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 Arguments
Applicant’s amendments have resulted in claim 7 no longer being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). This means that no pending claims are currently being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f), and this is believed to comport with applicant’s intentions.
Applicant presents the following argument on p.13-14 of the remarks dated 5/15/2026:
“However, Sasakawa does not disclose removing the existing terrain effect from solar radiation data by converting radiation components to values corresponding to a horizontal surface, nor does Sasakawa disclose applying another terrain effect to the solar radiation after such removal. Thus, Sasakawa does not teach at least the following combined features of the amended Claim 1: …”
This argument is persuasive when taken in the context of the amended claims. The claims as amended distinguish over the Sasakawa and Zhao references for this reason, and as these are the most pertinent prior art references, thereby distinguish over the prior art as a whole. The 35 USC 103 rejections are withdrawn in view of the claim amendments.
Regarding the 35 USC 101 rejections, applicant highlights that the claims now require “identifying an installation condition of a photovoltaic module” and provides support and context for this from the specification. However, merely identifying and installation condition is abstract in nature, and does not render the claims eligible. In order for this to provide significantly more or a practical application, the practical application (i.e. actually installing the photovoltaic module in that condition) must be recited. Absent this, the limitation remains within the scope of the abstract, and does not render the claims eligible.
Applicant highlights removing terrain effect from the data, but this is done via mathematical calculations, and any link to physical terrain or radiation is merely generally linking the use of the exception to a technical field or field of use, as per MPEP 2106.05(h). The same is true regarding the alleged practical applications applicant argues are provided, which again are merely generally linking the use of the exception to a technical field or field of use, not actually practically applying anything.
Applicant discusses whether features are well-understood, routine, or conventional. This consideration is wholly irrelevant, as the rejection does not rely upon classifying any claim features as such.
In view of the above, the 35 USC 101 rejections are maintained.
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 1-3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mathematical relationships and mental processes) without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites:
A method of calculating solar radiation numerical data based on a fixed slope angle, the method comprising:
receiving solar radiation numerical data with a spatial resolution. wherein the solar radiation numerical data with the spatial resolution includes a first direct solar radiation and a first scattered solar radiation; (the act of receiving the data is insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering as per MPEP 2106.05(g), the data itself is explicitly numerical and is later used for mathematical calculations)
removing an existing terrain effect of the spatial resolution from the solar radiation numerical data and with the spatial resolution by converting the first direct solar radiation and the first scattered solar radiation to a second direct solar radiation and a second scattered solar radiation corresponding to a horizontal surface, respectively; (¶33-34 of the specification as filed describe the removal step as mathematical in nature including the equations that can be used for it, and as such, interpreting the claim language in light of the specification, removing an existing terrain effect from the solar radiation numerical data is done with mathematical calculations on that numerical data, so this feature falls within the scope of mathematical relationships. The same is true regarding applying detailed terrain information – this is done by following mathematical algorithms to execute numerical calculations according to equations.)
generating solar radiation numerical data at 100 m intervals by performing a linear interpolation method on the solar radiation numerical data from which the existing terrain effect is removed; (¶33-34 of the specification as filed describe the removal step as mathematical in nature including the equations that can be used for it, and as such, interpreting the claim language in light of the specification, removing an existing terrain effect from the solar radiation numerical data is done with mathematical calculations on that numerical data, so this feature falls within the scope of mathematical relationships. The same is true regarding applying detailed terrain information – this is done by following mathematical algorithms to execute numerical calculations according to equations.)
generating detailed terrain information with a 100 m resolution by applying a terrain effect of a 100 m resolution to the solar radiation numerical data at the 100 m intervals; (¶33-34 of the specification as filed describe the removal step as mathematical in nature including the equations that can be used for it, and as such, interpreting the claim language in light of the specification, removing an existing terrain effect from the solar radiation numerical data is done with mathematical calculations on that numerical data, so this feature falls within the scope of mathematical relationships. The same is true regarding applying detailed terrain information – this is done by following mathematical algorithms to execute numerical calculations according to equations.)
applying a fixed slope angle to the detailed terrain information with the 100 m resolution to calculate a global radiation; and (this is performing mathematical calculations with geometry and physics equations to generate numerical results)
generating average data by dividing the global radiation on the basis of at least one of a grid, a season, a month, a time of day, and a fixed slope angle; and (this is partitioning data based on mathematical relationships and using other numerical values to generate numerical output data).
based on the generated average data, identifying an installation condition of a photovoltaic module to receive solar radiation, wherein the installation condition includes a slope angle of the photovoltaic module. (a person can mentally evaluate the results and make a judgement to select a slope angle to install a module at, alternatively this is done by organizing the mathematical data results and applying constraints or numerical metrics to mathematical calculate a numerical slope angle based on the prior calculation results. As such, this falls within the scope of mental processes or alternatively mathematical relationships. Note that no installation is positively recited as taking place, and any link to actually installing the PV module is merely generally linking the use of the exception to the technical field of photovoltaic installation as per MPEP 2106.05(h))
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the following additional elements: 1) mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (the computer of claim 8 and the units of claim 7), and 2) insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (receiving numerical data). The computer is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer or unit performing a generic computer function of executing instructions and storing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The specification that data is received is only tangentially linked to the calculation and analysis steps, and does not meaningfully limit the claim. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2, 3, and 6 recite only further details of the mathematical calculations performed.
Claims 7 and 8 are substantially similar to claim 1, and are rejected under the same grounds as those set forth above for claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 and 6-8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: See the discussion above in the “response to arguments” section for how the claims as amended distinguish over the prior art of record and the prior art as a whole.
Conclusion
The below prior art was previously made of record, though not relied upon, and remains pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
CN 113591297 A (downscales temperature grid data while also calculating solar radiation values in connection with this)
CN 113592737 A (calculates terrain correction effects for determining solar radiation)
KR 20210035562 A (generates a high-resolution (5m by 5m class) solar radiation energy map based on a digital map)
KR 20200083719 A (generally discusses solar radiation estimation without terrain correction)
KR 102018789 B1 (corrects the terrain details of data based on slope angles of terrain, but does so in the context of generating vegetation maps, not radiation maps)
KR 20180045401 A (describes determining "solar radiation energy according to the terrain is derived using ... the shading rate of a low-resolution WRF model", where shading rate is a terrain effect)
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 BIJAN MAPAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 11:00-8:30.
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.
/BIJAN MAPAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights