DETAILED ACTION
Reopening of Prosecution After Appeal
In view of the Notice of Appeal filed on 12/29/2025, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejections set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/BRIAN M EPSTEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 05/10/2026, 02/22/2026, 12/09/2025, and 12/08/2025 appear to be in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and are being considered by the examiner. The initialed and date copies of applicants’ IDS form 1449 are attached to this instant Office Action.
Status of Claims
For the purpose of clarity of record, the claims of 11/24/2025, which were not entered during the advisory action mailed on 12/29/2025, are being considered in this office Action.
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to applicant’s amendments filed on 11/24/2025.
Claims 14- 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/21/2023.
Claims 1. 12, and 13 are amended. Claim 3 is cancelled. Claims 1-2 and 4-13 are considered in this Office Action. Claims 1-2 and 4-13 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Applicant’s argument with respect to the 101 rejections to claims have been considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the claims do not fall into "Methods of Organizing Human Activity" and “mental process” (Brief Pages 10-11 and 12-13). The applicant argues that the claimed invention does not fall into any of the described concepts listed in the MPEP. Independent claim 1 comprises specific elements, e.g., implementing centralized assembling at the factory in the construction site, each solar table is assembled to comprise a torque tube and one or more module rails for attaching one or more solar panels, delivering the assembled plurality of solar tables from the factory for installation, etc., that are clearly physical steps. Appellant respectfully asserts that these physical steps are clearly not "concepts of managing commercial or industrial operation such as resource allocation, staffing, scheduling and logistics" as the Examiner asserted.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. It is first noted by the examiner the steps of “implementing […]” and “delivering […]” are/were not categorized as part of the abstract idea. The claims recite an abstract idea by reciting concepts of managing commercial or industrial operation such as resource allocation, staffing, scheduling and logistics, which falls into the “mental process” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas, such as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The claims further fall into “Certain methods of organizing human activity” such as commercial or legal interactions (marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including teaching, and following rules or instructions). (See MPEP 2106.04).
Applicant argues that the second advisory action’s overgeneralization of the claims is a clear error. In particular, the claims have been overgeneralized to simply " The claims recite an abstract idea of evaluating at least the resource information and the personnel information to determine a preferred centralized solar table assembly and installation process " AA2, p. 3. This gross simplification fails to appreciate that "the claims at issue describes a specific way to solve the problem." USPTO Memorandum dated November 2, 2016, p. 2 (emphasis added). Appellant asserts that the AA2 committed clear error when it failed to appreciate the specific, well-defined, and non-abstract claim elements of the current claims. Furthermore, regarding the steps of "implementing centralized assembling…”. the Examiner overgeneralized at high level of generality similar to the examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity without taken into consideration of the specific requirements of the claims, e.g., "each solar table is assembled to comprise a torque tube and one or more module rails for attaching one or more solar panels".
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes the assembly/implementation and delivery limitations were not generalized. The steps of “implementing […]” and “delivering […]” are/were considered additional elements under Step 2A Prong II. The limitations do not integrate the mental process (and "Methods of Organizing Human Activity") into a practical application because they merely apply the results of the determination, and therefore constitute as insignificant extra-solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g). The MPEP further discloses examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential); and ii. Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55. It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) (“The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point”). See also Genetic Technologies Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1377, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1547 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (steps of DNA amplification and analysis are not “sufficient” to render claim 1 patent eligible merely because they are physical steps). See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Applicant asserts that the claims of the present application clear fall within the noted areas of patentable subject matter as providing "significantly more." The claim elements are not generic processes, such as merely evaluating at least the resource information and the personnel information. Rather, as noted above, the claims include specific implementations steps, such as "implementing centralized assembling at the factory in the construction site of the large-scale solar system for the plurality of solar tables "each solar table is assembled to comprise a torque tube and one or more module rails for attaching one or more solar panels"; "delivering the assembled plurality of solar tables for installation " A proper and fair assessment of such claim elements, taken as a whole, must admit that they amount to "significantly more" than merely an abstract idea.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes the limitations merely implement the result of the abstract idea determinations and do not, for example improve another technology and improve the function of a machine. The claim determines a preferred process and then implement said process. In accordance to MPEP 2106.05, It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2B. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception is not in itself an inventive concept and does not guarantee eligibility. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim.
Lastly, Applicant cites the Berkheimer decision (Brief at pgs. 14-16). As best understood by the Examiner, Applicant’s argument appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the recent Berkheimer decision, which the Examiner emphasizes is germane only to Step 2B eligibility inquiry and only for “additional elements” (i.e., not the elements that actually recite the abstract idea). In particular, the Berkheimer memo provides guidelines for evaluating whether certain claim limitations (the “additional elements”) are well-understood, routine, and conventional, and describes the evidentiary requirements to support factual findings related thereto. Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Accordingly, the Examiner emphasizes that a §101 rejection, including one based on a judicial exception, does not hinge on whether or not the entire claimed subject matter is directed to “well-understood, routine, and conventional activities,” as suggested by Applicant. Notably, a §101 rejection may be proper even if there are no claim elements deemed well-understood, routine, and conventional. We may assume that the techniques claimed are “[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” but that is not enough for eligibility. Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 89–90 (2012); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating §102 novelty.”); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (same for obviousness) (Symantec).
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments concerning 101 rejections are not persuasive, and the rejection therefore is maintained in the updated 101 rejection below.
In regard to the 35 USC §103 rejection, applicant’s arguments are primarily raised in light of applicant’s amendments. An updated 35 USC §103 rejection will address applicant’s amendments.
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 1-2 and 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-2 and 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the “Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (as explained in MPEP 2106).
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the method (claims 1-2 and 4-13) is directed to an eligible category of subject matter (i.e., process, machine, and article of manufacture). Thus, Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2, and in particular Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea by reciting concepts of managing commercial or industrial operation such as resource allocation, staffing, scheduling and logistics, which falls into the “mental process” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas, such as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The claims further fall into “Certain methods of organizing human activity” such as commercial or legal interactions (marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including teaching, and following rules or instructions). (See MPEP 2106.04). The limitations reciting the abstract idea are highlighted in italics and the limitation directed to additional elements highlighted in bold, as set forth in exemplary claim 1, are: A method for centralized solar table assembly and installation for a large-scale solar system, the method comprising steps of: determining a preferred centralized solar table assembly and installation process by evaluating resource information and personnel information, wherein: the resource information is related to resources to be used in centralized assembly of a plurality of solar tables at a factory in a construction site of the large-scale solar system and installation of the plurality of solar tables within the large-scale solar system; and the personnel information is related to a workforce to be used in the centralized assembly of the plurality of solar tables at the factory and the installation of the plurality of solar tables; implementing centralized assembling at a factory in the construction site of the large-scale solar system for the plurality of solar tables according to a preferred centralized solar table assembly and installation process(recited at high level with not autonomation or control logic which directs the limitation to result-oriented instruction which fall within post-solution activity ), each solar table is assembled to comprise a torque tube and one or more module rails for attaching one or more solar panels(descriptive hardware components general generally linking the use to a field of use); and delivering the assembled plurality of solar tables from the factory for installation according to the preferred centralized solar table assembly and installation process.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to implementing centralized assembling at a factory in the construction site of the large-scale solar system for the plurality of solar tables according to a preferred centralized solar table assembly and installation process(recited at high level with not autonomation or control logic which directs the limitation to result-oriented instruction which fall within post-solution activity ), each solar table is assembled to comprise a torque tube and one or more module rails for attaching one or more solar panels(descriptive hardware components general generally linking the use to a field of use); and delivering the assembled plurality of solar tables from the factory for installation according to the preferred centralized solar table assembly and installation process (The examiner notes this step can be considered following instruction or rules which falls within “Certain methods of organizing human activities”, if considered as additional element the step is recited at high level of generality and amounts to post-solution activity). However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations are directed to: implementing centralized assembling at a factory in the construction site of the large-scale solar system for the plurality of solar tables according to a preferred centralized solar table assembly and installation process(recited at high level with not autonomation or control logic which directs the limitation to result-oriented instruction which fall within post-solution activity ), each solar table is assembled to comprise a torque tube and one or more module rails for attaching one or more solar panels(descriptive hardware components general generally linking the use to a field of use); and delivering the assembled plurality of solar tables from the factory for installation according to the preferred centralized solar table assembly and installation process (The examiner notes while this step can be considered following instruction or rules which falls within “Certain methods of organizing human activities”, if considered as additional element the step is recited at high level of generality and amounts to post-solution activity)to implement the abstract idea. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. In addition, Applicant’s Specification (paragraph [0068] As illustrated in Fig. 9, the computing system 900 includes one or more central processing units (CPU) 901 that provides computing resources and controls the computer. CPU 901 may be implemented with a microprocessor or the like and may also include one or more graphics processing units 919 and/or a floating-point coprocessor for mathematical computations. System 900 may also include a system memory 902) describes generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, and which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo.
The dependent claims have been fully considered as well (i.e., claim 13 recite “wherein an autonomous vehicle transports a solar table on an access road”, the additional element is recited at high level of generality, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application. With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. However, the additional element fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception), however, similar to the finding for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea of concepts certain methods of organizing human activity, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are 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. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of David Charles Gregg (US 2014/0025343 A1, hereinafter “Gregg”) in view of DuraTrack (NPL: “Duratrack HZ® v3 Installation Guide”, published 2020, hereinafter “DuraTrack”) in view of Maldonado Ferreira teaches (US 20210218363 A1, hereinafter “Ferreira”).
Claim 1
Gregg teaches:
A method for centralized solar table assembly and installation for a large-scale solar system([0017]one or more aspects, generic computing device 101 may be configured to provide a software tool having a computer user interface for designing and selecting solar panel layouts), the method comprising steps of: determining a preferred centralized solar table assembly and installation process by evaluating resource information and personnel information([0058] based on the summary information provided by the solar panel layout and installation software, including estimated costs, rebates, installation dates, and other data, the user or designer may experiment with multiple different solar panel layouts and select a preferred layout based on the user's priorities, wherein [0026] the server 101 may be configured to retrieve data from four separate databases, each of which may correspond to database that stores information regarding the availability of solar panel component parts and materials (e.g., panels, frames, controllers, inverters, batteries, etc.), and additional information on labor availability (e.g., contractor schedules, etc.) to allow the server 101 to assist in scheduling installations of selected solar panel layouts), wherein:
the resource information is related to resources to be used in centralized assembly of a plurality of solar tables at a factory in a construction site of the large-scale solar system and installation of the plurality of solar tables within the large-scale solar system([0033] Additional types of information retrieved in step 202 may relate to potential solar panel installations at the location. For example, databases of different solar panel suppliers (e.g., within a geographic region or a distance radius relative to the location) may be queried to determine the current availability of solar panel system components and materials that potentially could be used at the location, such as solar panels, frames, controllers, inverters, batteries, and other components);
and the personnel information is related to a workforce to be used in the centralized assembly of the plurality of solar tables at the factory and the installation of the plurality of solar tables([0033] Additional types of information retrieved in step 202 may relate to potential solar panel installations at the location. For example, databases of different solar panel suppliers (e.g., within a geographic region or a distance radius relative to the location) may be queried to determine the current availability of solar panel system components and materials that potentially could be used at the location, such as solar panels, frames, controllers, inverters, batteries, and other components. Additionally, the data sources of the necessary labor resources (e.g., materials delivery services, designers, contractors, and installation personnel, etc.) may be queried to determine the schedules of these labor resources for a potential solar panel installation at the location).
While Gregg teaches aggerating a preferred centralized solar table assembly and installation process/schedule by evaluating resource information and personnel information as disclosed above. Gregg does not explicitly teach the following, however analogous reference in the field of solar/PV system, DuraTrack teaches:
implementing centralized assembling at the factory in the construction site of the large-scale solar system for the plurality of solar tables according to the preferred centralized solar table assembly and installation process, each solar table is assembled to comprise a torque tube and one or more module rails for attaching one or more solar panels(Page 22 Section 5.8 describes Torque Tube Section Assembly & Installation, which describes Tracker rows are formed by joining sections of Torque Tube. The Torque Tubes will have Bearing Housings and Module Clamps installed to support the Torque Tube and solar Modules respectively. Further the assembly and installation further comprises “1. Identify the correct Torque Tube lengths and configuration required for each row which is detailed in the ADP”(preferred centralized solar table assembly); “3. Stage all of the required components near the assembly area to ease pre-outfitting”. Section 1.11.4 on page 5 further discloses that “The Module Clamps fit around the Torque Tube and typically feature ears which secure the Modules”. Pages 33-34 discusses the installing of solar modules onto the tracker structure through the module clamp assemblies);
and delivering the assembled plurality of solar tables from the factory for installation according to the preferred centralized solar table assembly and installation process (page 22 describes staging all of the required components near the assembly area (factory)to ease pre-outfitting, then “For a safer and more efficient installation, use a forklift to move and install Torque Tubes.” And “Lift each pre-outfitted Torque Tube section onto the Bearing Columns in the order described in the ADP”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Gregg with DuraTrack to include implementing centralized assembling at the factory in the construction site of the large-scale solar system for the plurality of solar tables according to the preferred centralized solar table assembly and installation process, each solar table is assembled to comprise a torque tube and one or more module rails for attaching one or more solar panels and delivering the assembled plurality of solar tables from the factory for installation according to the preferred centralized solar table assembly and installation process to the solar system planning system of Gregg. Doing so would effectively utilize resources and personnel (taught in Gregg) to implement the workflow schedule of solar system as taught by DuraTrack.
While Gregg teaches aggerating a preferred centralized solar table assembly and installation process/schedule by evaluating resource information and personnel information as disclosed above. DuraTrack teaches implementing centralized assembling at the near the assembly area in the construction site of the large-scale solar system for the plurality of solar tables according to the preferred centralized solar table assembly and installation process. Gregg and Duratrack do not explicitly teach that the near the assembly area is factory, however analogous reference in the field of solar/PV system, Maldonado Ferreira teaches:
at the factory in the construction site of the large-scale solar system(Fig. 1 illustrates a mobile plant. [0060] The plant (1) of the invention is preferably installed on an area of land close to the solar field, or in the actual solar field, from where the finished units (2) could be moved, and stacked together, to different installation points for installing solar trackers in said field).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Gregg and DuraTrack with Maldonado Ferreira to include a mobile factory for solar table assembly and installation process to the solar system planning system of Gregg. Doing so would effectively utilize resources and personnel (taught in Gregg) to implement the workflow schedule of solar system (as taught by DuraTrack) using mobile factory (as taught by Maldonado Ferreira) which will allow reducing assembly times of trackers, as well as their operating risks associated with the solar field, improving their efficiency and scalability ([0015]).
Claim 2
Gregg teaches:
The method according to claim 1 wherein a location of the factory is based on correlation of the initial design and the resource information([0026] As an example, the server 101 may be configured to retrieve data from four separate databases, each of which may correspond to database 161 and/or database 162 and/or one or more additional databases: (4) a parts and labor inventory database, which may be comprised of one or more internal or external servers that are accessible to the server 101 (e.g., over the Internet and/or via secure network connections) that stores information regarding the availability of solar panel component parts and materials (e.g., panels, frames, controllers, inverters, batteries, etc.), and additional information on labor availability (e.g., contractor schedules, etc.) to allow the server 101 to assist in scheduling installations of selected solar panel layouts. [0033] Additional types of information retrieved in step 202 may relate to potential solar panel installations at the location. For example, databases of different solar panel suppliers (e.g., within a geographic region or a distance radius relative to the location) may be queried to determine the current availability of solar panel system components and materials that potentially could be used at the location, such as solar panels, frames, controllers, inverters, batteries, and other components).
Claim 4
Gregg teaches:
The method of claim 1 wherein the preferred centralized solar table assembly and installation process comprises a sequence of assembly steps, the sequence being at least partially dependent on the resource information (figure 2 steps 201-206, [0050] wherein after receiving a selected solar panel layout in step 205, the server 101 may prepare a customer contract, one or more appropriate forms, and other information for the selected layout in step 206. For example, a parts list, various permit applications, and/or installation order forms may be generated by the server 101 for the selected solar panel layout. Additionally, if the selected solar panel layout is eligible for one or more governmental rebates, the server 101 may identify the available rebates and prepare the applicable forms (e.g., local government rebate forms, state and federal tax forms, etc.). After identifying and retrieving one or more applicable forms for the selected solar panel layout, the server 101 may automatically populate some or all of the form fields with the customer information (e.g., name, address, etc.), selected panel information (e.g., number, types, size, and configuration of panels, etc.), and any other information available to the server 101. The server 101 may then output the customer contract and applicable forms to the user via the user interface and/or allow the user to print the contract and forms. In step 206, the server 101 also may perform steps to schedule the installation of the selected solar panel layout. For example, the server 101 may prepare and output a service request form for a local solar panel installer. The server 101 may also automatically contact one or more installers, for example, via email, submission of an Internet form, etc., to schedule the installation of the selected solar panel system at the customer's location. The server may also contact the customer (e.g., via email) to provide the customer contract for the solar panel installation and to schedule and/or confirm the installation).
Claim 5
Gregg teaches:
The method of claim 4 wherein the sequence of assembly steps is based at least in part on the personnel information([0026] a parts and labor inventory database, which may be comprised of one or more internal or external servers that are accessible to the server 101 (e.g., over the Internet and/or via secure network connections) that stores information regarding the availability of solar panel component parts and materials (e.g., panels, frames, controllers, inverters, batteries, etc.), and additional information on labor availability (e.g., contractor schedules, etc.) to allow the server 101 to assist in scheduling installations of selected solar panel layouts. [0033] Additional types of information retrieved in step 202 may relate to… the data sources of the necessary labor resources (e.g., materials delivery services, designers, contractors, and installation personnel, etc.) may be queried to determine the schedules of these labor resources for a potential solar panel installation at the location).
Claim 6
Gregg teaches:
The method of claim 4 wherein the sequence of assembly steps is based at least in part on structural characteristics of the plurality of solar tables being assembled (fig. 2 and [0032] In step 202, the sever 101 may retrieve relevant information corresponding to the location received in step 201. The information retrieved in step 202 may be associated with the location itself (e.g., physical characteristics of the land, climate data, building codes and land use rules and regulations, etc.) and/or may correspond to characteristics of one or more physical structures at the location (e.g., sizes and shapes of buildings, structural integrity and materials used, angles and orientations of various surfaces, etc.). The information retrieved in step 202 may include many different types of information, and may be retrieved from many different data sources. Building codes or covenants associated with the location (e.g., state or local regulations, home owner's association agreements, etc.) may be retrieved from one or more governmental or other organization databases. Structural details, blueprints, floor plans, and the like, for physical structures at the location may be retrieved from local governmental registries and other data sources).
Claim 7
Gregg teaches:
The method of claim 1 further comprising the steps of: receiving real-time resource information and real-time personnel information related to the large-scale solar system(, wherein [0040] the information is received and analyzed in real-time); identifying a first set of differences between the real-time resource information and the resource information([0050] The available solar panel menu 450 and any other menus displayed on the user interface 400 of the solar panel layout software and installation tool may also be dynamic, in that they may be updated automatically by the server 101 in response to user selections or interactions with other menus or components within the user interface 400. The server 101 may store information identifying lists of solar panels types, models, and sizes that are compatible with various other panels, frames, controllers, and inverters); identifying second set of difference between the real-time personnel information and the received personnel information; correlating the first and second set of differences across the preferred centralized solar table assembly and installation process; and modifying the preferred centralized solar table assembly and installation process based on the correlation ([0050] For example, if a user selects a first frame type, first inverter type, or first panel type from one manufacturer via the user interface, then the other menus may be automatically updated by the server 101 to remove incompatible frames, controllers, inverters, solar panels, and other components from another manufacturer. As another example, if a user has designed a solar panel layout for a larger surface of a building, and only smaller surfaces are available, then the available solar panel menu 450 may be automatically updated by the server 101 to remove the previously-displayed larger panels that would not fit on the remaining smaller surfaces. In certain examples, components must have the same manufacturer to be considered compatible, while in other examples components from different manufacturers may be considered compatible. The determinations of component compatibility may be based on the manufacturer, size, power output (e.g., components designed to receive or output the same voltage or current level), aesthetics (e.g., color, materials used), and/or other characteristics of the various components).
Claim 8
Gregg teaches:
The method of claim 1 wherein the preferred centralized solar table assembly and installation process comprises at least some steps related to transport the assembled plurality of solar tables to one or more installation points ([0033] the data sources of the necessary labor resources (e.g., materials delivery services, designers, contractors, and installation personnel, etc.) may be queried to determine the schedules of these labor resources for a potential solar panel installation at the location. [0048] The server 101 may also query solar panel manufacturers and suppliers to confirm that certain panels and other related components (e.g., frames, controllers, inverters, batteries, etc.) are available for delivery to the location at the present time).
Claim 9
Gregg teaches:
The method of claim 2 wherein feedback correlation occurs between the initial design of the large-scale solar system and the preferred centralized solar table assembly and installation process, the feedback correlation resulting in a modified centralized solar table assembly and installation process([0053] Using menus and other components, the example user interface 400 may allow users to interactively create and modify solar panel layout designs for the displayed location 410. A variety of different user interface techniques may be employed to allow users to design, save, reopen, review, and modify various solar panel layouts. In the example shown in FIGS. 4A-4C, the user may select a desired panel type and size from the available solar panel menu 450).
Claim 10
Gregg teaches:
The method of claim 2 wherein solar table information is received and correlated across the resource information, the personnel information and the initial design of the large-scale solar system (figure 2 steps 201-206 describe solar table information is received and correlated across the resource information, the personnel information and the initial design of the large-scale solar system, wherein 0060 after identifying and retrieving one or more applicable forms for the selected solar panel layout, the server 101 may automatically populate some or all of the form fields with the customer information (e.g., name, address, etc.), selected panel information (e.g., number, types, size, and configuration of panels, etc.), and any other information available to the server 101. The server 101 may then output the customer contract and applicable forms to the user via the user interface and/or allow the user to print the contract and forms. In step 206, the server 101 also may perform steps to schedule the installation of the selected solar panel layout. For example, the server 101 may prepare and output a service request form for a local solar panel installer. The server 101 may also automatically contact one or more installers, for example, via email, submission of an Internet form, etc., to schedule the installation of the selected solar panel system at the customer's location. The server may also contact the customer (e.g., via email) to provide the customer contract for the solar panel installation and to schedule and/or confirm the installation).
Claim 11
Gregg teaches:
The method of claim 1 wherein the personnel information comprises at least one of a size of workforce and a skillset of a workforce ([0033] the data sources of the necessary labor resources (e.g., materials delivery services, designers, contractors, and installation personnel, etc.) may be queried to determine the schedules of these labor resources for a potential solar panel installation at the location. [0058] The estimated installation date for the selected layout may be calculated by the server 101 based on the availability of the components and personnel needed to perform the installation (size of the workforce)).
Claim 12
Gregg teaches:
The method of claim 1 further comprising the step of generating a virtual map of the construction site for the large-scale solar system, the virtual map comprising at least a plurality of access roads and a plurality of solar table installation sites ([0048] The server 101 may also query solar panel manufacturers and suppliers to confirm that certain panels and other related components (e.g., frames, controllers, inverters, batteries, etc.) are available for delivery to the location at the present time. [0029] The location information may correspond to an address with one or more physical structures for which a solar panel layout may be desired. For example, the server 101 may receive a street address, Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates (e.g., latitude and longitude), or other identifiers corresponding to a location and/or physical structure(s). If a street address is provided, the server 101 may access a map service and/or geographic database to determine the GPS coordinates of the address, or vice versa and [0031] For example, a salesperson may use a mobile device 153 that includes a GPS unit, and may invoke a map program that displays a satellite image of the salesperson's current position and allows the salesperson to select a location on the image (e.g., by clicking or touching the screen). The map program may identify the address and/or coordinates of the selected customer location based on the screen position selected by the mobile device user. [0043] In other examples, instead of or in addition to displaying satellite images of locations, other graphical representations of the land and structures at the location may be displayed as well).
While Gregg teaches aggerating a preferred centralized solar table assembly and installation process/schedule by evaluating resource information and personnel information as disclosed above. DuraTrack teaches implementing centralized assembling at the near the assembly area in the construction site of the large-scale solar system for the plurality of solar tables according to the preferred centralized solar table assembly and installation process. Gregg and Duratrack do not explicitly teach that the near the assembly area is factory, however analogous reference in the field of solar/PV system, Maldonado Ferreira teaches:
a location of the factory (Fig. 1 illustrates a mobile plant. [0060] The plant (1) of the invention is preferably installed on an area of land close to the solar field, or in the actual solar field, from where the finished units (2) could be moved, and stacked together, to different installation points for installing solar trackers in said field).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Gregg and DuraTrack with Maldonado Ferreira to include a mobile factory for solar table assembly and installation process to the solar system planning system of Gregg. Doing so would effectively utilize resources and personnel (taught in Gregg) to implement the workflow schedule of solar system (as taught by DuraTrack) using mobile factory (as taught by Maldonado Ferreira) which will allow reducing assembly times of trackers, as well as their operating risks associated with the solar field, improving their efficiency and scalability([0015]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregg in view of DuraTrack in view of Ferreira, as applied to claim 12, and further in view of Raj Abhyanker (US 2014/0143061 A1, hereinafter “Abhyanker”).
Claim 13
While Gregg teaches receiving information for designing solar panel layout as illustrated in figure 2 steps 201-206 and [0048] The list of solar panels displayed in the available solar panel menu 450 may be determined based on other factors instead of, or in addition to, the size and structure of the buildings 412 and 414 at the location. [0051] both the determination of suggested optimal components/suggested design layouts, and the determination of whether or not to include specific solar panels types, sizes, and other components within the user interface 400 may be based on an analysis of technical factors (e.g., climate data, sun hours, building codes, etc.) as well as non-technical or financial factors (e.g., prices and availability of solar panel components, governmental rebate and tax information, etc.) in various combinations. The determination of suggested optimal components and/or suggested design layouts may also depend on the availability of components and the compatibility matrix between different components. For example, one potential panel layout may require a combination of panels of two different sizes to cover a large roof surface. In this case, if the server 101 determines that there are available panels of the two sizes which are compatible (e.g., panels from the same manufacturer/factory, aesthetically similar panels, and/or panels having the same voltage type), then this panel layout may be suggested (or automatically selected) as an optimal layout, however Gregg does not explicitly teach the following, Abhyanker teaches:
The method of claim 12 wherein an autonomous vehicle transports a [product/item] on an access road within the plurality of access roads to [location] within the plurality of [locations] ([0185] and [0196] describe the autonomous vehicle transporting items/products to different locations, wherein [0196] the delivery details 1310 may allow the user to view confirmation that a delivery has been made, that an item has been placed in the vehicle, to indicate a status of the autonomous vehicle 1200 etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Gregg, DuraTrack, and Ferreira incorporate the teachings of Abhyanker to include an autonomous vehicle to transport a solar table on an access road within the plurality of access roads to a solar table installation site within the plurality of solar table installation sites. because the references are analogous and compatible since they are both transportation customer service providing service. Doing so would improve the process of the solar table installation by providing automous vehicle technology to reduce human error.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Adam Pryor (US 20150066442 A1): method may include receiving, by a processor of a solar energy system design computing system, at least one of lead data or inquiry data related to a property, querying predefined data related to the property using the received at least one of lead data or inquiry data, evaluating the queried predefined data to qualify the received at least one of lead data or inquiry data, and performing at least one action related to the solar energy systems based on the evaluation of the queried predefined data using the received at least one of lead data or inquiry data. The method may include rendering a solar energy system design and/or transmitting to third-party devices marketing information related to at least one of a solar energy system price, a design, and installation.
NPL (SolarPeak “Roadmap for Implementing Solar”, published 2018): An overview of the major steps and information exchange required to successfully implement solar photovoltaic projects at commercial and industrial facilities. SunPeak specializes in the design, engineering, construction, and ongoing operation of commercial and industrial solar photovoltaic (PV) systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REHAM K ABOUZAHRA whose telephone number is (571)272-0419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM to 5:00 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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571)-270-5389. 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.
/REHAM K ABOUZAHRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/BRIAN M EPSTEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights