DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 10/06/2025 to claims are accepted. In this amendment, claim 1 has been amended.
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 1-18 and21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims1-20 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. For example, each of claim 1-9 and 221-22 falls within category of machine, i.e., a “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.” Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348–49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)); For example, each of claims 10-18 fall within category of process;
Regarding Claims 20-24
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 20 is directed to an abstract idea of calculate hydrometeor impact data.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a microprocessor configured to calculate hydrometeor impact data..
The italicized limitations above represent a mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “calculate hydrometeor impact data” are mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea);
Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The only additional element is “apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a microprocessor”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic device with computer components, which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
In view of the above, the “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of generic component with software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
.
Step 2B
Claims 20 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, the limitation of Claim 1 contains additional elements that are, i.e. “processor”, generic device, which are well understood, routine and convention (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and MPEP 2106.05(d))The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
.
Dependent Claims 21-24
Dependent claims 21-24 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 20 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 21-24 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For example, the limitations of Claims 21-24 are mathematical concepts.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 15, 17, 20-22,28,95 and 99-100 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Martin et al. (US 20140007703).
Regarding Claim 1. Martin teaches an apparatus comprising(fig.11-12; [0025]-[0026]):
1) a detection plate(412: fig.12);
2) a supporting frame(422); and
3) a force sensor between said supporting frame and said detection plate(414: figs.11-12),
wherein said force sensor (414) attaches said detection plate(412) to said supporting frame(422), and
wherein said force sensor is sandwiched between said supporting frame and said detection plate, and wherein attaching said detection plate to said supporting frame provides said force sensor with a pre-load([0108])-[0135], specifically [0115]: The load cells 414 are attached to an interior or bottom surface of the base plate 422 ; fig. 12; The Examiner considered “load cell attached to a bottom surface of the base plate 422” to be a preload; calibration: [0134]).
Regarding Claim 15. Martin further teaches said force sensor comprises a load cell (414: fig. 12).
Regarding Claim 17. Martin further teaches said detection plate has an area of at least 3.5 square feet to 100 square feet ([0068]).
Regarding Claim 20. Martin further teaches a microprocessor is configured to calculate hydrometeor impact data([0109], [0117], [0133]).
Regarding Claim 21. Martin further teaches said microprocessor is configured to receive inputs from a plurality of sensors ([0109], [0119])
Regarding Claim 22. Martin further teaches said microprocessor is configured to calculate hydrometeor impact data from multiple sensor signals ([0109], [0109], [0119], [0117], [0133]).
Regarding Claim 28. Martin further teaches an elastic covering component that partially or fully covers the top of the detection plate (impact zone surface 428 ([0111]), the impact zone surface being deformable [0035]; plastically deform[0030]) .
elastic covering maximizes transfer of impactor kinetic energy to the detection plate (an impact energy that is nearly identical to that which would have been absorbed by the roof if the hail had struck the roof instead. In other words, there is no meaningful difference (in terms of measuring roof damage) between the impact energy absorbed by the panel component (or platen) or the impact energy that would have been absorbed by the roof if the hail had struck the roof instead:[0064]; which is concluded that deformable surface which is plastically maximizes the transfer impact energy to detector.).
Regarding Claim 95. Luukkala further teaches said elastic covering component comprises a rubber, foam, membrane, meshed material, or net(mpact zone surface 428 ([0111]), the impact zone surface being deformable [0035]).
Regarding Claim 99. Luukkala further teaches a sensor pack affixed to the underside of said detection plate(422:fig. 12).
Regarding Claim 100. Martin teaches a system comprising an apparatus of claim 1(see claim 1) and
a computer configured to collect hail data from the apparatus and provide real-time or predicted weather information([0074]).
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of Schiff.
Regarding Claim 11. Martin silent about said detection plate comprises a solar panel.
Schiff further teaches said detection plate comprises a solar panel([0041]-[0042].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Martin, said detection plate comprises a solar panel, as taught by Schiff, so as to accurate hail detection and other site-specific measurements and parameters in compact and inexpensive way.
Claim(s) 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. (US 20140007703) in view of Luukkala.
Regarding Claim 23. Martin silent about microprocessor is configured to calculate hydrometeor impact data comprising hydrometeor size, hydrometeor volume, hydrometeor mass, hydrometeor momentum, hydrometeor energy, and/or hydrometeor velocity.
However Luukkala further teaches microprocessor is configured to calculate hydrometeor impact data comprising hydrometeor size, hydrometeor volume, hydrometeor mass, hydrometeor momentum, hydrometeor energy, and/or hydrometeor velocity ([0011], [0047], [0083], [0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Martin, microprocessor is configured to calculate hydrometeor impact data comprising hydrometeor size, hydrometeor volume, hydrometeor mass, hydrometeor momentum, hydrometeor energy, and/or hydrometeor velocity, as taught by Luukkala, so as to measure the parameters of precipitation more accurately.
Regarding Claim 24. Martin silent about said microprocessor is configured to calculate a distribution, range, mean, mode, and/or median of one or more of hydrometeor impact data comprising hydrometeor size, hydrometeor volume, hydrometeor mass, hydrometeor momentum, hydrometeor energy, and/or hydrometeor velocity for a plurality of hydrometeors
However, Luukkala further teaches said microprocessor(4) is configured to calculate a distribution, range, mean, mode, and/or median of one or more of hydrometeor impact data comprising hydrometeor size, hydrometeor volume, hydrometeor mass, hydrometeor momentum, hydrometeor energy, and/or hydrometeor velocity for a plurality of hydrometeors(an estimate on the incremental value ΔP of cumulative rainfall detected over the cycle, a fixed measurement cycle time increment, typically selected to be in the range 1-10 minutes : [0060]; summing the incremental rainfall values of successively recorded measurement cycles , average intensity R of rainfall during a measurement cycle: [0066]; computing rainfall intensity (mm/h) and cumulative rainfall (mm): [0047], [0055], [0073]; ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Martin, said microprocessor is configured to calculate a distribution, range, mean, mode, and/or median of one or more of hydrometeor impact data comprising hydrometeor size, hydrometeor volume, hydrometeor mass, hydrometeor momentum, hydrometeor energy, and/or hydrometeor velocity for a plurality of hydrometeors, as taught by Luukkala, so as to measure the parameters of precipitation more accurately.
Claim(s) 96-98 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of Lomasney (US 2018/0183383).
Regarding Claim 96. Martin silent about said elastic covering component permits transmission of light.
However, Lomasney teaches said elastic covering, i.e. PVDF, component permits transmission of light (The solar absorber may consist of any of the materials that are capable of converting sunlight into electricity. Examples are monocrystalline or amorphous silicon, CIGS, gallium arsenide, and cadmium telluride.The solar absorber is covered with a suitable polymeric covering. Examples of polymers that can be employed for such purpose include fluorinated polymers such as ethylene tetrafluoroethylene copolymer (ETFE), fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP), and polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF). Such polymers provide extended lifetimes under ambient exposure conditions. These also exhibit light transmission property : [0100]-[0101]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Martin, said elastic covering, i.e. PVDF, component permits transmission of light, as taught by Lomasney, so as to manage the excess heat to mitigate an adverse effect on an electrical output of a semiconductor and electronics systems, thus extending operational lifetime of a photovoltaic system and improving energy conversion efficiency.
Regarding Claim 97. Martin about said elastic covering component permits transmission of light sufficient to produce electric current by a photovoltaic panel.
However, Lomasney teaches said elastic covering component permits transmission of light sufficient to produce electric current by a photovoltaic panel ((The solar absorber may consist of any of the materials that are capable of converting sunlight into electricity. Examples are monocrystalline or amorphous silicon, CIGS, gallium arsenide, and cadmium telluride.The solar absorber is covered with a suitable polymeric covering. Examples of polymers that can be employed for such purpose include fluorinated polymers such as ethylene tetrafluoroethylene copolymer (ETFE), fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP), and polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF). Such polymers provide extended lifetimes under ambient exposure conditions. These also exhibit light transmission property : [0100]-[0101])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Martin, said elastic covering component permits transmission of light sufficient to produce electric current by a photovoltaic panel, as taught by Lomasney, so as to manage the excess heat to mitigate an adverse effect on an electrical output of a semiconductor and electronics systems, thus extending operational lifetime of a photovoltaic system and improving energy conversion efficiency.
Regarding Claim 98. Martin silent said elastic covering component comprises silicone.
However, Lomasney teaches said elastic covering component comprises silicone([0087], [0100]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Martin, said elastic covering component comprises silicone, as taught by Lomasney, so as to manage the excess heat to mitigate an adverse effect on an electrical output of a semiconductor and electronics systems, thus extending operational lifetime of a photovoltaic system and improving energy conversion efficiency.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect 102 rejection, specially claim1 has been considered but are moot because a new ground of rejection made over amended limitation based on newly cited prior art, see the updated rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Garrett et al. (US 2020/0326456) disclose the heating elements 212 do not capture light or otherwise receive visual data from the hydrometeors, visualization of the hydrometeors or other data processing may nevertheless be carried out based on the pattern of heating elements that are activated to heat the hydrometeors.
b) Tolmachev (US 2014/0170511) disclose The porous solid matrix is, for example, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), a dielectric such as silicon carbide, silicon dioxide, a silicate, other ceramic materials, other polymer materials, etc. The ion conducting liquid is, for example, water, an acid, a base, a salt, a molten electrolyte, an organic solvent, or a combination thereof.
Contact information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached on 571-272-6334. 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.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights