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 1-21 of the amended claim set received 12/22/2025 are pending. Claims 19-21 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 4 requires the second gas turbine located at a different geographical location from the first gas turbine while base claim 1 requires the same two gas turbines located at a [singular] power production facility. The requirement of claim 4 is contrary to the invention of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marushima (WO 2020/050019; references made to English publication US 2021/0262100) in view of Onishi (US 2017/0138079) and Batsch-Smith (US 2020/0295573).
Regarding Claim 1, Marushima discloses in Fig. 12, a system comprising:
a second gas turbine 112 operatively coupled to a second generator 20 to generate power for transmission to the grid 66 (the power can be considered a respective baseload power of the second generator) located in a power production facility 2;
a hydrogen-producing electrolyzer 6 configured to be selectively powered by power from the grid 66, the hydrogen-producing electrolyzer operatively coupled to deliver hydrogen fuel to the second gas turbine 112 (via line 86); and
a controller 82 configured to:
in response to excess power from the grid, increase power to the hydrogen-producing electrolyzer from the grid to increase hydrogen fuel generated for the second gas turbine; and in response to not having excess power from the grid, decrease power to the hydrogen-producing electrolyzer from the grid to decrease hydrogen fuel generated for the second gas turbine (read para. 0058 as excess power, i.e. surplus power, from the grid fluctuates the amount of power received by the electrolyzer 6 is adjusted; thus as excess power increases hydrogen fuel production is increased and as excess power decreases hydrogen fuel production is decreased).
Marushima does not disclose a first gas turbine operatively coupled to a first generator to generate a baseload power, wherein the baseload power is transmitted to the grid controlled by a master controller.
Onishi discloses in Fig. 1 and para. 0076, a power production facility 10 including a second gas turbine 30 operatively coupled to a second generator 65 to generate power and a first gas turbine engine 30 coupled to a first generator 65 to generate power (the power can be considered a respective baseload power of the first generator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Marushima to include a first gas turbine engine and associated first generator to the power production facility as taught by Onishi as part of a simple duplication of parts (see MPEP 2144.04 VI B) for the expected results of increased flexibility of power production and increased power production capacity.
Batsch-Smith teaches in Fig. 1, a grid 14 receiving power/baseload power from generators 22A, 22B, 28 associated with gas turbines 20A and 20B of a facility 12A wherein the grid is controlled by a master controller 15.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Marushima further such that the grid is controlled by a master controller as taught by Batsch-Smith in order to allocated a total load demand on the grid among a plurality of power plants (Batsch-Smith para. 0027).
Regarding Claims 2 and 3, Marushima in view of Onishi and Batsch-Smith teaches the claimed invention as discussed above. Onishi teaches the duplication of the gas turbines with respective generators located at a power facility. An extension of this teaching, i.e., further duplication, provides a plurality of third gas turbines operatively coupled to a respective generator to generate baseload power for transmission to the grid and wherein the plurality of third gas turbines is located at the power production facility.
Regarding Claim 7, Marushima teaches the claimed invention as discussed above. Marushima additionally discloses wherein having excess power from the grid comprises an industrial consumer going offline (as described above the power delivered to the electrolyzer is based on a power demand from the grid, if an industrial consumer is consuming power from the grid and then is not, i.e. going offline, a surplus of power is created and the electrolyzer receives increased power and generates more hydrogen fuel).
Regarding Claim 9, Marushima teaches the claimed invention as discussed above. Marushima additionally discloses in Fig. 12, a storage tank 58 for storing hydrogen fuel from the hydrogen-producing electrolyzer 6.
Claim 6, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marushima (WO 2020/050019; references made to English publication US 2021/0262100) in view of Onishi (US 2017/0138079) and Batsch-Smith (US 2020/0295573) and further in view of Hinders (US 2019/0264582).
Regarding Claim 6, Marushima in view of Onishi and Batsch-Smith teaches the claimed invention as discussed above. Marushima additionally teaches in Fig. 12, wherein the controller 82 is located at the power production facility 2. Marushima in view of Onishi and Batsch-Smith does not dot teach, the power production facility being connected to the grid at a common gateway for all power flow between the grid and the first gas turbine and the second gas turbine of the power production facitliy.
Hinders discloses in Fig. 1, a first generator (at 106a, see also Fig. 4B) and a second generator (at 106b, see also Fig. 4C) connected to a grid 105 at a common gateway (outlet of 106) of the facility 101 for all power flow between the grid and the two generators.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art at the time of filing to have further modified Marushima further such that all the power from the generators of the first and second turbines flows through a common gateway as taught by Hinders as part of a known as part of a known solution, as taught by Hinders, to providing electricity/power from multiple generators to a power grid with every expectation of success.
Claim 8, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marushima (WO 2020/050019; references made to US 2021/0262100) in view of Onishi (US 2017/0138079) and Batsch-Smith (US 2020/0295573) and further in view of Bourgeois (US 2006/0053792).
Regarding Claim 8, Marushima in view of Onishi and Batsch-Smith teaches the claimed invention as discussed above. Marushima does not disclose further comprising a hydrogen input line for delivering hydrogen of the hydrogen-producing electrolyzer to an industrial consumer.
Bourgeois discloses in Fig. 1, a similar system comprising a second gas turbine 12 operatively coupled to a second generator 32 to generate power for transmission to a grid 22; a hydrogen-producing electrolyzer 38 configured to be selectively powered by power from the grid 22, the hydrogen-producing electrolyzer 38 operatively coupled to deliver hydrogen fuel to the second gas turbine 12 (via lines 78 and 52). Bourgeois teaches an input line 80 for delivering hydrogen (in tank 14) of the hydrogen-producing electrolyzer to an industrial consumer (it is hydrogen dispensed as a product, read para. 0017, which can be used by anything including an industrial consumer of hydrogen).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Marushima to include the hydrogen input line taught by Bourgeois in order to provide hydrogen not used by the second gas turbine to an additional apparatus.
Claim 10, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marushima (WO 2020/050019; references made to US 2021/0262100) in view of Onishi (US 2017/0138079) and Batsch-Smith (US 2020/0295573) and further in view of Lin (US 2019/0062934).
Regarding Claim 10, Marushima in view of Onishi and Batsch-Smith teaches the claimed invention as discussed above. Marushima further discloses in Fig. 12, the hydrogen-producing electrolyzer receives water from a water tank 30 for production of the hydrogen fuel. Marushima does not disclose further comprising a heating system in thermal communication with the hydrogen-producing electrolyzer to maintain the hydrogen-producing electrolyzer in a standby mode at or near operating temperature.
Lin discloses in Fig. 10 a hydrogen-producing electrolyzer 12 receiving water from a tank 10 for production of hydrogen (read, e.g., para. 0043 or Abstract). Lin teaches in the same figure, a heating system 17 in thermal communication with the hydrogen-producing electrolyzer 12 to maintain the hydrogen-producing electrolyzer 12 in a standby mode at operating temperature (read para. 0064, water entering the electrolyzer is maintained at an operating temperature, the heating system makes the system capable of maintain the electrolyzer at temperature during a standby mode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Marushima to include the heating system taught by Lin in order to increase the efficiency of the hydrogen production (read Lin para. 0064).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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.
Claims 11-18 are allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 5, the prior art does not appear to teach the following in combination with the base claim limitations: “wherein the controller is configured to adjust a flow rate of natural gas to the second gas turbine to maintain an output of the second gas turbine based on a decrease in availability of renewable energy.”
Regarding Claim 11, the prior art of record does not disclose or form a reasonable combination teaching the following in combination with the other claim limitations – “in response to a signal indicating a lack of power demand from the grid, directing power output of the first generator and the second generator to the hydrogen- producing electrolyzer through the grid”
Claims 12-18 are allowable at least by basis on claim 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejection of claim 1 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