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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11 of the remarks, filed February 9, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Barbachano (US 2013/0093194), Soerensen (US 2025/0101947), and Delmerico (US 8,013,461).
Applicant argues that Barbachano and Sorensen does not disclose or suggest the features recited in claim 1 as amended. “Specifically, independent claim 1 as amended recites "wherein the central supply line includes a grid terminal that is connected to a power grid via a second rectifier and an inverter that are connected to a transformer that is connected to the power grid." Claim 1 as amended further recites "wherein the second rectifier and the inverter provide for a bidirectional operation, to feed grid power from the power grid to the central supply line by rectification, and to feed an inversion of the direct current of the central supply line to the power grid." Claim 1 as amended further recites "wherein the second rectifier and the inverter, by providing the bidirectional operation, independently control the voltage of the central DC network."”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, because Barbachano teaches a central supply line connected to a power grid. A grid terminal is inherent and essential for any connection to a power grid. A transformer is inherent and required for all practical utility scale connections to the power grid to match voltage levels. However, Barbachano and Sorensen do not explicitly disclose a second rectifier and inverter (AC/AC power converter) that provide for a bidirectional operation. Delmerico discloses these limitations.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
“an inverter” of claim 1
“a second power generator” of claim 7
“a second power generator,” “a water power plant generator,” “a third rectifier having a third DC voltage output” of claim 8
“a third rectifier” of claim 9
“the inverter,” “an insulated gate bipolar transistor (IGBT),” and “an integrated gate-commuted thyristor (UGCT)” of claim 14
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, “to which a rectifier having a DC voltage output is connected” should be changed to “to which a rectifier having the DC voltage output is connected”
Claim 6, “wherein the wind turbine has a generator” should be changed to “wherein the wind turbine has the generator”
Claim 9, “wherein the power supply source is formed by a power grid” should be changed to “wherein the power supply source is formed by the power grid”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“wherein the DC network and the electrolysis systems are connected by means of the central supply line” in claim 1.
“wherein an electrolysis system is connected to the central supply line by means of a respective connecting line” in claim 2.
“a DC voltage output, by means of which a specified high voltage for the central supply line can be provided” in claim 10.
“direct current is fed…into the central supply line by means of a DC voltage output” in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-3, 6-8, 10, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbachano (US 2013/0093194), in view of Soerensen (US 2025/0101947) and Delmerico (US 8,013,461).
Regarding claim 1, Barbachano discloses a system combination, comprising
at least two electrolysis systems (5 of Figure 1, 9),
a power supply source (1 of Figure 1, 9) having a DC voltage output (implied, electrolysis systems require direct current (DC) to function effectively; they cannot use alternating current (AC)), and
a central supply line (see Figure 1, 9; Para. 0020),
wherein the central supply line is connected to the DC voltage output of the power supply source, so that a direct current can be fed into the central supply line, and a central DC network designed for high voltage is provided,
wherein the DC network and the electrolysis systems are connected by means of the central supply line (see Figure 1, 9; Para. 0020),
wherein the power supply source has, as a power generator (1 of Figure 1, 9, it is well known in the art that wind turbines comprise a power generator; Para. 0003), an on-shore wind turbine (1 of Figure 1, 9), to which a rectifier (implied, electrolysis systems require direct current (DC) to function effectively; they cannot use alternating current (AC)) having a DC voltage output is connected, the DC voltage output being designed for the high voltage, and
wherein one electrolysis system is connected there directly to the central supply line (see Figure 1, 9),
wherein the central supply line includes a grid terminal (inherent, essential for any connection) that is connected to a power grid (3 of Figure 1,2, 7, 9) via a transformer (inherent, required to match voltage levels) that is connected to the power grid.
Barbachano does not explicitly disclose wherein one electrolysis system is disposed at a base of a tower of the wind turbine;
a second rectifier and an inverter, and
wherein the second rectifier and the inverter provide for a bidirectional operation, to feed grid power from the power grid to the central supply line by rectification, and to feed an inversion of the direct current of the central supply line to the power grid, and
wherein the second rectifier and the inverter, by providing the bidirectional operation, independently control the voltage of the central DC network.
Soerensen discloses wherein one electrolysis system (32, 33, 34 of Figure 1) is disposed at a base (105 of Figure 1) of a tower (103 of Figure 1; Para. 0010) of the wind turbine (100 of Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to locate the electrolysis system of Barbachano at the base of the wind turbine tower, as taught by Soerensen, for the advantage of a smaller nacelle housing which poses less resistance to the wind and further decreasing the weight of the nacelle [Soerensen: Para. 0012, 0014]. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Delmerico discloses a second rectifier (52 of Figure 2) and an inverter (56 of Figure 2), and
wherein the second rectifier and the inverter provide for a bidirectional operation, to feed grid power from the power grid to the central supply line by rectification, and to feed an inversion of the direct current of the central supply line to the power grid (Col. 4:23-36), and
wherein the second rectifier and the inverter, by providing the bidirectional operation, independently control the voltage of the central DC network (Col. 4:23-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to include a bi-directional AC/AC converter in the system of Barbachano, as taught by Delmerico, to benefit from grid stability and support, energy management and efficiency, and operational versatility.
Regarding claim 2, Barbachano discloses wherein the electrolysis systems (5 of Figure 1, 9) are connected to each other relative to the central supply line, wherein an electrolysis system is connected to the central supply line by means of a respective connecting line (see Figure 1, 9; Para. 0020).
Barbachano does not explicitly disclose the electrolysis systems are connected in parallel to each other.
Soerensen discloses the electrolysis systems are connected in parallel to each other (Para. 0030).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have the electrolysis system of Barbachano connected to each other in parallel, as taught by Soerensen, for high-voltage supply levels [Soerensen: Para. 0030].
Regarding claim 3, Barbachano discloses an input voltage of which corresponds to the high voltage (from the Wind Turbine) in the central DC network and the output voltage of which is designed for a respective operating voltage of the electrolysis system (see Figure 1, 9; Para. 0020).
Barbachano does not explicitly disclose a down converter is connected in the connecting line.
Soerensen discloses wherein a down converter (22 of Figure 1) is connected in the connecting line, an input voltage of which corresponds to the high voltage in the central DC network and the output voltage of which is designed for a respective operating voltage of the electrolysis system (Para. 0056).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have a down converter in the connecting line of Barbachano, as taught by Soerensen, for adjusting the voltage level to the voltage level required by electrolyzer, which is generally a low-voltage level below 2000V [Soerensen: Para. 0056].
Regarding claim 6, Barbachano discloses wherein the wind turbine (1 of Figure 1, 9) is configured without a mechanical transmission (does not disclose a mechanical transmission) and is designed for operation with a variable rotor frequency, and wherein the wind turbine has a generator (It is well known in the art that wind turbines comprise a power generator; Para. 0003), an alternating current output of which is connected to an input of the rectifier (implied, electrolysis systems require direct current (DC) to function effectively; they cannot use alternating current (AC)).
Regarding claim 7, Barbachano discloses wherein the power supply source has, as a second power generator, a photovoltaic system, the DC voltage output of which is designed for the high voltage, wherein the DC voltage output is connected to the central supply line (Para. 0002-0003).
Regarding claim 8, Barbachano discloses wherein the power supply source has, as a second power generator, a water power plant including a water power plant generator (Para. 0002-0003), wherein a third rectifier having a third DC voltage output (implied, electrolysis systems require direct current (DC) to function effectively; they cannot use alternating current (AC)) designed for the high voltage is connected to the water power plant generator, and wherein the third DC voltage output is connected to the central supply line.
Regarding claim 10, Barbachano discloses wherein the power supply source (1 of Figure 1, 9) has the DC voltage output (implied, electrolysis systems require direct current (DC) to function effectively; they cannot use alternating current (AC)), by means of which a specified high voltage for the central supply line can be provided.
Barbachano does not explicitly disclose an up converter.
Soerensen discloses an up converter (22 of Figure 1; Para. 0072).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have an up converter in the connecting line of Barbachano, as taught by Soerensen, for adjusting the voltage level to the voltage level required by electrolyzer [Soerensen: Para. 0056, 0072].
Regarding claim 11, Barbachano discloses a use of a DC network in a system combination according to claim 1, wherein the at least two electrolysis systems (5 of Figure 1, 9) are connected to the central supply line for direct current (see Figure 1, 9; Para. 0020),
wherein the direct current is fed by means of a DC voltage output (implied, electrolysis systems require direct current (DC) to function effectively; they cannot use alternating current (AC)) at a specified high voltage, into the central supply line.
