et al.)
and being configured to enable a direct current without high-frequency signal components to be supplied to the electrolyzer via the filter device (a modified damper, 134 of Seymour et al. in light of Km;).
Regarding claim 33, (in order to advance prosecution, claim 33 is considered to depend from claim 32 rather than canceled claim 22), The combination teaches a rectifier (106, AC/DC, 115 of Seymour, figs. 1, 5A) is an active rectifier [0101].
Regarding claim 24, see the explanation as set forth regarding claim 33. Fig. 5A shows a B6 rectifier of Seymour.
Regarding claim 34, Seymour teaches an electrolysis plant for connection to a renewable energy plant in (see fig. 1), comprising: an electrolyzer ; and a circuit arrangement (108, 134, 118, and fig 1., para 0064) having an input for direct connection to a DC power source (108, 116 or DC holdup 120) and an output connected to the electrolyzer (110); the circuit arrangement having an electrical filter device (134) configured for attenuating high-frequency signal components from the DC power source on the DC side without galvanic isolation via a transformer; and a rectifier, being a controllable rectifier (and/or a three-phase rectifier (106, 115, fig. 5A), having an output connected to said input of said circuit arrangement and an input to be connected to an external AC source (AC source, 102, windfarm, 114) and said rectifier being configured to enable a direct current without high-frequency signal components, read as without a transformer, to be supplied to said electrolyzer via said filter device.
Seymour fails to teach that the dampers are low pass filter or could be a low pass filter, even though it’s known in the art that LRC or RC or LC circuits can function as a low pass circuit, like those shown in (see fig. 6 of Seymour).
Km teaches an energy solar powered system wherein power from a DC source (101, 105, 107) is filtered through a low pass filter (109).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a low pass filter in the circuit arrangement, as taught by Km into that of Seymour thus making it possible to remove high frequency signals and to provide an accurate DC signal as an output in (see para 0030 of Km).
Claims 18, 21 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 USC 103 over Seymour et al. (US 2021/0363651) in view of Km et al. (US 2014/0117965) and further in view of Sevastopoulos (US Pat# 4,857,860).
Regarding claim 18, The combination including Seymour teaches a damper with a RC circuit, even though, it fails to explicitly call it a low pass filter.
The combination including Km explicitly a low pass filter coupled to a DC power source but fails to teach the details of the low pass filter. Therefore, the combination fails to teach wherein said filter device is a low-pass filter of the 1st order which has an RC element.
Sevastopoulos teaches a first order low pass filter comprising of RC elements for filtering high frequency element in (see col. 1 lines 12-20). Furthermore, in (see col. 1 and figs.). Furthermore, Sevastopoulos teaches that a low pass filter with active components including operational amplifiers coupled to ground are known.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventive concept to incorporate the teaching of Sevastopoulos into that of the combination thus making it possible to attenuate high frequency signals to stabilize the amplitude of a DC signal using any known highly accurate and simple low pass filters.
Regarding claim 21, see the explanation as set forth regarding claim 18. Sevastopoulos teaches an active filter and includes an operational amplifier in (see col. 1 of Sevastopoulos).
Regarding claims 26-27, The combination teaches a low pass filter with a ground potential in (see figs. 1-2 of Sevastopoulos).
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 USC 103 over Seymour et al. (US 2021/0363651) in view of Km et al. (US 2014/0117965) and further in view of Jensen et al. (US 2024/0079623).
Regarding claim 19, The combination including Seymour teaches a filter with an inductance, resistance and capacitor in (see fig. 6) but fails to explicitly call the damper a low pass filter. The combination including Km addresses the fact a low pass filter can be coupled to a DC power source. The functional language of using the inductance in Seymour as low pass filter to filter out high frequency components is not explicitly taught, even the combination including Km teaches a low pass filter which filters high frequency components.
Jensen et al. teaches an electrolysis plant wherein said filter device(low pass filter) has an inductance configured to attenuate the high frequency components in (see fig. 1 and para 0008 @ low filter).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include Jensen into that of the combination thus making it possible to reduce ripples in DC voltages (see para 0008 of Jensen).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 USC 103 over Seymour et al. (US 2021/0363651) in view of Km et al. (US 2014/0117965) and further in view of of Brockmann (US 2002/0057584).
Regarding claim 20, The combination including Km teaches a low pass filter but fails to teach a low pass filter of the second order which has at least one LRC low pass filter.
Brockmann teaches a power supply system in (see fig. 2) with a low pass filter (see 208 of fig. 2 and para 00340036) of the second order comprising of a LRC low pass filter.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Brockman into that of the combination thus making it possible to stabilize power signals by filtering any spurious signals or noise, undesired frequency components.
Claims 15 and 34 are rejected under 35 USC 103 over Seymour et al. (US 2021/0363651) in view of Butzmann et al. (WO 2011/023529 ).
Regarding claim 15, Seymour et al. teaches in (see fig. 1), an electrolysis plant for connection to a renewable energy plant, comprising: an electrolyzer (110, para 0068); and a circuit arrangement (108, 134, 118, and fig 1 para 0064) having an input for direct connection to a DC power source and an output connected to the electrolyzer; the circuit arrangement having an electrical filter device with a filter (134) and being configured for attenuating high-frequency signal components from the DC power source on the DC side without galvanic isolation via a transformer. The details of an example of dampers (134) which appear to be a filter like circuit is shown in (see fig. 6, para 0072) with a LRC circuit or LC circuit.
Seymour fails to teach that the dampers are low pass filter or could be a low pass filter, even though it’s known in the art that LRC or RC or LC circuits can function as a low pass circuit, similar those shown in (see fig. 6 of Seymour).
Butzmann et al. teach in (see fig. 2), a DC source comprising of a PV and DC/DC converter coupled to a low pass filter (11) without galvanic isolation via a transformer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the low pass filter of Butzmann as the damper 134 for DC sources Seymour thus making it possible to output accurate DC signals via filtering in (see abstract of Butzmann).
Regarding claim 34, Seymour teaches an electrolysis plant for connection to a renewable energy plant in (see fig. 1), comprising: an electrolyzer; and a circuit arrangement (134) having an input for direct connection to a DC power source and an output connected to the electrolyzer (110); the circuit arrangement having an electrical filter device (134) with details shown in (see fig. 6) configured for attenuating high-frequency signal components from the DC power source on the DC side without galvanic isolation via a transformer; and a rectifier, being a controllable rectifier (106, 115,) and/or a three-phase rectifier (106, 115), having an output connected to said input of said circuit arrangement and an input to be connected to an external AC source (AC source, 102, windfarm, 114) and said rectifier being configured to enable a direct current without high-frequency signal components, read as without a transformer, to be supplied to said electrolyzer via said filter device (see 115, 134, 110).
Seymour fails to teach that the dampers are low pass filter or could be a low pass filter, even though it’s known in the art that LRC or RC or LC circuits can function as a low pass circuit, like those shown in (see fig. 6 of Seymour).
Butzmann et al. teach in (see fig. 2), a DC source comprising of a PV and DC/DC converter coupled to a low pass filter (16), intended to replace element (134) “damper” without galvanic isolation via a transformer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Butzmann into that of Seymour thus making it possible to output accurate DC signals via filtering in (see abstract of Butzmann).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT L DEBERADINIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2049. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am to 6 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, Barnie Rexford can be reached at 571 272 2391. 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.
July 22, 2026
/ROBERT L DEBERADINIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
