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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
Regarding the amendment filed 02/04/2026: Claims 18-25 are pending. Claims 1-17 have been cancelled. Claims 18-25 have been newly added.
Response to Arguments
Rejection Under 35 USC 102
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection of claims 1-15 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) and the newly added claims 18-25 as being anticipated by Stueve et al (US 2015/0308889 A1, heretofore referred to as Stueve) have not been presented. The newly added claims 18-25 have been rejected below.
Rejection Under 35 USC 103
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stueve in view of Gostein et al (US 2017/0104451 A1, heretofore referred to as Gostein) have not been presented. The newly added claims 18-25 have been rejected below.
Claim Objections
Applicant's arguments regarding the objection to claims 1-17 have fully considered and are persuasive. The objection has been withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim(s)
Generic placeholder or "means for"
Functional language
Corresponding structure
(citations as-published)
1
a first current-voltage measurement device
configured to measure a first I-V data of the first associated PV module
see Fig 2A, Element 220-222 and Paragraph [0141]
1
a second current-voltage measurement device
configured to measure a second I-V data of a second associated PV module
see Fig 2A, Elements 220-222 and Paragraph [0141]
1
a first communication device
the first communication device is configured to communicate with a second communication device of a second device
Communication circuitry is taught to be within the processor 300, see Fig 2A, Element 300 and Paragraph [0141].
1
a second communication device
the first communication device is configured to communicate with a second communication device of a second device
No corresponding structure could be found in the specification
Further note that, according to MPEP 2181 II. B., "In cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function." See, e.g., Noah Systems Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1312, 102 USPQ2d 1410, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 15 USPQ2d at 1239," and "the specification must sufficiently disclose an algorithm to transform a general purpose microprocessor to a special purpose computer so that a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement the disclosed algorithm to achieve the claimed function. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1338, 86 USPQ2d at 1242."
In the instant case, element 300 in fig. 2a are understood to be parts of a general purpose computer or microprocessor, and a review of the specification shows that the following appear to be corresponding general algorithms for performing the claimed functionality as described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitations: Paragraph [0141].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 18-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform each of the claimed functions cited above in the column of the 112(f) grid entitled “Functional Language” for each of the respective placeholders.
The specification with regards to a second communication device, claim 18, does not demonstrate that the application has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. The specification teaches communication circuitry to receive an external signal, but does not teach a first and second communication device.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 18-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations:
“a second communication device” (claim 18, line 6)
invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Because the amplifier device has no structure in the specification that matches the said amplifier device, it is unclear as to what the amplifier device is because the metes and bounds of said unit cannot be ascertained with certainty.
Because the evaluation device has no structure in the specification that matches the said evaluation device, it is unclear as to what the evaluation device is because the metes and bounds of said unit cannot be ascertained with certainty.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 19-25 are also subsequently rejected due to their dependency on Claim 18.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Stueve et al (US 2015/0308889 A1, heretofore referred to as Stueve).
Regarding claim 18, Stueve teaches a first device (Stueve; Fig 1b and Par 0029) comprising: a first current-voltage (I-V) measurement device (Stueve; Fig 4, Elements 412, 414 and Par 0069; Stueve teaches measuring an I-V curve), wherein the first I-V measurement device is configured to be coupled to a first associated photovoltaic (PV) module (Stueve; Fig 1a, Element 102), wherein the first I-V measurement device is configured to measure a first I-V data of the first associated PV module (Stueve; Fig 1b, Element 110 and Par 0029); a first communication device (Stueve; Fig 1b, Element 116) coupled to the first I-V measurement device, wherein the first communication device is configured to communicate with a second communication device of a second device (Stueve; Fig 2, Element 220 and Par 0049; Stueve teaches the communication device of the first device is connected to the second communication device of the second device via a cable), wherein the second device comprises a second I-V measurement device (Stueve; Fig 1b, Element 112 and Par 0034), wherein the second I-V measurement device is configured to measure a second I-V data of a second associated PV module module (Stueve; Fig 4, Element 306 and Par 0086)99; a first processor coupled to the first I-V measurement device and to the first communication device module (Stueve; Fig 1b, Element 120 and Par 0047), wherein: the first communication device is configured to receive the second I-V data from the second communication device (Stueve; Par 0029, Par 0036, and Par 0055; Stueve teaches measuring current and voltage of the PV modules), the first processor is configured to determine a relative performance metric between the first associated PV module and the second associated PV module based at least on the first I-V data and the second I-V data (Stueve; Par 0074 and Par 0086; Stueve teaches using the calibration unit to communicate with the reference PV module and to supply the short circuit current or I-V curve to determine the performance of the reference solar module, such as detect soiling of the reference module).
Regarding claim 19, Stueve teaches the first device of claim 18, wherein the I-V data of the first associated PV module comprises at least a portion of the I-V curve of the first associated PV module or a metric calculated from the portion of the I-V curve of the first associated PV module (Stueve; Par 0057, Par 0074, and Par 0086; Stueve teaches supplying the I-V curve to determine the performance of the reference solar module, such as detect soiling of the reference module).
Regarding claim 20, Stueve teaches the first device of claim 18, wherein the I-V data of the second associated PV module comprises at least a portion of the I-V curve of the second associated PV module or a metric calculated from the portion of the I-V curve of the second associated PV module (Stueve; Fig 4, Element 306, Par 0063, and Par 0086; Stueve teaches a reference PV cell that measures an I-V curve).
Regarding claim 21, Stueve teaches the first device of claim 18, wherein the relative performance metric comprises a comparison of a value based at least upon said I-V data of said first associated PV module and said I-V data of said second associated PV module (Stueve; Par 0086; Stueve teaches a reference PV cell that measures an I-V curve and compares and corrects the measured I-V curve of the first module).
Regarding claim 22, Stueve teaches the first device of claim 18, wherein the relative performance metric quantifies relative cleanliness of the first associated PV module and the second associated PV module (Stueve; Par 0057, Par 0074, and Par 0086; Stueve teaches supplying the I-V curve to determine the performance of the reference solar module, such as detect soiling of the reference module).
Regarding claim 23, Stueve teaches the first device of claim 18, wherein the first device may be configured to power the second device or the first device may be configured to receive power from the second device (Stueve; Par 0065; Stueve teaches calibration module may be powered with a cable connected to the system).
Regarding claim 24, Stueve teaches the first device of claim 18, wherein the relative performance metric quantifies at least one of soiling, irradiance, power, or degradation (Stueve; Par 0057; Stueve teaches at least soiling as the performance metric).
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 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stueve in view of Gostein et al (US 2017/0104451 A1, heretofore referred to as Gostein).
Regarding claim 16, Stueve teaches the first device of claim 18.
Stueve is silent on wherein one of the first associated PV module and the second associated PV module is maintained in a clean state and one of the first associated PV module and the second associated PV module is maintained in a soiled state to compare the performance of a clean module to the performance of a soiled module.
Gostein teaches wherein one of the first associated PV module and the second associated PV module is maintained in a clean state (Gostein; Fig 1, Element 101 and Par 0020; Gostein teaches automated equipment), one of the first associated PV module and the second associated PV module is maintained in a soiled state (Gostein; Fig 1, Element 100 and Par 0014) to compare the performance of a clean module to the performance of a soiled module (Gostein; Par 0060-0062; Gostein teaches an I-V curve to determine soiling).
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the system of Stueve with the cleaning of Gostein in order to reduce maintenance requirements (Gostein; Par 0013).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Lin et al teaches an reference module for a PV array.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached on (571)272-2258. 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.
/ADAM S CLARKE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/JUDY NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858