Barbachano does not explicitly disclose down converters connected to the central supply line.
Soerensen discloses down converters (22 of Figure 1) connected to the central supply line (Para. 0056).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have a down converter in the connecting line of Barbachano, as taught by Soerensen, for adjusting the voltage level to the voltage level required by electrolyzer, which is generally a low-voltage level below 2000V [Soerensen: Para. 0056].
Regarding claim 14, Barbachano discloses all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above, however does not explicitly disclose wherein both the rectifier and the inverter comprise at least one of an insulated gate bipolar transistor (IGBT) and an integrated gate-commuted thyristor (IGCT).
Delmerico discloses wherein both the rectifier (52 of Figure 2) and the inverter (56 of Figure 2) comprise at least one of an insulated gate bipolar transistor (IGBT) and an integrated gate-commuted thyristor (IGCT) (Col. 4:23-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to include a bi-directional AC/AC converter in the system of Barbachano and comprise an insulated gate bipolar transistor (IGBT) and an integrated gate-commuted thyristor (IGCT), as taught by Delmerico, to benefit from grid stability and support, energy management and efficiency, and operational versatility.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbachano (US 2013/0093194), in view of Soerensen (US 2025/0101947) and Delmerico (US 8,013,461) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Wagoner (US 2015/0123402).
Regarding claims 4, 5, Barbachano discloses all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above, however does not explicitly disclose wherein the down converter is configured as a controllable buck converter, such that the supply of electrolysis current to the electrolysis system (5 of Figure 1, 9) is adjustable to a varying feed power of the power supply source (1 of Figure 1, 9) to the central supply line (see Figure 1, 9; Para. 0020) (claim 4);
wherein the down converter is configured as the controllable buck converter controlling the output voltage using a pulse width modulation method in continuous operation (claim 5).
Wagoner discloses wherein the down converter (230 of Figure 2) is configured as a controllable buck converter (Para. 0044) (claim 4);
wherein the down converter (230 of Figure 2) is configured as the controllable buck converter (Para. 0044) controlling the output voltage using a pulse width modulation method (Para. 0036-0037) in continuous operation (claim 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have a down converter in the apparatus of Barbachano be configured as a buck controller using pulse width modulation, as taught by Wagoner, for the added benefit of high efficiency, precise control, and effective integration of renewable energy sources. The combination also allows for optimal power transfer from the wind turbine to a load or energy storage system.
Claims 9, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbachano (US 2013/0093194), in view of Soerensen (US 2025/0101947) and Delmerico (US 8,013,461) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Brogan (US 2015/0263569).
Regarding claims 9, 12, 13, Barbachano discloses all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above, however does not explicitly disclose wherein the power supply source is formed by a power grid, wherein a third rectifier is provided, the DC voltage output of which is designed for the high voltage of the central supply line (claim 9);
wherein the specified high voltage in the central supply line (see Figure 1, 9; Para. 0020) is above 1.5 kV (claim 12);
wherein the specified high voltage in the central supply line (see Figure 1, 9; Para. 0020) is between 10 kV to 110 kV (claim 13).
Brogan discloses wherein the power supply source is formed by a power grid (7 of Figure 1; Para. 0037), wherein a third rectifier (200 of Figure 1) is provided, the DC voltage output of which is designed for the high voltage of the central supply line (3 of Figure 1-4) (claim 9);
wherein the specified high voltage in the central supply line above 1.5 kV (Para. 0037) (claim 12);
wherein the specified high voltage in the central supply line (3 of Figure 1-4) is between 10 kV to 110 kV (Para. 0037) (claim 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have the power supply source of Barbachano be formed by a power grid, as taught by Brogan, to provide some auxiliary power to the wind turbines [Brogan: Para. 0037].
Soerensen discloses an up converter (22 of Figure 1; Para. 0072) (claim 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have an up converter in the connecting line of Barbachano, as taught by Soerensen, for adjusting the voltage level to the voltage level required by electrolyzer [Soerensen: Para. 0056, 0072].
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Scholte-Wassink (US 2010/0140939) disclose a central supply line includes a grid terminal, a power grid, a second rectifier and an inverter that provide for bidirectional operation, and a transformer.
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 CHARLES H REID whose telephone number is (571)272-9248. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-4:45 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, Tulsidas Patel can be reached at 571-272-2098. 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.
/Charles Reid Jr./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights