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 .
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 three-wire connection and four-wire connection (claim 8) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 13, 16-17 and 20 are objected to because:
they contain the wrong status identifier. The claims have not been subject to a restriction and no claims should be marked as “withdrawn”. These claims are “original”.
Their preambles are incorrect. Claim 11 has been amended to remove references to a “method” and is clearly an apparatus claim.
Claim 16 is objected to because “ratio” is misspelled (it has an extra n at the end).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The language of claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear if the Applicants are seeking patent protection over the adjustable winding ratio or not. The claim defines that the system comprises, inter alia, “an adjustable transformer comprising a primary winding [] and a secondary winding”. Where the claim defines the structure of the transformer does not include a limitation directed to any winding control (i.e. a tap). The claim then uses a “wherein” clause to describe that the transformer “adjusts a winding ratio”. There is no antecedent basis in the claim for such an adjustment.
To overcome this rejection, the Applicants should consider amending the “an adjustable transformer comprising” phrase to include the antecedent basis for the structure that gives it the adjustable functionality.
Claims 2-6 and 8-9 are similarly rejected as they depend from, and inherit the deficiencies of, claim 1.
The language of claim 11 is indefinite for the same reasons as claim 1. The claim uses a wherein clause and descriptive language (“wherein a winding ratio [] adjusts”) for which there is no antecedent structural basis.
Claims 13-20 are similarly rejected as they depend from, and inherit the deficiencies of, claim 11.
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.
Claims 3, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) 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.
Regarding claim 3, claim 1 explicitly limits the scope to the power interface circuit system. The source itself is not distinctly claimed. Therefore, defining what the source can be (claim 3) is descriptive of features outside the scope of the claim. The physical characteristics of the source do not further limit the claimed system.
Regarding claim 13, claim 11 also explicitly limits the scope of the claim to the power interface circuit. Defining the types of sources/grids claim 13 does not further limit the structure of the circuit itself.
For both claims, claims 1 and 11 already define the interface circuit as having an AC-DC converter. Thus, the claim already establishes the structure necessary to receive AC power. Changing what produces the AC power is not further limiting to the structure of the interface circuit itself.
Regarding claim 20, the auxiliary loads are not distinctly claimed. They are listed in claim 11 as a connection of the transformer secondary winding. But the scope of the claim ends at the transformer secondary winding. The loads are not given the same type of introduction as the other limitations that the Applicants have established are part of the power interface circuit.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 11 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bala (US 10,811,975) in view of Josse (US 2016/0013729).
With respect to claim 1, Bala discloses an electrolyzer power interface circuit system (fig 1-2, 4, 6A-D, 8; col. 4-9), the system comprising:
a plurality of non-isolated, bi-directional AC to DC converters (12 with or without 14; shown in more detail in fig 2) each comprising an input in electrical communication with an electrolyzer input power source (Vac) and an output (Vdc1 or Vdc2);
a first plurality of isolated, uni-directional DC-DC converters (16; see figures 4 and 6 and the analysis below) each comprising an input in electrical connection to an output of a first one of the plurality of AC-DC converters (left side of 16);
a second plurality of isolated, uni-directional DC-DC converters (16; see figures 4 and 6 and the analysis below) each comprising an input in electrical connection to an output of a second one of the plurality of AC-DC converters.
The claim recites “electrolyzer power interface circuit” (preamble) and “electrolyzer input power source”. The use of “electrolyzer” here is interpreted as an intended use limitation. It is a name given to a circuit/input to define where the Applicants intend to use the system. The claim does not positively introduce an electrolyzer into the claim as a distinct limitation. The prior art is only required to teach that the power interface circuit system is known or obvious – not how/where it is used.
Bala discloses two embodiments (figures 1, 8). In figure 1, there is a single current path from source to load. In this embodiment, Bala can obviously be duplicated to have two figure 1 circuits. In this duplication, there are two AC-DC converters (12 or 12+13) and two DC-DC converters (16). As noted during prosecution of the parent application, the claim refers to a plurality without explicitly establishing that the AC-DC converters are connected to the same source or even part of the same circuit. The duplicated Bala circuits (fig 1) do not have to be used together to satisfy the plurality limitations of claim 1. In figure 1, each DC-DC converter (16) is really two isolating DC-DC converters (see schematics of figures 4 or 6). Thus, Bala also discloses two pluralities of isolating DC-DC converters, with each plurality connected to a corresponding AC-DC converter.
In figure 8, the current path branches into many outputs. A first AC-DC converter is shown as items 12 and 14A. A second AC-DC converter is shown as items 12 and 14B. Thus, Bala disclose a plurality of AC-DC converters. And each of these converter is connected to a respective plurality of isolating DC-DC converters (16; figs 4 and 6 show that each item 16 is really two converters).
Bala does not expressly disclose a transformer-based auxiliary power source. Josse discloses an electrolyzer power interface circuit system (fig 1; par 3-7) comprising an adjustable transformer (1) comprising a primary winding connected to the electrolyzer input power source and a secondary winding in electrical communication with one or more auxiliary loads (downstream of 4; see last sentence of par 7), wherein the adjustable transformer adjusts a winding ratio based on an aspect of the electrolyzer input power source (par 7, “on-line tap-changer”).
The Examiner notes that Josse discloses its power supply is for an electrolyzer. Thus, the combination teaches the “electrolyzer” description of the power interface circuit system and input power source.
The Examiner also notes that the claim recites that the adjusted winding ratio is “based on an aspect of the [] input power source”. There are no structural limitations in the claim to define any manner by which the aspect is sensed/known or any type of controller/comparator to make the determination of when the aspect has reached a value that requires making an adjustment. The “based on” language of the claim is extremely broad and is taught by Josse’s on-line tap changer “making it possible to adjust the voltage of the grid to an intermediate voltage” (par 6).
Bala and Josse are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely AC-based power supplies. At the time of the effective filing date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the power supplies taught by Bala and Josse. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide power to two different types of loads, to satisfy the needs of a user. Should a user require both isolated DC-DC conversion (Bala) and adjustable transformer based power (Josse), they would have been motivated to use the structures of both system side by side.
With respect to claim 2, Josse discloses the aspect of the electrolyzer input power source is a voltage of the electrolyzer input power source (par 6, “making it possible to adjust the voltage of the grid to an intermediate voltage”).
With respect to claim 3, Official Notice is taken that power grids are known to use renewable sources. Thus, Josse teaches the electrolyzer input power source (R) is a renewable grid power source. The claim does not require that the grid is exclusively powered from renewable sources. As the grid is unclaimed, the amount of renewable energy in the grid is not germane to the art rejection.
With respect to claim 4, Josse discloses the adjustable transformer is a solid-state transformer (par 7). As noted in the parent application (and neither addressed nor rebutted), the specification does not explain what this term is intended to mean. A key-word search indicates that a “solid-state transformer” is one that can actively regulate its output voltage. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state-transformer). The Josse transformer includes a tap that enables it to adjust its conversion ratio and regulate its output. Thus, it qualifies as “solid-state”.
With respect to claim 5, Josse teaches the adjustable transformer (1) is an isolation transformer. The claim appears to simply rename the transformer. The claim does not define any structural features of the transformer to give it “isolation”. Josse’s transformer is interpreted as including primary and secondary windings separated by a core. This is interpreted as providing “isolation”.
With respect to claim 6, Josse discloses the winding ratio of the adjustable transformer is adjusted in response to an instruction received from a remote monitoring system (par 7, “depends on the value of the voltage of the load”). The load is “remote” from the transformer.
With respect to claim 8, Josse discloses the adjustable transformer connects to the electrolyzer input power source through a three-wire connection (see fig 2) and the one or more auxiliary loads through a four-wire connection (Josse item 3 and/or busbars 4).
Josse discloses its transformer has a delta configuration with three wires (see fig 2). Josse also discloses the output of the transformer can be any number of wires, including four. Support for this can be found in the four wires of the diode group (3) or at the busbars (4), where each load would have its own dedicated wire branching off from the bus.
With respect to claims 11 and 13-18, Bala and Josse combine to disclose the power interface circuit, and the references are analogous, as discussed above in the art rejections of claims 1, 3-6, 6 and 8 respectively. Claim 11 repeats the limitations of claim 1. The slight difference in wording does not affect the scope of the claim or the analysis of the prior art. The limitation in the claim 11 that the input power source is “in a hydrogen generation system” is an intended use limitation. The claim scope is limited to the power interface circuit that receives power from a source. Where the source is located does not further limit the structure of the power interface circuit.
Regarding claim 16, Josse does not disclose wireless communication. Thus, the remote instructions are interpreted as being “via a network connection”. The “via” language is descriptive and does not explicitly establish it as a distinct claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 17, changing the name of where the instructions originate does not change the analysis of Josse.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bala in view of Josse and Reimann (US 2020/0295594).
The combination of Bala and Josse disclose the transformer feeding power to auxiliary loads, but does not expressly disclose a UPS. Reimann discloses that UPS’s are known in AC power systems (see fig 1, par 39-52). A UPS, by design, is one that provides power to a load during an input power failure (see Reimann par 48). Thus, the combination teaches a UPS that provides power to one or more auxiliary loads during a power failure at the input power source.
The combination and Reimann are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely AC power supplies. At the time of the effective filing date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the combination (namely Josse’s bus bar and auxiliary loads) to include a UPS, as taught by Reimann. The motivation for doing so would have been to supply uninterruptible power to a load that a user does not want to shut down during a power failure, as is commonly known and with predictable results.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bala in view of Josse and the Applicants’ Admitted Prior Art (“APA”; specification par 23-24).
APA teaches that known loads include data logging systems (par 23, “data centers”). The Examiner notes that paragraphs 23 and 24 describe conventional electrolyzer systems. The language at the beginning of each paragraph describes prior art systems and is not directed to the Applicants’ invention.
The combination and APA are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely power supplies for loads. At the time of the effective filing date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to configure one of the Josse loads to be a data logging system, as taught by APA. The motivation for doing so would have been to supply a load that requires power with operating power.
As noted above, claim 20 appears to list hypothetical loads. The auxiliary loads are not clearly defined as included within the scope of claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references in the enclosed PTO-892 form teach that it is known to connect a rectifier to a plurality of isolating DC/DC converters. These circuits than can then obviously be duplicated to have a plurality of rectifiers, each with their own plurality of DC/DC converters. The broad language of the claims does not require that the recited interface circuit be in any specific location. Thus, the relevant field is AC-DC power supplies (which is not required to be related to electrolyzers).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADI AMRANY whose telephone number is (571)272-0415. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am-7pm.
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, Taelor Kim can be reached at 5712722800 x36. 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.
/ADI AMRANY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
