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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 01, 2025 is being considered by the examiner.
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 2 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 2 uses the phrase “at a same time in the first period obtained in the first step” in lines 3-4. The claim fails to particularly point to a time because the time being referenced in the first step is “each time in the first period” in claim 1 line 6. Claim 2 is attempting to refer to a single time but the actual reference is to “each time” which is not a single time. Therefore, it cannot be determined which time in the first period is the “same time.”
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 1:
Claims 1-3 and 8 recite a tangible article given properties through artificial means and therefore recite a manufacture.
Claims 4-6 recite a combination of devices and therefore recite a machine.
Claims 7 recite a series of steps and therefore recite a process.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 1:
Claims 1, 4, and 6-8, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea of predicting hydrogen demand and operating a hydrogen production facility to meet the predicted demand, which is a mathematical concept, method of organizing human activity, and mental process. The claims recite a mathematical concept because the identified idea is a mathematical calculation by reciting creating an operation plan for a first period by solving a mathematical programming problem, creating an operation plan for a second period by solving a mathematical programming problem, and using an output from the first period as a constraint for the second period. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is a fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) by reciting operating a hydrogen production facility using future demand predictions as operating constraints. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A). The claims recite a mental process because the identified idea contains limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) by reciting planning operations for a future period and using those predictions to as constraints for further predictions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The mathematical concept, method of organizing human activity, and mental process of “predicting hydrogen demand and operating a hydrogen production facility to meet the predicted demand,” is recited by claiming the following limitations: creating an operation plan in a first period, creating an operation plan in a second period, and using a prediction from the first period as a constraint for the second period. The mere nominal recitation of a processor, a hydrogen production facility, an information processing apparatus, an instruction device, a power conditioner device, a storage battery, a hydrogen storage facility, a fuel cell, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium does not take the claim of the mathematical concept, method of organizing human activity, or mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 2:
Claims 1, 4, and 6-8 recite the additional elements: a processor, a hydrogen production facility, an information processing apparatus, an instruction device, a power conditioner device, a storage battery, a hydrogen storage facility, a fuel cell, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium. These processor, information processing apparatus, and non-transitory computer readable medium limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The hydrogen production facility, instruction device, power conditioner device, storage battery, hydrogen storage facility, and fuel cell limit the field of use by generally linking the identified abstract idea to the hydrogen power field. Taken individually these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Considering the limitations containing the judicial exception as well as the additional elements in the claim besides the judicial exception does not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim as a whole does not improve the functioning of a computer or improve other technology or improve a technical field. The claim as a whole is not implemented with a particular machine. The claim as a whole does not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state. The claim as a whole is not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of performing power management in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing power management process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2B:
Claims 1, 4, and 6-8 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims recite a generic computer performing generic computer function by reciting processor, information processing apparatus, and non-transitory computer readable medium. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1341 (describing a “processor” as a generic computer component); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims reciting an “interface,” “network,” and a “database” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347–48 (discussing the same with respect to “data” and “memory”). The claims recite the following computer functions recognized by the courts as generic computer functions by reciting processing information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) performing repetitive calculations, Flook; Bancorp Services). The specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the following additional elements because they are described in a manner that indicates the elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a): a processor (Specification [0031]), a hydrogen production facility (Specification [0015]), an information processing apparatus (Specification [0017], [0024]), an instruction device (Specification [0063]), a power conditioner device (Specification [0008]), a storage battery (Specification [0066], [0073]), a hydrogen storage facility (Specification [0020]), a fuel cell (Specification [0066]), and a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Specification [0013]). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2). The claims add the words “apply it” or words equivalent to “apply the abstract idea” such as instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by reciting processor, information processing apparatus, and non-transitory computer readable medium. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims limit the field of use by reciting hydrogen production facility, instruction device, power conditioner device, storage battery, hydrogen storage facility, and fuel cell. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. See MPEP 2106.05(b). Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements alone, and in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
With regards to Claims 3 and 5, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding claims 3 and 5, the specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the following additional elements because they are described in a manner that indicates the elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a): an instruction device (Specification [0063]). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2). Claims 3 and 5 add the words “apply it” or words equivalent to “apply the abstract idea” such as instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by reciting instructing a device to execute the operation plan. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Claims 3 and 5 recite insignificant extrasolution activity (i.e. mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, or an insignificant application) by reciting executing an operation plan. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. See MPEP 2106.05(b). Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Remaining Claims:
With regards to Claim 2, these claims merely add a degree of particularity to the limitations discussed above rather than adding additional elements capable of transforming the nature of the claimed subject matter. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagino et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2021/0405603 A1), hereinafter Nagino.
Claim 1.
Nagino discloses an information processing apparatus comprising
a processor (Nagino [0226], [0230]-[0232]), wherein the processor executes:
a first step of creating an operation plan for a hydrogen production facility in a first period in a future by solving a mathematical programming problem using an operation state of the hydrogen production facility for each time in the first period as a variable (Nagino [0030], [0205] predicting demand amount of a period of time; [0064] generating demand prediction model); and
a second step of creating an operation plan for the hydrogen production facility in a second period that is a future period shorter than the first period by solving a mathematical programming problem using an operation state of the hydrogen production facility for each time in the second period as a variable (Nagino [0150] generate operation planning model; [0218] generate a plan to satisfy the predicted hydrogen demand; [0046] operation plan),
the processor executes the second step more frequently than the first step (Nagino [0203] prediction unit and the planning unit may update the model with respectively different update periods), and
a part of the operation plan created in the first step is used as a constraint condition of the mathematical programming problem in the second step (Nagino [0144], [0152] operation planning model may evaluate under constraint conditions including meeting the predicted demand amount).
Claim 2.
Nagino discloses all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Nagino discloses:
a hydrogen remaining amount at a same time in the first period obtained in the first step is used as a hydrogen remaining amount at an end of the second period as the constraint condition of the mathematical programming problem in the second step (Nagino [0047], [0180] storage management unit obtains hydrogen produced as well as current hydrogen and decrease storage amount by the amount supplied; [0144], [0152] constraints include storage amount).
Claim 3.
Nagino discloses all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Nagino discloses:
a step of providing data related to the operation plan created in the second step to a device on the hydrogen production facility side (Nagino [0046], [0223] control unit controls each apparatus of the hydrogen production system).
Claim 4.
Nagino discloses a hydrogen production system comprising:
a hydrogen production facility (Nagino [0020] hydrogen production appartus); and
an information processing apparatus (Nagino [0226], [0230]-[0232]), wherein the information processing apparatus executes:
Nagino discloses the remaining limitations of claim 4 as shown above in claim 1.
Claim 5.
Nagino discloses all the elements of claim 4, as shown above. Additionally, Nagino discloses:
an instruction device structured to instruct the hydrogen production facility to produce hydrogen based on data related to the operation plan created in the second step, the data being provided from the information processing apparatus (Nagino [0046], [0223] control unit controls each apparatus of the hydrogen production system).
Claim 7.
Nagino discloses all the elements of claim 7 as shown above in claim 1.
Claim 8.
Nagino discloses all the elements of claim 8 as shown above in claim 1.
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.
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(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagino in view of Hamaguchi et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2023/0352937 A1), hereinafter Hamaguchi.
Claim 6.
Nagino discloses a power supply system that supplies power to a power grid using power obtained from a renewable energy power generator that generates power using renewable energy, the power supply system comprising:
a power conditioner device structured to adjust power generated by the renewable energy power generator (Nagino [0018] power generation apparatus);
Nagino does not disclose the following limitation, but Hamaguchi does:
a storage battery capable of storing and discharging at least a part of surplus power that is not supplied to the power grid among power adjusted by the power conditioner device (Hamaguchi [0056] energy storage unit stores and releases power in the microgrid);
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a energy storage in connection with renewable generation for hydrogen production in order to further reduce dependence on the grid to produce hydrogen. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include an energy storage unit as taught by Hamaguchi in the system of Nagino, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in the art of operating hydrogen production equipment, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that only routine engineering would be required to incorporate the above features and yield predictable result of Nagino’s system with the improved functionality to continue to use renewable sources of energy when the are not available, such as using the battery stored solar at night, to further reduce the reliance on non-renewable grid power.
Nagino discloses:
a hydrogen production facility structured to produce hydrogen by using at least a part of the surplus power that is not supplied to the power grid among the power adjusted by the power conditioner device (Nagino [0020] hydrogen production apparatus);
a hydrogen storage facility capable of storing and releasing hydrogen produced by the hydrogen production facility (Nagino [0021] hydrogen storage apparatus);
a fuel cell structured to generate power using hydrogen released from the hydrogen storage facility (Nagino [0021] demand customer is a hydrogen station that supplies hydrogen to fuel cell vehicles);
a control means structured to control at least an operation of the hydrogen production facility (Nagino [0046], [0223] control unit controls each apparatus of the hydrogen production system; [0226], [0230]-[0232] processor), wherein the control means execute:
a first step of creating an operation plan for the hydrogen production facility in a first period in a future by solving a mathematical programming problem using an operation state of the hydrogen production facility for each time in the first period as a variable (Nagino [0030], [0205] predicting demand amount of a period of time; [0064] generating demand prediction model); and
a second step of creating an operation plan for the hydrogen production facility in a second period that is a future period shorter than the first period by solving a mathematical programming problem using an operation state of the hydrogen production facility for each time in the second period as a variable (Nagino [0150] generate operation planning model; [0218] generate a plan to satisfy the predicted hydrogen demand; [0046] operation plan),
the control means executes the second step more frequently than the first step (Nagino [0203] prediction unit and the planning unit may update the model with respectively different update periods),
a part of the operation plan created in the first step is used as a constraint condition of the mathematical programming problem in the second step (Nagino [0144], [0152] operation planning model may evaluate under constraint conditions including meeting the predicted demand amount), and
the control means controls the hydrogen production facility based on the operation plan created in the second step (Nagino [0046], [0223] control unit controls each apparatus of the hydrogen production system).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT M TUNGATE whose telephone number is (571)431-0763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 - 4:30 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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/SCOTT M TUNGATE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628