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 application filed on 04/04/2023.
Claims 1-21 are presented for examination.
Preliminary Amendments
Applicant’s preliminary amendments of claims have been fully considered and are entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 1 and 17 recite MPPT which should be defined. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3 is missing a period (.). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 4 should replace the semicolon (;) with a period (.). 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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim 1-16:
Step 1 (Does this claim fall within at least one statutory category?):
Claims 1-16 are directed to a method.
Therefore, claims 1-16 fall into at least one of the four statutory categories.
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 process for designing solar array installations, comprising the steps of:
providing a CAD file specifying a two-dimensional photovoltaic module array layout [insignificant extra solution, e.g. mere data-gathering];
specifying components of the two-dimensional photovoltaic module array layout, including a quantity of photovoltaic modules comprising the specified array, a quantity of inverters comprising the specified array, a quantity of MPPTs per inverter, a rated MPPT voltage; a rated MPPT amperage, a rated voltage of the photovoltaic modules at maximum power, a maximum DC input voltage of each of the quantity of inverters, a rated open circuit voltage of the photovoltaic modules, an expected operating temperature range, and a regional temperature constant [“mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)];
converting the CAD file to a two-dimensional coordinate grid of cells, wherein each cell is assigned one of two values indicating either the presence or the absence of a photovoltaic module in accordance with the CAD file [“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];
calculating [mathematical concepts] and recording an ideal string length [“mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)];
permuting the ideal string length at least once, and recording the at least one permuted ideal string length [“mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts];
identifying hole cells in the specified array, and recording coordinates of the identified hole cells; identifying edge cells in the specified array, and recording coordinates of the identified edge cells [“mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts];
generating a string linearly or heuristically beginning from a recorded coordinate of an edge cell in accordance with the ideal string length and the at least one permuted ideal string length [“mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts];
iterating the step of generating a string until all photovoltaic modules of the two- dimensional photovoltaic module array layout have been strung [mathematical concepts (in light of applicant specification par [0041]]; and
passing a valid stringing solution to a CAD program, wherein the valid stringing solution strings all photovoltaic modules of the two-dimensional photovoltaic module array [“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 additional element of “providing a CAD file”, and “CAD program”. The additional element of “providing a CAD file” is insignificant pre-solution (i.e. data gathering). The additional element of “CAD program” 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 this claim does 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 element of “providing a CAD file” is insignificant pre-solutions (i.e. data gathering). At most the additional element is 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. Further, as discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional element of “CAD program” 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 2, the claim falls into [insignificant extra solution, e.g. mere data-gathering].
As per claim 3, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts].
As per claim 4, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)].
As per claim 5, the claim falls into [mathematical concepts].
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 a generic computer element for performing a generic computer function].
As per claim 7, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed 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 with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)].
As per claim 9, the claim falls into [mathematical concepts].
As per claim 10, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts].
As per claim 11, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts].
As per claim 12, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts].
As per claim 13, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed 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 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 with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts].
As per claim 16, the claim falls into [“mental process i.e. concepts performed with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion)].
As per Claims 17-21: The instant claims recite substantially same limitation as the above rejected claims 1, 5-7, and 10, and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per Claims 17-21:
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 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 17 recites a “computer program” comprising a “program code instruction which, when executed by a processor of at least one computer” to perform the recited steps. The claim does not fall within any of the four categories of patent eligible subject because the claimed “computer program” is not limited to statutory subject matter.
The dependent claims rejected by virtue of their dependence on the rejected independent clam 17.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-21 are allowable over prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Wayne et al (US Patent No. 10,592,834 B2) discloses generating a solar collector design for a worksite, at least two alternative versions of the solar collector design, include an alternative set of independent project state information and/or a single set of shared project state information, include at least some information about one or more of the worksite and physical features contained within the worksite, project state information and a first one of the alternative sets of independent project state information may in combination specify at least a part of a first solar collector installation design, shared project state information and a second one of the alternative sets of independent project state information may be used in combination to specify a second solar collector installation design, may be distinct from the first solar collector installation designer (See: Col. 2 lines 10-26).
Faithy et al (US Publication No. 2019/0181646 A1) discloses implement a MPPT algorithm to increase the power generation efficiency of the overall system, MPPT algorithms need information about the voltage across the PV array and current generated by it, such an algorithm when applied to the hybrid string may result in complete depletion of the integrated batteries, having current and voltage sensors in each hybrid cell may become cost prohibitive, proposes the fusion of a model-based observer that can estimate the PV generated current and power based on the external load current supported by the series of the plurality of hybrid cells and a voltage output of each of the plurality of hybrid cells or the series of the plurality of hybrid cells, with a MPPT algorithm such as extremum seeking to achieve MPPT in each of the hybrid cells. The application of one such estimation algorithm to one embodiment of the present invention is demonstrated here to serve as an example, the schematic of the PV/EES integrated topology is given in FIG. 6, but the algorithm in general can be applied to an N.sup.th order EC model of the integrated Lithium-ion cell, as shown in FIG. 17 (par [0111]).
Brier et al (US Publication No. 2013/0061198 A1) discloses performing design automation on a mobile computer system, storing design automation data on a mobile device, displaying a plurality of design automation process steps to a user, the plurality of design automation process steps guiding the user through a design automation process for a project, receiving design automation input data from the user in the mobile device for a plurality of the design automation process steps, executing one or more data processing algorithms specific to at least one of the design automation process steps, and generating output data for the design project (Abstract).
McClure et al (US Publication No. 2015/0331972 A1) discloses:
PNG
media_image1.png
576
603
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, none of the cited prior art references of record fully anticipate or render obvious the independent claims in particular the limitation of: “specifying components of the two-dimensional photovoltaic module array layout, including a quantity of photovoltaic modules comprising the specified array, a quantity of inverters comprising the specified array, a quantity of MPPTs per inverter, a rated MPPT voltage; a rated MPPT amperage, a rated voltage of the photovoltaic modules at maximum power, a maximum DC input voltage of each of the quantity of inverters, a rated open circuit voltage of the photovoltaic modules, an expected operating temperature range, and a regional temperature constant; converting the CAD file to a two-dimensional coordinate grid of cells, wherein each cell is assigned one of two values indicating either the presence or the absence of a photovoltaic module in accordance with the CAD file; permuting the ideal string length at least once, and recording the at least one permuted ideal string length; identifying hole cells in the specified array, and recording coordinates of the identified hole cells; identifying edge cells in the specified array, and recording coordinates of the identified edge cells; generating a string linearly or heuristically beginning from a recorded coordinate of an edge cell in accordance with the ideal string length and the at least one permuted ideal string length; iterating the step of generating a string until all photovoltaic modules of the two-dimensional photovoltaic module array layout have been strung; and passing a valid stringing solution to a CAD program, wherein the valid stringing solution strings all photovoltaic modules of the two-dimensional photovoltaic module array” as recited in claims 1, and 17.
Conclusion
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 06/10/2026
Prosecution Insights