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 .
This communication is responsive to amended application filed on 12/24/2025.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argued:
PNG
media_image1.png
186
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The recited limitation falls into the “mental process” group of abstract idea because the recited limitation can be practically performed by paper and pencil. Any purported improvement to a technology or technical field as direct consequence of the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. “An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself” (MPEP 2106.05(I)).
Applicant’s arguments/amendments, see Remarks pgs. 9-12, filed 12/24/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US Patent No. 8, 991, 065 B1 issued to Schrock et al.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/19/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites “20” in line 6. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (Does this claim fall within at least one statutory category?): Yes, the claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process.
Step 2A, Prong 1: ((a) identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites an abstract idea: and (b) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groups of abstract ideas enumerates in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)):
Claim 1:
A method for calculating a layout for a set of solar panels to be installed on a roof of a building, the method comprising:
receiving, by a computing system, input parameters defining requirements for the solar panels [insignificant extra solution, e.g. mere data-gathering];
obtaining, by the computing system, an aerial image of the roof of the building [insignificant extra solution, e.g. mere data-gathering];
determining, by the computing system, an available area for the solar panels based on the aerial image [“mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concept];
obtaining, by the computing system, structural information for the installation of the solar panels [insignificant extra solution, e.g. mere data-gathering], wherein the roof comprises a plurality of panels and a plurality of seams, each seam of the plurality of seams joining two of the plurality of panels, and wherein the structural information comprises a three-dimensional model of the roof of the building, spacing information for the plurality of seams, and a pre-defined distance between panels to allow for thermal expansion [“mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concept];
manipulating, by the computing system, the three-dimensional model of the roof of the building to align mounting locations of the solar panels with the plurality of seams 20 while maintaining a gap between panels of at least the pre-defined distance between panels to allow for thermal expansion [“mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concept];
calculating, by the computing system, a layout for the solar panels, required hardware for mounting the solar panels on the roof of the building, and locations for the required hardware based on the received input parameters, the determined available area for the solar panels, and the obtained structural information for the installation of the solar panels, and the determined available area [mathematical concept]; and
generating, by the computing system, a report providing the calculated layout and mounting hardware requirements [insignificant post solution, data output].
Claim 1 recites “determining”, and “calculating” which fall into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts].
Step 2A, Prong 2 (1. Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception; and 2. Evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application): The claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites “receiving”, “obtaining” and “generating”. These additional elements are insignificant pre-solution/post-solutions (i.e. data gathering and/or mere data output). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further, claim 1 recites additional element of “computing system”. This additional element recited at a high level of generality (e.g. a generic computer element for performing a generic computer functions and/or machine learning components) such that it amounts to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Accordingly, the additional element(s) of each of these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No): As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional elements of “receiving”, “obtaining” and “generating” are insignificant pre/post-solutions (i.e. data gathering and/or mere data output). At most the additional elements are not found to including anything more than data gathering or mere data output. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g), example (iv) - Obtaining information about transactions and/or (ii)-printing or downloading generated menus and/or (iii)- presenting offers to potential customers.
Further, as discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional element of “computing system” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
As per claim 2, the claim falls into [insignificant extra solution, e.g. mere data-gathering].
As per claim 3, the claim falls [insignificant extra solution, e.g. mere data-gathering].
As per claim 4, the claim falls into [insignificant extra solution, e.g. mere data-gathering].
As per claim 5, the claim falls into [insignificant extra solution, e.g. mere data-gathering].
As per claim 6, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts].
As per claim 7, the claim falls into [insignificant extra solution, e.g. mere data-gathering, “mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts].
As per claim 8, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts].
As per claim 9, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts].
As per claim 10, claim 10 recites limitations analogous in scope to those of claim 1, and as such is similar rejected. Further, claim 10 recites additional elements of “a processor” and “a memory”. The components recited at a high level of generality (e.g. a generic computer element for performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Accordingly, the additional element(s) of each of these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, as discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional elements of “a processor” and “a memory” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
As per claim 11, the claim falls into [insignificant extra solution, e.g. mere data-gathering].
As per claim 12, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts].
As per claim 13, the claim falls into [insignificant extra solution, e.g. mere data-gathering, “mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts].
As per claim 14, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts].
As per claim 15, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts].
As per claim 16, claim 16 recites limitations analogous in scope to those of claim 1, and as such is similar rejected.
As per claim 17, the claim falls into [insignificant extra solution, e.g. mere data-gathering].
As per claim 18, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts].
As per Claim 19, claim19 recites limitations analogous in scope to those of claim 1, and as such is similar rejected.
As per claim 20, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts].
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 2014/0025343 A1 issued to Gregg et al in view of US Publication No. 2016/0275212 A1 issued to Brier et al and further in view of US Patent No. 8, 991, 065 B1 issued to Schrock et al.
1. Gregg et al discloses a method for calculating a layout for a set of solar panels to be installed on a roof of a building (See: Abstract, Methods, computer readable media, and apparatuses related to a solar panel layout and installation software tool are presented), the method comprising:
receiving, by a computing system, input parameters defining requirements for the solar panels (See: Abstract, describing one or more physical structures at the location, and additional information relating to technical or financial considerations of potential solar panel layouts and systems; [0005] The retrieved information may include, for example, climate data for the location, data describing one or more physical structures at the location, and additional information relating to technical or financial considerations of potential solar panel layouts at the location. A user interface potentially may be provided including a graphical representation of the location and any structures at the location, and including a plurality of user options for designing one or more solar panel layouts at the location based on the retrieved location information and other factors);
obtaining, by the computing system, an aerial image of the roof of the building information is retrieved from one or more data sources based on a received location. The retrieved information may correspond to satellite images of the location, climate data for the location, data describing one or more physical structures at the location, and additional information relating to technical or financial considerations of potential solar panel layouts and systems. A user interface may be displayed including a graphical representation of the location and any physical structures at the location, and including a plurality of user options for designing one or more solar panel layouts at the location based on the retrieved information corresponding to the location; [0029] In step 201, location information may be received, for example, by the server 101. 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);
obtaining, by the computing system, structural information for the installation of the solar panels (See: Abstract, information is retrieved from one or more data sources based on a received location. The retrieved information may correspond to satellite images of the location, climate data for the location, data describing one or more physical structures at the location, and additional information relating to technical or financial considerations of potential solar panel layouts and systems. A user interface may be displayed including a graphical representation of the location and any physical structures at the location, and including a plurality of user options for designing one or more solar panel layouts at the location based on the retrieved information corresponding to the location; par [0024] provide direct information about a home, building, or other structure(s) at a location to the server 101, which may then be used by the client software to create a solar panel layout for the location. Additionally, mobile devices 151-153 may also be used as client devices configured to interact with the server 101 to create solar panel layouts; par [0032] 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);
calculating, by the computing system, a layout for the solar panels, required hardware for mounting the solar panels on the roof of the building, and locations for the required hardware based on the received input parameters, the determined available area for the solar panels, and the obtained structural information for the installation of the solar panels (See: [0046] The user interface 400 also includes a scale 440. In certain examples, the scale may be determined based on the scale of the satellite image retrieved by the server 101 from an external satellite image database (e.g., Google Maps.RTM., Google Earth.RTM., Bing Maps.RTM., MapQuest.RTM., etc.). In other examples, the scale may be calculated and displayed automatically by the solar panel layout software based on a known size or distance of an item in the property image 410. For example, the solar panel layout software may be configured to identify a sidewalk 418 within the property image 410, and then to calculate the scale 440 for the image 410 based on a predetermined known width of the sidewalk 418. In this example, the solar panel layout software may assume that the sidewalk is a standard width (e.g., 5 feet) or may retrieve the sidewalk width from an external source (e.g., an architectural plan or schematic for the displayed property or nearby properties, neighborhood design plans, local government rules or regulations, etc.). The scale 440 may be calculated and rendered based on other known lengths or widths of items in the image 410, such as known sizes of buildings, cars, driveways, etc.; [0047] As shown in FIGS. 4A-4C, the solar panel layout and installation software tool may also provide a solar panel menu 450 in the user interface 400 to display one or more lists of the solar panels that are available at the displayed location. In this example, the solar panel menu 450 may be a dropdown list including the different available types and sizes of solar panels that the user may select for the location shown in image 410. The list of available panels displayed in menu 450 may be calculated by the server 101 based on several different factors. For example, based on the sizes, designs, and/or structural details (e.g., size dimensions of roof surfaces, slopes of roof surfaces, roofing materials, etc.) of the physical structures 412 and 414 at the location, the server 101 may determine that certain solar panels are incompatible or sub-optimal for these structures and may determine that the incompatible and/or sub-optimal solar panels should not be included in the set of available panels 450); and
generating, by the computing system, a report providing the calculated layout and mounting hardware requirements (See: [0058] In certain embodiments, the solar panel layout and installation software tool may display summary information 460 via the user interface 400 for a selected solar panel layout. In the example user interface 400, the summary information includes the number of panels used in the currently displayed panel layout, the installation cost of the currently displayed panel layout, the amount of the governmental rebate corresponding to the currently displayed panel layout, and an estimated installation data of the currently displayed panel layout. In this example, the installation cost in the summary information 460 may be calculated by the server 101 based on the individual panel costs retrieved from a solar panel manufacturer or supplier data source, and may also include additional component costs, installation and maintenance costs, and other costs. The governmental rebate amount information may be calculated by the server 101 based on the federal, state, local laws relating to solar panel installation. 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. Since the availability of different solar panel types and sizes, frames, controllers, inverters, batteries and other components, and the personnel to perform the installation may vary, different solar panel layouts may have different estimated installation dates. Therefore, 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).
Gregg et al does not specify but Brier et al discloses determining, by the computing system, an available area for the solar panels based on the aerial image (See: par [0025] this step can include retrieving a satellite or aerial image of the residence from a publically accessible mapping service. The tool can then receive, from a user, a definition of one or more mounting planes at the site, and automatically determine a configuration of PV panels that fit within the user-defined mounting planes. For instance, the definition of the mounting planes can be received as a series of points comprising one or more polygons, and the tool can determine the number and layout of PV panels that fit within the areas of the polygons; [0036] At block 210, PV design module 106 can determine an optimal number of PV modules that would fit within the mounting plane. In certain embodiments, this process can include determining the actual area of each mounting plane in view of the heading and elevation at which the site image was originally taken) and a three-dimensional model of the roof of the building (See: par [0027] In an embodiment, the system environment 100 includes a computing device 102 configured to execute a three-dimensional (3D) design program 104. Computing device 102 may be an end-user computing device, such as a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a personal digital assistant, a smartphone, a tablet, or the like. 3D design program 104 may be a software application that enables the creation of 3D content (e.g., models, scenes, etc.); par [0028] Within the context of a 3D design program 104, computing device 102 may be further configured to execute a PV design module 106. In certain embodiments, PV design module 106 is implemented as an optional plug-in to 3D design program 104. In other embodiments, PV design module 106 is implemented as an integral component of program 104. PV design module 106 can provide, in conjunction with 3D design program 104, various functions that facilitate the design and visualization of a PV system. For example, in one embodiment, PV design module 106 can retrieve a satellite or aerial image of a site where a PV system is to be installed and allow a user to draw one or more mounting planes on the site image. PV design module 106 can then automatically determine a configuration of PV panels that fit within the user-defined mounting planes and display the determined panel configuration on top of (i.e., superimposed on) the image; par [0036] At block 212, PV design module 106 may display the optimum number of PV modules that would fit within the mounting plane. For example, PV design module 106 can display the panel configuration on top of (i.e., superimposed on) the site image in 3D design program 104. In this manner, the user can easily visualize how the site will look post-installation (i.e., with the PV panels installed); par [0042] In response to receiving a particular address, PV design module 106 can access the specified mapping service and retrieve an image of the address location, such as a potential installation site 306 illustrated as a single-family home. The retrieved image can then be displayed in a main window of 3D design program 104 (e.g., window 400 of FIG. 4)).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine photo-voltaic modeling tool as taught by Brier et al to solar panel layout and installation of Gregg et al would be to determine an optimal PV panel configuration and predicting energy generation of a modeled solar photovoltaic system (Brier et al, par [0005]).
Neither the references disclose but Schrock et al discloses a plurality of panels and a plurality of seams, each seam of the plurality of seams joining two of the plurality of panels (See: Col. 3 line 59 through Col. 4 line 3, The following description is made with reference to figures, where like numerals refer to like elements throughout the several views, FIGS. 1A-1D each show, in side view, a section of a solar panel system 10. FIGS. 1A-1D each show one or more solar panels 11 secured to mounting rails 13 by mid-clamps 15. In FIGS. 1A, 1B, and 1D, end clamps 17 secure the solar panels 11 to the mounting rails 13. In FIGS. 1A-1D, mounting brackets 19 secure the mounting rails 13 to a roof surface. FIG. 1A shows the right most portion, FIG. 1B shows the right central portion, FIG. 1C shows the left central portion, and FIG. 1D shows the left most portion of the solar panel system 10; Col. 4 lines 4-15, The solar panel system 10 of FIGS. 1A-1D include a floating end clamp assembly 21 and a rail splice 23, both shown in FIG. 1B, that in combination, allow the solar panels 11 and the mounting rails 13 to expand and contract with corresponding changes in temperature. One way to facilitate thermal expansion is to place a gap between the mounting rails 13 that joined by the rail splice 23 and similarly between the floating end clamp assembly 21 and the end clamp 17 adjacent to the floating end clamp assembly 21. This disclosure will detail apparatus for setting the gap width based on current ambient temperature, material of the mounting rails 13, and maximum expected ambient temperature); spacing information for the plurality of seams, and a pre-defined distance between panels to allow for thermal expansion; maintaining a gap between panels of at least the pre-defined distance between panels to allow for thermal expansion (See: Abstract, compensating for thermal expansion and contraction of rail mounted solar panel rooftop systems… a floating end clamp that secures a solar panel in slidable captive cooperation with a mounting rail, ….a rail splice bridges two mounting rails with a gap between the rails for thermal expansion and contraction, …the rail splice includes indicia for setting the gap distance between rails based on ambient temperature at the time of installation,…a spacing gauge includes indicia for setting the gap distance between rails based on ambient temperature at the time of installation; Col. 4 lines 4-15, he solar panel system 10 of FIGS. 1A-1D include a floating end clamp assembly 21 and a rail splice 23, both shown in FIG. 1B, that in combination, allow the solar panels 11 and the mounting rails 13 to expand and contract with corresponding changes in temperature. One way to facilitate thermal expansion is to place a gap between the mounting rails 13 that joined by the rail splice 23 and similarly between the floating end clamp assembly 21 and the end clamp 17 adjacent to the floating end clamp assembly 21. This disclosure will detail apparatus for setting the gap width based on current ambient temperature, material of the mounting rails 13, and maximum expected ambient temperature).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine spacing gauge with thermal indicia for solar panel mounting as taught by Schrock et al to solar panel layout and installation of Gregg et al would be to move freely in slidable captive cooperation as various elements of the solar panel system expand and contract with changes in ambient temperature (Schrock et al, Col. 5 lines 4-6).
2. Gregg et al discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the input parameters comprise one or more of project information, roof information for the roof of the building, site information for the building, or system requirements for the solar panels (See: [0047] the solar panel layout and installation software tool may also provide a solar panel menu 450 in the user interface 400 to display one or more lists of the solar panels that are available at the displayed location. In this example, the solar panel menu 450 may be a dropdown list including the different available types and sizes of solar panels that the user may select for the location shown in image 410. The list of available panels displayed in menu 450 may be calculated by the server 101 based on several different factors. For example, based on the sizes, designs, and/or structural details (e.g., size dimensions of roof surfaces, slopes of roof surfaces, roofing materials, etc.) of the physical structures 412 and 414 at the location, the server 101 may determine that certain solar panels are incompatible or sub-optimal for these structures and may determine that the incompatible and/or sub-optimal solar panels should not be included in the set of available panels 450).
3. Gregg et al discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the structural information for the installation of the solar panels comprises one or more of specifications for hardware to mount the solar panels, specifications for the solar panels, or wind data for the building (See: [0025] As described in more below, the system 100b may include one or more databases 161-162 to provide the server 101 with information about the locations and/or physical structures. For example, after the locations and structures are selected for designing a solar panel layout, the server 101 may access databases 161 and 162 to retrieve information regarding the locations and physical structures, and may then analyze that information to determine which user options will be available in the solar panel layout and installation user interfaces. Databases 161 and 162 may contain, for example, climate data, building code data, rebate data, and solar panel system component cost and inventory data for various geographic regions).
4. Gregg et al discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the structural information for the installation of the solar panels is obtained from one or more databases (See: [0025] As described in more below, the system 100b may include one or more databases 161-162 to provide the server 101 with information about the locations and/or physical structures. For example, after the locations and structures are selected for designing a solar panel layout, the server 101 may access databases 161 and 162 to retrieve information regarding the locations and physical structures, and may then analyze that information to determine which user options will be available in the solar panel layout and installation user interfaces).
5. Gregg et al discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the structural information for the installation of the solar panels is obtained from a user of the computing system (See: [0047] the solar panel layout and installation software tool may also provide a solar panel menu 450 in the user interface 400 to display one or more lists of the solar panels that are available at the displayed location. In this example, the solar panel menu 450 may be a dropdown list including the different available types and sizes of solar panels that the user may select for the location shown in image 410. The list of available panels displayed in menu 450 may be calculated by the server 101 based on several different factors. For example, based on the sizes, designs, and/or structural details (e.g., size dimensions of roof surfaces, slopes of roof surfaces, roofing materials, etc.) of the physical structures 412 and 414 at the location, the server 101 may determine that certain solar panels are incompatible or sub-optimal for these structures and may determine that the incompatible and/or sub-optimal solar panels should not be included in the set of available panels 450).
6. Gregg et al discloses the method of claim 1, wherein calculating required hardware for mounting the solar panels on the roof of the building and locations for the required hardware is further based on a building code for a geographic region of the building (See: [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.); par [0054] For instance, if roof height data is available, then the angle of one or more roof surfaces 413a and 413b of the structures 412 and 414 may be calculated based on the upper and lower roof heights and the size scale 440. The solar panel layout software may then use the roof surface angle data to calculate how much roof surface is available on the structures 412 and 414. The sizes and angles of roof surfaces 413a and 413b also may be used to determine whether or not the structure is good candidate for a solar panel installation, and to determine which solar panel layouts are available and suggested for the physical structures 412 and 414. Additionally, when drawing solar panels onto a roof surface 413a or 413b in the user interface 400, the determined roof surface angle may be used to more accurately render the panels, for example, by changing the panel size, shape, or orientation to reflect the angle of the roof surface 413a or 413b.).
7. Gregg et al discloses the method of claim 6, further comprising, after calculating the layout for the solar panels, required hardware for mounting the solar panels on the roof of the building, and the locations for the required hardware (See: [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.); par [0054] For instance, if roof height data is available, then the angle of one or more roof surfaces 413a and 413b of the structures 412 and 414 may be calculated based on the upper and lower roof heights and the size scale 440. The solar panel layout software may then use the roof surface angle data to calculate how much roof surface is available on the structures 412 and 414. The sizes and angles of roof surfaces 413a and 413b also may be used to determine whether or not the structure is good candidate for a solar panel installation, and to determine which solar panel layouts are available and suggested for the physical structures 412 and 414. Additionally, when drawing solar panels onto a roof surface 413a or 413b in the user interface 400, the determined roof surface angle may be used to more accurately render the panels, for example, by changing the panel size, shape, or orientation to reflect the angle of the roof surface 413a or 413b.): receiving, by the computer system, an update to the calculated layout for the solar panels; determining, by the computer system, whether the update to the calculated layout for the solar panels matches a determined layout for the solar panels (See: par [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); in response to determining the update to the calculated layout for the solar panels matches the determined layout for the solar panels, providing the update to the calculated layout for the solar panels in the generated report ([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. 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); and in response to determining the update to the calculated layout for the solar panels does not match the determined layout for the solar panels, adjusting the update to the calculated layout for the solar panels and providing the adjusted update to the calculated layout for the solar panels in the generated report (See: [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. 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).
8. Gregg et al discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the layout for the solar panels comprises a gap between two or more adjacent solar panels and wherein calculating the layout for the solar panels comprises adjusting the gap between the two or more adjacent solar panels to align a mounting location of each solar panel with a seam of the roof of the building (See: par [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. 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 surface).
As per Claims 10-14, and 16-19, claims recite limitations analogous in scope to those of claims 1-3, and 6-8, and as such is similar rejected.
Claims 9, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregg et al, Brier et al and Schrock et al as applied to claims 1, 10, and 19 above, and further in view of US Publication No. 2018/0367089 A1 issued to STUTERHEIM et al.
9. Neither Gregg et al nor Brier et al discloses but STUTTERHEIM et al discloses predetermined distance allowing for thermal expansion of the two or more adjacent solar panels (See: [0056] Since the maximum length of one PV active area is calculated under consideration of different heat expansion behaviours of the front sheet and the back sheet, an elastic front sheet may be used having a thermal expansion coefficient similar to that of the metal back sheet).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine photo-voltaic assembly as taught by STUTTERHEIM et al to solar panel layout and installation of Gregg et al would be to increase its power performance (STUTTERHEIM et al, par [0071]).
As per Claims 15 and 20, claims recite limitations analogous in scope to claim 9, and as such is similar rejected.
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 KIBROM K GEBRESILASSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-8571. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:30 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, 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.
KIBROM K. GEBRESILASSIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2189
/KIBROM K GEBRESILASSIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189 03/06/2026