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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 11 and 17 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 11 and 17 set forth a different scope, however the Remarks collectively argue claims 11 and 17 with claim 1. Therefore, the arguments are addressed below with respect to claims 11 and 17.
The Remarks (8 pg.) allege claim 1 is distinguished from the cited prior art for the reasons detailed in claim 1. The Remarks contend (pg. 5-6) the limitation “"the microgrid controller is configured to direct power from the utility power source to the hospital during a non-emergency event and to direct power produced by the plurality of generators instead of the power from the utility power source to the hospital during an emergency event”. Here teachings of Suryanarayana address the claimed operations. Kelly is cited to illustrate the known use of a centralized microgrid controller is known to direct power from the utility power source to the hospital during a non-emergency event and to direct power produced by the plurality of generators instead of the power from the utility power source to the hospital during an emergency event. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Suryanarayana to use a microgrid controller such as that seen in Kelly. Kelly teaches the benefit of using a centralized microgrid controller (paragraph 0106-0115) may allow the user to view program and optimize the power elements and power flow of the system. The Remarks (pg. 6) state confusion of the language power elements and the manner the controller of Kelly would be incorporated into the system of Suryanarayana. In response, power elements are the switching and conversion elements which control the droop frequency, active power, and droop voltage based on reactive power. This is clear from a reading of Suryanarayana and the Non-Final rejection. Further Remarks amount to an alleged bodily incorporation of how to bodily incorporate the physical controller of Kelly with Suryanarayana. In, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated (how to physically connect a controller) into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). It is clear from the above such a combination would have been obvious as set forth in the rejections below.
The Remarks (pg. 7) allege the presented combination does not establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In support of the above the Remarks allege the architectures of Kelly with Suryanarayana are different. In response, the architecture of Suryanarayana uses control operations, however, does not detail the control elements. Kelly teaches the known use of power control system where the details of the connected controller may be seen. The differences of controlling a power system Kelly and Suryanarayana may be provided for different outcomes or objectives as noted in the Remarks, however such differences do not preclude the proposed combination.
Lastly the Remarks allege Suryanarayana already programs and optimizes power elements and therefore Kelly fails to cure the deficiency of Suryanarayana and Kelly. The Remarks point to paragraph 18 of Suryanarayana, however no centralized microgrid controller for optimizing power elements is presented in the cited text or in paragraph 0023. Rather the cited paragraphs merely make clear as detailed in the rejection Suryanarayana provides the claimed control does without the illustration of teaching of a centralized microgrid controller.
Therefore, the rejection is proper as has been maintained.
The rejection made to claim 1 has been withdrawn in view of the submitted amendments.
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 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Suryanarayana et al. (US 20230115739) in view of Kelly et al. (20240213781) in view of Parmley (US 20080217998).
With respect to claim 11 Suryanarayana teaches an electrical system for powering a facility, the electrical system comprising:
a hydrogen production facility (paragraph 0022) connected to a water source (see electrolysis fuel cell system conversion of water to hydrogen see Fig. 6), the hydrogen production facility located on-site at the facility (paragraph 0024, 38), the hydrogen production facility configured to generate hydrogen (paragraph 0037-39); a storage system (for example 672/572) located on-site at the facility configured to hold hydrogen generated by the hydrogen production facility; a generator (see fuel cell production of electrical power: paragraph 0031) configured to produce power using fuel, wherein the fuel comprises hydrogen from the storage system. Suryanarayana teaches the known use of a FIC and droop control arrangement (paragraph 0013-14) connected to the utility power source and the generator to direct power from the utility power source to the facility during a non-emergency event (paragraph 0028-29: see during startup or normal operations) and to direct power produced by the generator instead of the power from the utility power source to the facility during an emergency event (see power failure paragraph 13 or as backup power paragraph 0027).
Suryanarayana does not illustrate the controller controlling the power elements. Kelly teaches the use of a microgrid controller (paragraph 0106-109) connected for controlling the power elements for ensuring the arability of mission critical elements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Suryanarayana to include the known use of a controller as seen in Kelly for the benefit of programming and optimizing the power elements for an installation (paragraph 0106-0115). Suryanarayana teaches the facility is a mission critical system however does not teach the application to a hospital. Parmley teaches (paragraph 0003) for example the known use of a hospital for receiving power from the reliably power system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Suryanarayana to supply a hospital with power for the predictable result of maintaining critical operations during abnormal power conditions.
With respect to claim 17 Suryanarayana as detailed above teaches the method powering of a facility. Suryanarayana does not teach the use of a plurality of generators. Kelly teaches the known use of a plurality of generators (see N+1 generators 162 supplied from a local storage source 160), wherein each of the plurality of generators is configured to produce power using fuel, wherein the fuel comprises hydrogen from the fuel storage and natural gas from a natural gas source (paragraph 0096). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Suryanarayana to try the known alternative of a reciprocating generator using fuels rather than the cell generation of Suryanarayana for the predictable result of reliably generating electrical power from stored hydrogen. Suryanarayana does not illustrate the controller controlling the power elements. Kelly teaches the use of a microgrid controller (paragraph 0106-109) connected for controlling the power elements for ensuring the arability of mission critical elements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Suryanarayana to include the known use of a controller as seen in Kelly for the benefit of programming and optimizing the power elements for an installation (paragraph 0106-0115).
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Suryanarayana et al. (US 20230115739) in view of Hamada (US20220200285) in view of KR 20230127397 (hereinafter KR 397)
With respect to claim 18 Suryanarayana teaches a method of powering a facility with an electrical system during an emergency event (see power failure or use of backup source, paragraphs 13-14), wherein power is provided to the facility from a utility power source during a non-emergency event (paragraph 0028-29: see during startup or normal operations), the method comprising:
directing, power produced by a plurality of generators (see Fig. 2: paragraph 0035) of the electrical system to the facility to power the facility wherein the plurality of generators are configured to produce power using fuel (see two fuel cell modules), wherein the fuel comprises hydrogen (see H2 see paragraph 0037) produced by a hydrogen production facility located on-site at the facility (see for example Fig. 5-6).
Suryanarayana does not teach the disconnecting, of the electrical system, the utility power source from the electrical system. Hamada teaches disconnecting (see step 5 Fig. 5), by a microgrid controller (see CEMS, see communication and control of 501 and connection with PG and MG) of the electrical system, the utility power source from the electrical system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Suryanarayana to apply the system to a hospital for the predictable result of maintaining critical medical operations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Suryanarayana to control the disconnecting and directing operations with a controller as seen in Hamada for the predictable result of isolating the abnormal source to maintain stable and reliable power supply.
Suryanarayana power control system may be applied to mission critical facilities however does not apply the power control system to a hospital. Hamada teaches a similar power system and further teaches the known critical nature of hospital (see for example paragraph 46, 57) operations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Suryanarayana to apply the system to a hospital for the predictable result of maintaining critical medical operations.
Suryanarayana as modified above teaches the storage system however does not teach the hydrogen storage contains a designated emergency storage. KR 397 teaches the known use of an emergency designated tank (320) and tank (300). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify Suryanarayana to include the known use of an emergency storage tank for the predictable result of improving emergency reliability while maintaining normal fuel cell generation and operations.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Suryanarayana et al. (US 20230115739) in view of Hamada (US20220200285) in view of (KR 2023-0127397) in view of Rockenfeller et al. (US 20130041516)
With respect to claim 19 Suryanarayana as modified by Hamada teach the control method however do not teach the connection a renewable and battery storage connection as claimed. Rockenfeller teaches the known use of a renewable energy source (see solar wind) configured to produce power, and a battery energy storage system (110 112, 114 for example) configured to store power produced by the renewable energy source. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify Suryanarayana for the known benefit of capturing renewable energy and storing the energy to further improve microgrid efficiency and reliability to the connected consumers.
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Suryanarayana et al. (US 20230115739) in view of Hamada (US20220200285).
With respect to claim 11 Suryanarayana teaches an electrical system for powering a facility, the electrical system comprising:
a hydrogen production facility (paragraph 0022) connected to a water source (see electrolysis fuel cell system conversion of water to hydrogen see Fig. 6), the hydrogen production facility located on-site at the facility (paragraph 0024, 38), the hydrogen production facility configured to generate hydrogen (paragraph 0037-39); a storage system (for example 672/572) located on-site at the facility configured to hold hydrogen generated by the hydrogen production facility; a generator (see fuel cell production of electrical power: paragraph 0031) configured to produce power using fuel, wherein the fuel comprises hydrogen from the storage system. Suryanarayana teaches the known use of a FIC and droop control arrangement (paragraph 0013-14) connected to the utility power source and the generator to direct power from the utility power source to the facility during a non-emergency event (paragraph 0028-29: see during startup or normal operations) and to direct power produced by the generator instead of the power from the utility power source to the facility during an emergency event (see power failure paragraph 13 or as backup power paragraph 0027).
Suryanarayana does not illustrate the microgrid controller controlling the operations setforth. Hamada teaches the use of a microgrid controller (see CEMS, see communication and control of 501 and connection with PG and MG) connected for controlling the power elements for ensuring the arability of mission critical elements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Suryanarayana to include the known use of a controller as seen in Hamada for the benefit of programming and optimizing the power elements for an installation (paragraph 0106-0115).
Suryanarayana power control system may be applied to mission critical facilities however does not apply the power control system to a hospital. Hamada teaches a similar power system and further teaches the known critical nature of hospital (see for example paragraph 46, 57) operations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Suryanarayana to apply the system to a hospital for the predictable result of maintaining critical medical operations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-10, 13-16 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Suryanarayana as prior art cited above teaches an electrical system for powering a facility however fails to render obvious the combination of elements presented in claim 1 comprising a plurality of generators, wherein each of the plurality of generators is configured to produce power using fuel, wherein the fuel comprises hydrogen from the fuel storage and natural gas from a natural gas source; a renewable energy power source configured to produce power; a battery energy storage system configured to store power produced by the renewable energy source and/or the plurality of generators; and a microgrid controller connected to a utility power source and the plurality of generators, wherein the microgrid controller is configured to direct power from the utility power source to the hospital during a non-emergency event and to direct power produced by the plurality of generators instead of the power from the utility power source to the hospital during an emergency event, and wherein the microgrid controller is configured to direct power from one of the utility power source, the renewable energy power source, or the battery energy storage system to the hydrogen production facility. At least this combination of elements is not taught or rendered obvious by the prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 Michael Fin whose telephone number is (571)272-5921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at 571-272-7429. 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.
MICHAEL FIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2836
/MICHAEL R. FIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights