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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed December 4, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the instant application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed June 4, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in view of amendments, filed December 4, 2025, regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C 101 has been overcome.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection, necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 is marked as “(Original)”; however, the claim has been amended and should be marked as “(Currently Amended),” as per 37 C.F.R. 1.530(d)(2). Applicant’s remarks should also reflect that Claim 7 has been amended, as per 37 C.F.R. 1.530(e).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wachman et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0239841 A1), hereinafter Wachman, in view of Kicinski et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0032178 A1), hereinafter Kicinski, further in view of Scanlan (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0071604 A1), hereinafter Scanlan.
Regarding Claim 1, Wachman teaches a method, comprising: fetching, using a computing device, a maximum solar panel design for a photovoltaic (PV) system design from a photovoltaic system design tool (“In S310, the MaxFit design can be determined. The MaxFit design can be based on the number of solar panels that can be placed on one or more sections of the roof of the installation location.”) (e.g., paragraph [0032]).
fetching, using the computing device, an electricity profile for the photovoltaic system design (“In S320, energy production information for each request can be received from the server 125, for example. The number of requests can be based on the number of arrays the and the number of types of solar panels.” The energy production information is interpreted as comprising an electricity profile.) (e.g., paragraph [0034]).
receiving, using the computing device, one or more modifications to the photovoltaic system design (“In S330, selection and/or deselection of one or more solar panels and/or arrays can be received via input on the mobile device 110, for example, at a job site,” wherein selecting and deselecting are interpreted as modifying the PV design.) (e.g., paragraph [0036]).
and generating, using the computing device, a customer proposal based on the modified photovoltaic system design and the modified environment of the photovoltaic system (“In S340, it can be determined if a design is complete. The design can be a point of sale design which can correspond to a customer's preferred solar panels and/or solar arrays selected within the MaxFit design […] In S345, the completed design can be saved and stored locally and/or at the database 120, for example.”) (e.g., paragraphs [0038] and [0039]).
However, Wachman does not appear to specifically teach a method comprising receiving […] one or more modifications to […] an environment of a photovoltaic system, wherein the environment of the photovoltaic system includes shade characteristics represented by a 3D shade model that is stored in memory of the computing device, wherein the one or more modifications to the environment of the photovoltaic system include a modification to the shade characteristics of the environment of the photovoltaic system; updating the 3D shade model based upon, at least in part, the modification to the shade characteristics of the environment of the photovoltaic system; updating, in real time, energy production corresponding to the environment of the photovoltaic system based upon, at least in part, the updated 3D shade model; determining […] customer pricing based on one or more of the modified photovoltaic system design and the modified environment of the photovoltaic system;
On the other hand, Kicinski, which relates similarly to designing and modeling a photovoltaic system, does teach receiving […] one or more modifications to […] an environment of a photovoltaic system (“To this end, PV design module 106 can receive, from the user, definitions of one or more obstructions at the site (block 310). These obstructions can include, e.g., trees, buildings, or any other structures that could possibly shade the PV panels at the site, and thus adversely affect their energy production.”) (e.g., paragraph [0067]).
wherein the environment of the photovoltaic system includes shade characteristics represented by a 3D shade model that is stored in memory of the computing device (“In one embodiment, these obstructions can be defined or selected as 3D objects within 3D design program 104.”) (e.g., paragraph [0067])
wherein the one or more modifications to the environment of the photovoltaic system include a modification to the shade characteristics of the environment of the photovoltaic system (“At blocks 1702 through 1706, PV design module 106 can determine, for each obstruction defined at block 310 of FIG. 3, a shadow path created by the obstruction over the mounting plane throughout a year.”) (e.g., paragraph [0100]).
updating the 3D shade model based upon, at least in part, the modification to the shade characteristics of the environment of the photovoltaic system (“In one embodiment, the obstructions can be manually defined by the user within 3D design program 104 by placing various geometric primitives (e.g., cones, cylinders, etc.) around the installation site.”) (e.g., paragraph [0089]).
updating, in real time, energy production corresponding to the environment of the photovoltaic system based upon, at least in part, the updated 3D shade model (“Once obstructions have been placed around an installation site, PV design module 106 can estimate the PV energy production of the PV panels relative to the site and provide a visual representation of the estimates within 3D design program 104 (see blocks 312 and 314 of FIG. 3).”) (e.g., paragraph [0093]).
However, neither Wachman nor Kicinski appear to specifically teach a method comprising determining […] customer pricing based on one or more of the modified photovoltaic system design and the modified environment of the photo voltaic system.
On the other hand, Scanlan, which relates to price determination for solar systems, does teach a method comprising determining […] customer pricing based on one or more of the modified photovoltaic system design and the modified environment of the photo voltaic system (“From the solar information files, the solar calculator 20 may determine the number and type of solar electric panels that are optimized for the roof size contemplated. An inverter may be selected on the same basis. With the number of solar panels and inverter identified, the solar calculator 20 may determine an internal cost for the solar system.”) (e.g., paragraph [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine Wachman with Kicinski. The claimed invention is considered to be merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see MPEP § 2143(I)(A). Wachman teaches a method for modifying a PV system design. However, Wachman does not appear to specifically teach the method comprising modifying a PV system environment. On the other hand, Kicinski does teach a method comprising modifying a PV system environment, including providing a 3D model of the environment and obstructions. The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is the lack of actual combination of the PV system modification and PV system environment modification into a single prior art reference. As both Wachman and Kicinski relate to PV system design (e.g., Wachman; paragraph [0007]; Kicinski; paragraph [0004]), one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the PV system modeling of Wachman with the PV environment modeling of Kicinski. In combination, the model of Wachman and the model of Kicinski merely perform the same functions as they do separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination as predictable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine Wachman with Kicinski in order to model both a PV system and the environment of the PV system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine the modified reference of Wachman in view of Kicinski with Scanlan. The claimed invention is considered to be merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see MPEP § 2143(I)(A). Wachman teaches a method for modifying a PV system design. However, Wachman does not appear to specifically teach the method comprising determining a cost of the PV system. On the other hand, Scanlan does teach a method comprising determining a cost of a PV system. The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is the lack of actual combination of modifying a PV system with determining a cost for the PV system into a single prior art reference. As both Wachman and Scanlan relate to PV systems on roofs (e.g., Wachman; paragraph [0007]; Scanlan; paragraph [0009]), one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the PV system modeling of Wachman with the price determination of Scanlan. In combination, the method of Wachman and the price determination of Scanlan merely perform the same functions as they do separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination as predictable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to combine Wachman with Scanlan in order to provide a combined PV system design and pricing method.
Regarding Claim 2, Wachman in view of Kicinski and Scanlan teaches the method of claim 1. Wachman further teaches the method wherein receiving one or more modifications to the photovoltaic system design and an environment of the photovoltaic system includes activating PV panels that already exist in the PV system design (“The user interface 200 can include a selected solar panel 205, a deselected solar panel 210, an array of solar panels 215 […] Individual solar panels 205, 210 can be deselected/selected, respectively.”) (e.g., paragraphs [0022] and [0023]).
Regarding Claim 3, Wachman in view of Kicinski and Scanlan teaches the method of claim 1. Wachman further teaches the method wherein receiving one or more modifications the photovoltaic system design and an environment of the photovoltaic system includes deactivating PV panels that already exist in the PV system design (“The user interface 200 can include a selected solar panel 205, a deselected solar panel 210, an array of solar panels 215 […] Individual solar panels 205, 210 can be deselected/selected, respectively.”) (e.g., paragraphs [0022] and [0023]).
Regarding Claim 9, Wachman in view of Kicinski and Scanlan teaches the method of claim 1. Wachman further teaches the method further comprising: displaying energy production of the PV system (“dynamically displaying, on a display of the computing device, energy production and energy offset in real time.”) (e.g., claim 11).
Regarding Claim 10, Wachman in view of Kicinski and Scanlan teaches the method of claim 1. Kicinski further teaches the method further comprising: modifying a built PV system environment (“Once the PV panel configuration is determined, PV design module 106 can display the panel configuration on top of (i.e., superimposed on) the site image in 3D design program 104 (block 308). In this manner, the user can easily visualize how the site will look post-installation (i.e., with the PV panels installed).”) (e.g., paragraph [0066]).
Regarding Claim 11, Wachman in view of Kicinski and Scanlan teaches the method of claim 10. Kicinski further teaches the method further comprising: adding or removing one or more roof obstructions in the built PV system environment (“In one embodiment, the obstructions can be manually defined by the user within 3D design program 104 by placing various geometric primitives (e.g., cones, cylinders, etc.) around the installation site.”) (e.g., paragraph [0089]).
Regarding Claim 12, Wachman in view of Kicinski and Scanlan teaches the method of claim 10. Kicinski further teaches a method further comprising: changing one or more of a shape and height of one or more roof obstructions (“In alternative embodiments, the obstructions can be defined by selecting one or more predefined 3D models from a 3D object library. This 3D object library […] may be customized to provide models corresponding to the region in which a particular installation site is located […] In certain embodiments, each 3D model in the 3D object library can be designed and stored parametrically as a hierarchical series of 2D and/or 3D sub-objects.”) (e.g., paragraphs [0090] and [0091]).
