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 .
REJECTION RESPONSE
The response filed 11/25/25 amended claims 15,24,25,26,27, cancelled claims 22,23 and argued rejection of claims.
New Rejection generated by quality control.
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 15-17, 19 and 25 are rejected under 35 USC 102(a2) over Hojgaard Jensen et al. (US 2024/0079623)
Regarding claim 15, Jensen teaches an electrolysis plant (para 0001-0002), comprising in (see figs. 1A, 1B):
an electrolyzer (electrolysis stacks, 1-n); and
a circuit arrangement (low pass filter) having an input for connection to a power source (Grid AC) and an output connected to the electrolyzer; said circuit arrangement having an electrical filter device (low pass filter) configured for attenuating high-frequency signal components;
and a rectifier (AC/DC rectifier), being a controllable rectifier and/or a three-phase rectifier, having an output connected to said input of said circuit arrangement (input of low pass filter) and an input to be connected to an external AC source (see figs. 1A, 1B), and said rectifier being configured to enable a direct current (DC power from the AC/DC) without high-frequency signal components to be supplied to said electrolyzer via said filter device (low pass filter) which reads as the low pass filter filters high frequency signal of the DC power from the rectifier before it reaches the electrolyzer. Jensen’s (fig. 1B) appears similar to (applicant’s figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding Claim 16, Jensen et al. teaches wherein the high-frequency signal components to be attenuated originate in the power source, high frequency signal components of a power source in this case (AC grid of figs. 1A, 1B).
Regarding claim 17, Jensen teaches an electrolysis plant (see para 0001, 0002) wherein said filter device has a low-pass filter (see figs. 1A/1B).
Regarding Claim 19, Jensen et al. teaches an electrolysis plant wherein said filter device has an inductance configured to attenuate the high frequency components in (see fig. 1 and para 0008 @ low filter).
Regarding claim 25, Jensen teaches wherein said filter device is connected in series between said rectifier (AC/DC) and said electrolyzer (STACKS) (see figs. 1A/1B).
Claims 18, 21 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 USC 103 over Jensen (US 2024/0079623) in view of Sevastopoulos (US Pat# 4,783,635)
Regarding claim 18, Jensen teaches a low pass filter usually known to include impedance elements such as capacitors and so forth but fails to teach a filter device which 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 low pass filter of the 2nd order or 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 Jensen 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).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 USC 103 over Jensen (US 2024/0079623) in view of Brockmann (US 2002/0057584)
Regarding claim 20, Jensen 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 Jensen thus making it possible to stabilize power signals by filtering any spurious signals or noise, undesired frequency components.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 USC 103 over Jensen (US 2024/0079623) in view of Turki (US 2014/0321177)
Regarding Claim 24, Jensen fails to teach wherein said rectifier is a B6 bridge rectifier.
Turki teaches an AC source coupled to a bridge B6 bridge rectifier in (see figs. 1-2, para 0039).
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 Turki into that of Jensen for the known effects of a B6 rectifier which includes for high-efficiency, robust AC-to-DC conversion in motor drives, power supplies, and industrial applications, delivering a smoother DC output.
Claims 28-30 are rejected under 35 USC 103 over Jensen (US 2024/0079623) in view of Damen et al. (US 2023/0140438)
Regarding claims 28-30, Jensen teaches the electrolysis plant according to claim 15. See the explanation as set forth regarding claim 15.
Jensen teaches an AC power source as the power input (see figs. 1A/1B) and fails to teach a DC power source (renewable energy plant) including a photovoltaic source or a wind generator source.
However, it’s well known in the art to use either AC ( grid) and/or renewable energy sources for powering loads based on availability or load capacity.
Damen et al. teaches an electrolysis plant structure in (see fig. 1) wherein a plurality of renewable power sources including photovoltaic or wind power sources can be applied as input sources in (see para 0002, 00073) and a power grid (190) to generate power to power loads and converted for storage devices such as electrolysis means (160).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Damen et al. into that of Jensen thus making it possible to provide power to loads and for storage in batteries using solar or wind to mitigate reliance on the utility grid and to avoid overload using a single power source.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 USC 103 over Jensen (US 2024/0079623) in view of Damen et al. (US 2023/0140438) and further in view of Feuerstack (US 2015/0349533)
Regarding claim 31, The combination fails to teach a DC source coupled to a chopper element.
Feuerstack teaches a DC source system and in (see para 0002, 0003) wherein a chopper can be applied to the output of a dc source as known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention into the combination thus making it possible to attenuate or control spikes in energy sources due to the intermittent nature of power generated by solar or wind sources to output a constant or reliable output.
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.
March 23, 2026
/ROBERT L DEBERADINIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836