Regarding Claim 13, Wachman in view of Kicinski and Scanlan teaches the method of claim 10. Kicinski further teaches a method further comprising: adding or removing one or more trees in the built PV system environment (“In one embodiment, these obstructions can be defined or selected as 3D objects within 3D design program 104 […] For example, if the installation site is located in the northern US, the 3D object library may contain 3D models for various types of coniferous trees.”) (e.g., paragraphs [0067] and [0090]).
Regarding Claim 14, Wachman in view of Kicinski and Scanlan teaches the method of claim 13. Kicinski further teaches a method further comprising: changing one or more of a shape and height of one or more trees in the built PV system environment (“In alternative embodiments, the obstructions can be defined by selecting one or more predefined 3D models from a 3D object library. This 3D object library […] may be customized to provide models corresponding to the region in which a particular installation site is located […] In certain embodiments, each 3D model in the 3D object library can be designed and stored parametrically as a hierarchical series of 2D and/or 3D sub-objects.”) (e.g., paragraphs [0090] and [0091]).
Regarding Claim 15, Wachman in view of Kicinski and Scanlan teaches the method of claim 10. Kicinski further teaches a method further comprising: in response to modifying the built PV system environment, update a three-dimensional model of the built PV system environment (“In one embodiment, the obstructions can be manually defined by the user within 3D design program 104 by placing various geometric primitives (e.g., cones, cylinders, etc.) around the installation site.”) (e.g., paragraph [0089]).
Regarding Claim 17, Wachman teaches One or more non-transitory computer readable medium including computer program instructions, which, when executed by an information processing system (“The system 100 can include a mobile device 110 connected to a computer 115, a database 120, and a server 125 via a network 105 […] In FIG. 4, the server 125 includes a CPU 400 which performs the processes described above/below. The process data and instructions may be stored in memory 402. These processes and instructions may also be stored on a storage medium disk 404 such as a hard drive (HDD) or portable storage medium or may be stored remotely.”) (e.g., paragraphs [0017] and [0042]).
The remaining limitations of Claim 17 recite substantially similar material to Claim 1, and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 18, Wachman in view of Kicinski and Scanlan teaches the one or more computer readable medium of claim 17. Wachman further teaches the medium wherein the information processing system is a server (“The system 100 can include a mobile device 110 connected to a computer 115, a database 120, and a server 125 via a network 105.”) (e.g., paragraph [0017]).
Regarding Claim 19, Wachman in view of Kicinski and Scanlan teaches the one or more computer readable medium of claim 17. Wachman further teaches the medium wherein the information processing system is a cloud-based architecture (“The system 100 can include a mobile device 110 connected to a computer 115, a database 120, and a server 125 via a network 105 […] In FIG. 4, the server 125 includes a CPU 400 which performs the processes described above/below. The process data and instructions may be stored in memory 402. These processes and instructions may also be stored on a storage medium disk 404 such as a hard drive (HDD) or portable storage medium or may be stored remotely.” A system comprising a server and remote storage is interpreted as a cloud-based architecture.) (e.g., paragraphs [0017] and [0042]).
Regarding Claim 20, Wachman teaches A server, comprising: processing circuitry (“The system 100 can include a mobile device 110 connected to a computer 115, a database 120, and a server 125 via a network 105.”) (e.g., paragraph [0017]).
The remaining limitations of Claim 20 recite substantially similar material to Claim 1, and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 4-8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wachman in view of Kicinski and Scanlan, further in view of Udell et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0089339 A1), hereinafter Udell.
Regarding Claim 4, Wachman in view of Kicinski and Scanlan teaches the method of claim 1. However, neither Wachman nor Kicinski nor Scanlan appear to specifically teach the method wherein receiving one or more modifications to the photovoltaic system design and an environment of the photovoltaic system includes moving one or more PV panel to a different location on a roof corresponding to the PV system design.
On the other hand, Udell, which relates to PV installation design optimization, does teach a method wherein receiving one or more modifications to the photovoltaic system design and an environment of the photovoltaic system includes moving one or more PV panel to a different location on a roof corresponding to the PV system design. (“The PV design system determines whether any PV panel is an island PV panel […] they also reduce the visual symmetry of the PV array and may be considered an eyesore […] The PV design system searches for island PV panels and repositioning island PV panels to available locations with the most adjacent panels.”) (e.g., paragraphs [0050] and [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine the modified reference of Wachman in view of Kicinski and Scanlan with Udell. The claimed invention is considered to be using a known technique to improve a similar method in the same way, see MPEP § 2143(I)(C). Wachman teaches a method for PV system design comprising receiving modifications to the PV design. However, Wachman does not appear to specifically teach the method wherein the modification comprises moving or adding a PV panel, checking the location of the PV panel, or updating an irradiance of the panel. On the other hand, Wachman teaches a similar method of PV design optimization that comprises moving and adding a PV panel, checking the location of the PV panel, and updating an irradiance. As both Wachman and Udell relate to automating the design of PV systems on rooftops (e.g., Wachman; paragraph [0007]; Udell; paragraph [0003]), one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to improve the method of Wachman with the elements of Udell in the same way, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the improvement as predictable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to improve the method of Wachman with the techniques of Udell in order to provide a more robust PV system design method.
Regarding Claim 5, Wachman in view of Kicinski and Scanlan teaches the method of claim 1. However, neither Wachman nor Kicinski nor Scanlan appear to specifically teach the method wherein receiving one or more modifications to the photovoltaic system design and an environment of the photovoltaic system includes adding a new PV panel to the PV system design.
On the other hand, Udell, which relates to PV installation design optimization, does teach a method wherein receiving one or more modifications to the photovoltaic system design and an environment of the photovoltaic system includes adding a new PV panel to the PV system design (“The PV design system 130 determines 304 one or more candidate PV panel types that can be used as candidate for determining installation plans to meet the PV design objective […] For example, the PV system 130 selects one or more types of PV panels that can output the desired output energy from the different types of PV panels that are stored in the PV panel data store 152.” Selecting PV panels is interpreted as comprising adding a new PV panel to the PV system design.) (e.g., paragraph [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine The modified reference of Wachman in view of Kicinski and Scanlan with Udell for the same reasons as in Claim 4, above.
Regarding Claim 6, Wachman in view of Kicinski, Scanlan, and Udell teaches the method of claim 5. Udell further teaches the method wherein adding a new PV panel to the PV system design includes automatically adding the PV panel to an existing PV panel array (“The PV design system determines whether any PV panel is an island PV panel […] they also reduce the visual symmetry of the PV array and may be considered an eyesore […] The PV design system searches for island PV panels and repositioning island PV panels to available locations with the most adjacent panels.”) (e.g., paragraphs [0050] and [0051]).
and mirroring an orientation of the added PV panel to a set of panels in the existing array on a roof plane (“For example, for an identified island PV panel, the PV design system can identify multiple PV panels around the island PV panel and moves the identified island PV panel to possible locations near the multiple PV panels iteratively.” The possible locations are interpreted as comprising mirrored PV panel positions.) (e.g., paragraph [0051]).
Regarding Claim 7, Wachman in view of Kicinski and Scanlan teaches the method of claim 1. However, neither Wachman nor Kicinski nor Scanlan appear to specifically teach the method further comprising: in response to receiving one or more modifications to the photovoltaic system design and an environment of the photovoltaic system, determining whether the one or more modifications is within local roof setbacks.
On the other hand, Udell, which relates to PV installation design optimization, does teach a method further comprising: in response to receiving one or more modifications to the photovoltaic system design and an environment of the photovoltaic system, determining whether the one or more modifications is within local roof setbacks (“PV Panels may only be placed in certain areas of roofs to obey fire codes and other zoning constraints. PV panels may be prevented from being placed too close to a roof edge or to an obstruction such as a chimney.” Obeying fire codes and other zoning constraints is interpreted as comprising determining whether a modification is within local roof setbacks.) (e.g., paragraph [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine The modified reference of Wachman in view of Kicinski and Scanlan with Udell for the same reasons as in Claim 4, above.
Regarding Claim 8, Wachman in view of Kicinski, Scanlan, and Udell teaches the method of claim 7. Udell further teaches the method further comprising: in response to a determination that the one or more modifications is within local roof setbacks, fetching PV panel level production for each PV panel based on a location of the PV panel on a roof (“The constraints may also include restrictions imposed by design objectives energy output […] The PV design system 130 receives 302 a desired energy output Edes and roof data including information about a roof for which the PV installation plan is being determined [...] Accordingly, the output energy produced by individual PV panels on a particular roof face can be linearized according to Equation (7).” Equation (7) discloses the output of a PV panel based on its shading, wherein the shading depends on the panel’s location.) (e.g., paragraphs [0027], [0030], and [0040]).
Regarding Claim 16, Wachman in view of Kicinski and Scanlan teaches the method of claim 15. However, neither Wachman nor Kicinski nor Scanlan appear to specifically teach the method further comprising: updating an irradiance of the PV system design.
On the other hand, Udell, which relates to PV installation design optimization, does teach a method further comprising: updating an irradiance of the PV system design (“In some embodiments, the PV design system 130 may determine irradiance levels on the roof based at least on the received roof representation and weather data.”) (e.g., paragraph [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine The modified reference of Wachman in view of Kicinski and Scanlan with Udell for the same reasons as in Claim 4, above.
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 KYLE HWA-KAI TSENG whose telephone number is (571)272-3731. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9A-5P PST.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at (571) 272-3676. 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.
/K.H.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189