DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 14 November 2025. Claims 9 and 10 have been amended. Claims 21-28 are newly added. Claims 1-8 and 13-20 were previously cancelled. Claims 9-12 and 21-28 remain pending in this application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 14 November 2025 has been entered.
Applicant’s Interview Request
Upon review of the Applicant’s reply filed on 14 November 2025, the Applicant’s interview request (Remarks, pg. 11, paragraph 2) has been denied since it does not appear an interview would result in expediating an allowance of the instant application (see MPEP 713.01(IV)).
Additionally, the Applicant is invited to contact the Examiner to schedule an interview to address any outstanding issues in the instant application in accordance with MPEP 713.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, 5-11, filed 14 November 2025, with respect to rejected claims 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendment filed on 14 November 2025. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is as follows:
Claims 9, 10, 12, 21, 22, 25, and 26 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0138377 A1 (hereinafter Allen) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0224227 A1 (hereinafter Lindsey) in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0172837 A1 (hereinafter Forbes), U.S. Patent No. 6,380,481 (hereinafter Muller), and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0262104 A1 (hereinafter Kirsch).
Claims 11, 27, and 28 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Allen in view of Lindsey in further view of Forbes, Muller, Kirsch, and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0170886 A1 (hereinafter Plishner).
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Allen in view of Lindsey in further view of Forbes, Muller, Kirsch, and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0022741 A1 (hereinafter Moore).
With respect to the Applicant’s arguments,
Claim 9 as currently amended recites, "wherein said photovoltaic array mounted on a vehicle comprises a software application for monitoring energy generated by the photovoltaic array while the vehicle is in motion." No cited reference or combination of references discloses or suggests monitoring energy generated by a photovoltaic array while a vehicle is in motion. (see Remarks, pg. 5, paragraph 5)
Allen and Lindsey fail to disclose any vehicle at all, let alone one that comprises a photovoltaic array mounted on the vehicle that comprises a software application for monitoring energy generated by the photovoltaic array while the vehicle is in motion. (see Remarks, pg. 6, paragraph 2)
Allen and/or Lindsey, either alone or in combination with the other references, fails to disclose or suggest a photovoltaic array mounted on the vehicle that comprises a software application for monitoring energy generated by the photovoltaic array while the vehicle is in motion. (see Remarks, pg. 6, paragraph 3)
That is, Plishner discloses energy collection while a car is parked, not a vehicle with a photovoltaic array mounted on the vehicle that comprises a software application for monitoring energy generated by the photovoltaic array while the vehicle is in motion. (see Remarks, pg. 6, paragraph 4)
Plishner, either alone or in combination with the other references, fails to disclose or suggest a photovoltaic array mounted on the vehicle that comprises a software application for monitoring energy generated by the photovoltaic array while the vehicle is in motion. (see Remarks, pg. 6, paragraph 5)
Kirsch discloses a method for determining the state of charge of a vehicle, and the method utilizes a computer system to perform certain operations when the vehicle is turned off. Kirsch at Abstract. "A current status of charge of the vehicle is measured and a charging predictor is selected from at least one of the vehicles, geographic location, date, time, vehicle tilt angle, weather conditions and solar panel efficiency." Id. That is, while the vehicle is turned off, a current status of charge is measured and a charging predictor is selected, which permits estimating a charging schedule. Id. This does not disclose or suggest a photovoltaic array mounted on a vehicle that comprises a software application for monitoring energy generated by the photovoltaic array while the vehicle is in motion. (see Remarks, pg. 7, paragraph 3)
Kirsch, either alone or in combination with the other references, fails to disclose or suggest a photovoltaic array mounted on the vehicle that comprises a software application for monitoring energy generated by the photovoltaic array while the vehicle is in motion. (see Remarks, pg. 7, paragraph 4)
Muller fails to disclose any software at all, let alone a photovoltaic array mounted on the vehicle that comprises a software application for monitoring energy generated by the photovoltaic array while the vehicle is in motion. (see Remarks, pg. 7, paragraph 6)
Muller, either alone or in combination with the other references, fails to disclose or suggest a photovoltaic array mounted on the vehicle that comprises a software application for monitoring energy generated by the photovoltaic array while the vehicle is in motion. (see Remarks, pg. 8, paragraph 1)
There is no wireless "off-host" operation taught in the prior art. (see Remarks, pg. 10, paragraph 5)
None of the prior art teach or suggest allocating credits to individual owners nor per-vehicle credit allocation. (see Remarks, pg. 11, paragraph 1)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner emphasizes that all anticipated components and limitations
of pending claims are present in the prior art as supported below. In addition, the Examiner notes the limitation of “wherein said photovoltaic array mounted on a vehicle comprises a software application for monitoring energy generated by the photovoltaic array while the vehicle is in motion” was newly presented in the Request for Continued Examination filed on 14 November 2025, and has been addressed as set forth in the Office Action below.
In regards to the Applicant’s argument,
Applicants further respectfully note that the pending application is the child of three prior issued patents, (US Pat. Nos. 11063437; 10326278; and 9142967) all reviewed by the same Examiner and all of them citing the Allen, Lindsey, Plishner, Kirsch, and Muller references. Indeed, the Examiner's Reason for Allowance in the '437 patent noted: none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, expressly teach or fairly suggest the specifics of the claimed modular renewable energy tracking and allocation system comprising of a photovoltaic array mounted on a vehicle, a host renewable energy system including a plurality of components and a network accessible database containing correlated energy data of the photovoltaic array with a respective device identification code and a host identification code for the host renewable energy system." (see Remarks, pg. 8, paragraph 4)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s argument appears to be directed to the validity of a patent. The Examiner refers to the Applicant to MPEP 1701 (recited below for brevity) and this argument as herein addressed.
MPEP 1701 - Office Personnel Not To Express Opinion on Validity, Patentability, Expiration Date, or Enforceability of Patent [R-10.2019]:
Every patent is presumed to be valid. See 35 U.S.C. 282, first sentence. Public policy demands that every employee of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) refuse to express to any person any opinion as to the validity or invalidity of, or the patentability or unpatentability of any claim in any U.S. patent or the expiration date of any patent, except to the extent necessary to carry out:
(A) an examination of a non-reissue patent application where determination of the expiration date of a patent is necessary to conduct examination of the non-reissue patent application,
(B) an examination of a reissue application of the patent,
(C) a supplemental examination proceeding or reexamination proceeding to reexamine the patent,
(D) an interference or derivation proceeding involving the patent,
(E) a patent term adjustment or extension under 35 U.S.C. 154 and/or 35 U.S.C. 156 where determination of the expiration date of a patent is necessary to determine the adjustment or extension,
(F) a notification that a patent has expired for failure to pay maintenance fee,
(G) a consideration of a request under the regulations (e.g., a petition) wherein determination of patent term is necessary or arises as an ancillary matter, or
(H) an inter partes or post-grant review of the patent.
The question of validity or invalidity is otherwise exclusively a matter to be determined by a court. Likewise, the question of enforceability or unenforceability is exclusively a matter to be determined by a court. Members of the patent examining corps are cautioned to be especially wary of any inquiry from any person outside the USPTO, including an employee of another U.S. government agency, the answer to which might indicate that a particular patent should not have issued. No USPTO employee may pursue a bounty offered by a private sector source for identifying prior art. The acceptance of payments from outside sources for prior art search activities may subject the employee to administrative disciplinary action.
Office employees may provide factual information regarding the calculation of patent term in general (i.e., a design patent term is 15 years-from-grant if the underlying design patent application was filed on or after May 13, 2015, and 14 years-from-grant if the design application was filed earlier). However, office employees should refuse to provide a determination or express an opinion addressing any patent owner or public inquiries as to a specific patent's expiration date, except as provided above in items A-H. A number of factors may affect calculation of a patent term expiration date, both pre- and post-issuance, that may create difficulty in accurately calculating the term of a patent. In the event of any inquiries, the USPTO has provided a downloadable patent term calculator as a resource to help the public estimate the expiration date of a patent at www.uspto.gov/patent /laws-and-regulations/ patent-term-calculator. See also MPEP § 2701.
When a field of search for an invention is requested, examiners should routinely inquire whether the invention has been patented in the United States. If the invention has been patented, no field of search should be suggested.
Employees of the USPTO, particularly patent examiners who examined an application which matured into a patent or a reissued patent or who conducted a reexamination proceeding, should not discuss or answer inquiries from any person outside the USPTO as to whether or not a certain reference or other particular evidence was considered during the examination or proceeding and whether a claim would have been allowed over that reference or other evidence had it been considered during the examination or proceeding. Likewise, employees are cautioned against answering any inquiry concerning any entry in the patent or reexamination file, including the extent of the field of search and any entry relating thereto. The record of the file of a patent or reexamination proceeding must speak for itself.
[AltContent: arrow]Practitioners shall not make improper inquiries of members of the patent examining corps. Inquiries from members of the public relating to the matters discussed above must out of necessity be refused and such refusal should not be considered discourteous or an expression of opinion as to validity, patentability or enforceability.
With respect to the Applicant’s argument,
Despite these admissions as to the deficiencies of the prior art teachings, the Examiner fails to appreciate that the attempted combination of these references still fail to teach or suggest the claimed vehicle-based, GPS-linked, modular-subscriber, credit-allocating renewable-energy tracking system. The rejection of claims 9 - 12 therefore fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Applicants respectfully note that Allen's system transmits fixed-site data to a server; it does not disclose mobile wireless transmission while un-docked. None of Lindsey/Plishner… mention off-host wireless reporting from moving vehicles. No explicit reasoning is given why a POSITA would modify a stationary system to perform real-time mobile uploads. Both Allen and Lindsey are directed to fixed module tracking and fail to teach a modular subscriber network. Both Allen and Lindsey track system performance, not ownership credits. Kirsch measures state-of-charge of EV batteries, not energy generation correlated with GPS position. Plishner is directed to a single-vehicle docking station for export and fails to teach a "plural vehicles forming a modular array" with per-vehicle accounting. … The Examiner's reliance on Muller fails as there is no evidentiary support for the Examiner's "simple substitution." (see Remarks, pg. 10, paragraph 5)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner recognizes the Applicant's arguments are against the references individually, wherein one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In regards to the Applicant’s argument,
As the Examiner's admissions reflect, the attempted combination of these disparate prior art references demonstrate that they span different technical fields (stationary PV, module optimization, EV charging, vehicular power export) and the Office Action provides only boilerplate reasoning ("robust grid"), in violation of KSR V. Teleflex (550 U.S. 398 (2007)) and MPEP § 2143. (see Remarks, pg. 10, paragraph 5)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP 2141.01(a) Analogous and Nonanalogous Art recites:
I. TO RELY ON A REFERENCE UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103, IT MUST BE ANALOGOUS PRIOR ART In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 , the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Note that "same field of endeavor" and "reasonably pertinent" are two separate tests for establishing analogous art; it is not necessary for a reference to fulfill both tests in order to qualify as analogous art. See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212. The examiner must determine whether a reference is analogous art when analyzing the obviousness of the subject matter under examination. If a reference is not analogous art to the claimed invention, it may not be used in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. However, there is no analogous art requirement for a reference being applied in an anticipation rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
…
The Supreme Court’s decision in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), did not change the test for analogous art as stated in Bigio. Under Bigio, a reference need not be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention in order to be analogous art. Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212. This is consistent with the Supreme Court's instruction in KSR that "[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
The Examiner emphasizes it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the Examiner maintains both the claims of the instant application and the prior art is directed to photovoltaic/solar energy devices/systems (instant application: pg. 1, par. [0019], Allen: pg. 3, par. [0045], Lindsey: pg. 4, par. [0112] and pg. 6, par. [0136], Muller: col. 3, lines 55-64 and col. 6, lines 21-28, Kirsch: pg. 1, par. [0012] and [0013], and Plishner: pg. 1, par. [0001] and pg. 2, par. [0018]) and collecting data from vehicles in motion (instant application: pg. 3, par. [0038], Forbes: pgs. 13-14, par. [0107] and pg. 19, par. [0129], and Moore: pg. 2, par. [0014] and [0015]). Hence, the Applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
Claims 9 and 22 stand objected to and claims 9-12 and 21-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites “a vehicle” in lines 3 and 21. The limitation of “a vehicle” in line 21 should read “the vehicle” since the limitation has antecedent support from the limitation of “a vehicle” in line 3; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 9 recites “a vehicle” in line 3 and claim 22 recites “a vehicle” in line 2. The limitation of “a vehicle” in claim 22 should read “the vehicle” since the limitation has antecedent support from the limitation of “a vehicle” in claim 9; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 9, 10, 12, 21, 22, 25, and 26 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0138377 A1 (hereinafter Allen) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0224227 A1 (hereinafter Lindsey) in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0172837 A1 (hereinafter Forbes), U.S. Patent No. 6,380,481 (hereinafter Muller), and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0262104 A1 (hereinafter Kirsch).
As per claim 9, Allen substantially teaches the Applicant’s claimed invention. Allen teaches the limitations of a modular renewable energy tracking and allocation system comprising:
a photovoltaic array (pg. 3, par. [0045] and pg. 1, element 101) having a device control system (pg. 3, par. [0039] and [0040]; i.e. peripheral device);
a host renewable energy system (Fig. 1, element 100; i.e. renewable energy monitoring device) having a respective host identification code (pg. 3, par. [0047] and pg. 6, par. [0064]; i.e. unique device identifier or device ID for each renewable energy monitoring device);
a computer network (Fig. 1, element 112; i.e. internet gateway);
a network accessible database (Fig. 1, element 115) storing a plurality of database records containing data corresponding to said photovoltaic array and said host renewable energy system (pg. 3, par. [0038] and pg. 4, par. [0049]);
a computer server (Fig. 1, element 114; i.e. web server) in communication with said computer network (pg. 4, par. [0049] and Fig. 1, element 112; i.e. internet gateway);
a software application running on said computer server for writing data to and reading data from said network accessible database pg. 3, par. [0037] and pg. 4, par. [0047] and [0049]; i.e. the web server capable of processing data from a renewable energy monitoring device and storing it in the database); and
said host renewable energy system including, a connection port for receiving energy generated by said photovoltaic array (pg. 3, par. [0034] and [0045] and pg. 4, par. [0048]), a central processing unit (Fig. 1, element 200; i.e. microprocessor) in communication with said computer network and said device control system (pgs. 3-4, par. [0046] and [0047]), and a software application operating on said central processing unit operative to measure energy received from said photovoltaic array (pgs. 2-3, par. [0039], [0040] and [0046]-[0048]), generate energy data corresponding to said measured energy received from said photovoltaic array (pgs. 3-4, par. [0039], [0046] and [0047]), associate said energy data with a device identification code (pgs. 3-4, [0046] and [0047]), and send said energy data to said computer server for storage on said network accessible database (pgs. 3-4, [0046] and [0047]).
Not explicitly taught are a photovoltaic array mounted on a vehicle;
a respective device identification code;
a Global Positioning System (GPS) for tracking a location of the vehicle;
receive the location of the vehicle when the energy is generated;
wherein said photovoltaic array mounted on a vehicle comprises a software application for monitoring energy generated by the photovoltaic array while the vehicle is in motion;
wherein the photovoltaic array is linked to a separate photovoltaic array mounted on another vehicle to form a larger array; and
wherein said vehicle is selected from a group consisting of a trailer, a mobile container, a train, a passenger bus, a school bus, and a fleet vehicle.
However Lindsey, in analogous art of photovoltaic modules (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitations of a photovoltaic array mounted on a structure (pg. 4, par. [0112], pg. 6, par. [0136], and Fig. 3, element 310; i.e. a photovoltaic module comprising of an array of photovoltaic cells and [0112]: “Photovoltaic cells/modules may be installed on the roofs or walls of existing buildings or may be incorporated into structures of new buildings.”);
a respective device identification code (pg. 1, par. [0022], pg. 4, par. [0091] and pg. 6, par. [0136]; i.e. identifiers of photovoltaic modules comprising of an array of photovoltaic cells);
wherein said photovoltaic array (pg. 4, par. [0112], pg. 6, par. [0136], and Fig. 3, element 310; i.e. the photovoltaic module comprising of an array of photovoltaic cells) comprises a software application for monitoring energy generated by the photovoltaic array (pg. 1, par. [0009], pg. 3, par. [0061] and [0062], and pg. 8, par. [0169]; i.e. [0169]: “The data relating to the power generated by each module may also be transmitted to the appropriate consumer based on the identifier transmitted with the data.” and [0170]: “Data relating to the power generated by each module or group of modules may also be transmitted to a utility company so that each consumer can be reimbursed appropriately for their contribution to the power generation.”); and
wherein the photovoltaic array is linked to a separate photovoltaic to form a larger array (pg. 9, par. [0177]; i.e. “In general solar tiles or modules are connected together in series to form a string and then multiple strings are connected in parallel to form an array.”) for the purpose of associating data with a photovoltaic module for consumer reimbursement for generated energy (pg. 6, par. [0136] and pg. 8, par. [0169]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to modify the teaching of Allen to include the addition of the limitations of a photovoltaic array mounted on a structure; a respective device identification code; wherein said photovoltaic array comprises a software application for monitoring energy generated by the photovoltaic array; and wherein the photovoltaic array is linked to a separate photovoltaic to form a larger array to advantageously monitor individual operations or photovoltaic modules remotely (Lindsey: pg. 1, par. [0009]).
Allen in view of Lindsey does not expressly teach a photovoltaic array mounted on a vehicle;
a Global Positioning System (GPS) for tracking a location of the vehicle;
receive the location of the vehicle when the energy is generated;
wherein said photovoltaic array mounted on a vehicle comprises a software application for monitoring energy while the vehicle is in motion; and
wherein said vehicle is selected from a group consisting of a trailer, a mobile container, a train, a passenger bus, a school bus, and a fleet vehicle.
However Forbes, in an analogous art of rechargeable powered vehicles (pg. 13, par. [0107]), teaches the missing limitation of a Global Positioning System (GPS) for tracking a location of a vehicle (pg. 13, par. [0107]; i.e. “… the power storage device 62, such as an electric vehicle or a hybrid electric vehicle, may be implemented with wireless access technology such that the power storage device 62 may communicate its relevant information (e.g., type of device, state of charge, device parameters or specifications, location (e.g., where the power storage device 62 further includes location determination functionality, such as GPS), time since last recharge, and so forth) directly to the ALD 100 over a wide area wireless network via the communications interface 308.”); and
the vehicle comprises a software application for monitoring energy while the vehicle is in motion (pg. 5, par. [0050], pgs. 13-14, par. [0107], and pg. 19, par. [0129]; i.e. [0129]: “The information transmitted to the electric vehicle from the ALMS 10 (e.g., ALD 100) via M2M connections provides the electric vehicle with a regularly-updated status of the grid condition, market prices, and the need for operating reserves while the electric vehicle is in motion, at its home charging station, or at a foreign charging station. … Additionally, the electric vehicle may include a control device that sends M2M information packets to the ALD 100 informing the ALD 100 of its location, current state of charge, and other parameters. … The information supplied by the electric vehicles may also provide the ALD 100 with an opportunity to negotiate the dispatch of electric power from electric vehicles with excess capacity (e.g., more capacity than required to reach a target destination or which are currently immobile), which are located in utility service areas in need of capacity (e.g., operating reserve).”) for the purpose of dispatching electric power from electric vehicles to earn net carbon credits (pgs. 13-14, par. [0107], pg. 14, par. [0111], and pg. 19, par. [0129]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to modify the teaching of Allen in view of Lindsey to include the addition of the limitations of a Global Positioning System (GPS) for tracking a location of a vehicle; and the vehicle comprises a software application for monitoring energy while the vehicle is in motion to advantageously assist a utility with a low energy supply or supply of operating reserves (Forbes: pgs. 13-14, par. [0107]).
Allen in view of Lindsey in further view of Forbes does not expressly teach a photovoltaic array mounted on a vehicle;
receive the location of the vehicle when the energy is generated; and
wherein said vehicle is selected from a group consisting of a trailer, a mobile container, a train, a passenger bus, a school bus, and a fleet vehicle.
However Muller, in an analogous art of solar powered energy vehicles (pg. 1, lines 63-67 and col. 3, lines 55-66), teaches the missing limitations of a photovoltaic array mounted on a vehicle (col. 3, lines 55-64 and col. 6, lines 21-28; i.e. col. 3, lines 64-66: “… connect the solar cell lengths 5 to one another in a waterproof and detachable manner. ” and col. 6, lines 21-24: “… a tractor and trailer combination of the type commonly referred to as a semi-trailer combination …”); and
wherein said vehicle is a trailer (col. 6, lines 21-28; i.e. “… a tractor and trailer combination of the type commonly referred to as a semi-trailer combination …”) for the purpose of supplying energy (col. 1, lines 7-8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to modify the teaching of Allen in view of Lindsey in further view of Forbes to include the addition of the limitations of a photovoltaic array mounted on a vehicle; and wherein said vehicle is a trailer to advantageously provide energy that is environmentally beneficial and emissions free (Muller: col. 6, lines 43-48).
Allen in view of Lindsey in further view of Forbes and Muller does not expressly teach receive the location of the vehicle when the energy is generated; and
wherein said vehicle is selected from a group consisting of a trailer, a mobile container, a train, a passenger bus, a school bus, and a fleet vehicle.
However Kirsch, in an analogous art of rechargeable powered vehicles (pg. 1, par. [0012]), teaches the missing limitation of receive a location of a vehicle when energy is generated (pg. 1, par. [0008] and pg. 3, par. [0032]-[0034]; i.e. [0008]: “Remote communication to and from vehicles has been known for years. For example, GPS and/or satellite technology can be used to guide vehicles and send information regarding location, mapping, guidance, and possible vehicle crashes to a remote location for contacting emergency services and the like.” and [0033]: “… any type of electric or hybrid vehicle charging program, can allow solar charging of the vehicle. Several conditions directly impact the charging rate of batteries when charged by solar panels in an automotive environment. ”; and “Factors that can affect charging are vehicle GPS location … Other conditions can be determined via appropriate sensors in communication with the operations center 20, such as GPS location …”) for the purpose of determining a state of charge based on a vehicle’s GPS location (pg. 3, par. [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to modify the teaching of Allen in view of Lindsey in further view of Forbes and Muller does not expressly to include the addition of the limitation of receive a location of a vehicle when energy is generated to advantageously enable access to a vehicle’s state of charge, per an estimation, if communication systems are unavailable (Kirsch: pg. 1, par. [0010]).
Allen in view of Lindsey in further view of Forbes, Muller, and Kirsch does not expressly teach wherein said vehicle is selected from a group consisting of a trailer, a mobile container, a train, a passenger bus, a school bus, and a fleet vehicle.
The combination of Allen in view of Lindsey in further view of Forbes, Muller, and Kirsch teach all of the claimed limitations (as set forth above), wherein Muller specifically teaches to a trailer is a vehicle with solar cells, except for said vehicle is selected from a group consisting of a trailer, a mobile container, a train, a passenger bus, a school bus, and a fleet vehicle. Since the Applicant has not disclosed that any of the specific type of vehicles of the group solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the trailer of Muller (as taught in combination with Allen, Lindsey, Forbes, and Kirsch) in light of a simple substitution of selecting one type of vehicle from a group of vehicles which generates solar energy for another selected type of vehicle from the group of vehicles that generates solar energy to achieve a predictable result of ensuring comfort and convenience of a driver by accommodating a driver’s immediate and future needs and lifestyle in addition to reducing fuel consumption.
As per claim 10, Allen teaches the modular renewable energy tracking and allocation system of claim 9, further comprising:
a wireless communication system (pg. 3, par. [0040]), said computer network being in communication with said wireless communication system (pg. 3, par. [0040), said photovoltaic array including a wireless transceiver for wirelessly communicating with said wireless communication system (pg. 3, par. [0041] and pg. 4, par. [0047]), said device control system having a software application operating to generate energy data corresponding to energy generated while said renewable energy system is not connected to a host (pg. 3, par. [0039]), said device control system sending said energy data to said computer server for storage on said network accessible database (pg. 3, par. [0039]-[0042).
As per claim 12, Allen in view of Lindsey does not expressly teach a network adapted to track individual contributions of the vehicle and to allocate a credit to an owner of the vehicle.
However Forbes, in an analogous art of rechargeable powered vehicles (pg. 13, par. [0107]), teaches the missing limitation of a network adapted to track individual contributions of the vehicle and to allocate a credit to an owner of the vehicle (pgs. 13-14, par. [0107] and [0111]; i.e. [0111]: “When the power storage device 62 is used to send or dispatch energy into the power grid, the active load client 300 at the service point at which the power storage device 62 is currently located notifies the ALD 100 with the device ID of the power storage device 62. … The ALD 100 logs the amount of power dispatched and the time period of the dispatch activity in the ALD database 124. The ALD 100 may also determine the carbon footprint and the carbon credits associated with the dispatch activity as disclosed in U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 20100235008 A1.”) for the purpose of dispatching electric power from electric vehicles to earn net carbon credits (pgs. 13-14, par. [0107], pg. 14, par. [0111], and pg. 19, par. [0129]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to modify the teaching of Allen in view of Lindsey to include the addition of the limitation of a network adapted to track individual contributions of the vehicle and to allocate a credit to an owner of the vehicle to advantageously assist a utility with a low energy supply or supply of operating reserves (Forbes: pgs. 13-14, par. [0107]).
As per claim 21, Allen does not expressly teach said software application for monitoring energy generated by the photovoltaic array while the vehicle is in motion monitors location as determined by the GPS while the vehicle is in motion.
However Lindsey, in analogous art of photovoltaic modules (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitation of said software application for monitoring energy generated by the photovoltaic array (pg. 1, par. [0009], pg. 3, par. [0061] and [0062], and pg. 8, par. [0169]; i.e. [0169]: “The data relating to the power generated by each module may also be transmitted to the appropriate consumer based on the identifier transmitted with the data.” and [0170]: “Data relating to the power generated by each module or group of modules may also be transmitted to a utility company so that each consumer can be reimbursed appropriately for their contribution to the power generation.”) for the purpose of associating data with a photovoltaic module for consumer reimbursement for generated energy (pg. 6, par. [0136] and pg. 8, par. [0169]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to modify the teaching of Allen to include the addition of the limitation of said software application for monitoring energy generated by the photovoltaic array to advantageously monitor individual operations or photovoltaic modules remotely (Lindsey: pg. 1, par. [0009]).
Allen in view of Lindsey does not expressly teach said software application for monitoring energy while the vehicle is in motion monitors location as determined by the GPS while the vehicle is in motion.
However Forbes, in an analogous art of rechargeable powered vehicles (pg. 13, par. [0107]), teaches the missing limitation of said software application for monitoring energy while the vehicle is in motion monitors location as determined by the GPS while the vehicle is in motion (pg. 5, par. [0050], pgs. 13-14, par. [0107], and pg. 19, par. [0129]; i.e. [0107]: “… the power storage device 62, such as an electric vehicle or a hybrid electric vehicle, may be implemented with wireless access technology such that the power storage device 62 may communicate its relevant information (e.g., type of device, state of charge, device parameters or specifications, location (e.g., where the power storage device 62 further includes location determination functionality, such as GPS), time since last recharge, and so forth) directly to the ALD 100 over a wide area wireless network via the communications interface 308.” and [0129]: “The information transmitted to the electric vehicle from the ALMS 10 (e.g., ALD 100) via M2M connections provides the electric vehicle with a regularly-updated status of the grid condition, market prices, and the need for operating reserves while the electric vehicle is in motion, at its home charging station, or at a foreign charging station. … Additionally, the electric vehicle may include a control device that sends M2M information packets to the ALD 100 informing the ALD 100 of its location, current state of charge, and other parameters. … The information supplied by the electric vehicles may also provide the ALD 100 with an opportunity to negotiate the dispatch of electric power from electric vehicles with excess capacity (e.g., more capacity than required to reach a target destination or which are currently immobile), which are located in utility service areas in need of capacity (e.g., operating reserve).”) for the purpose of dispatching electric power from electric vehicles to earn net carbon credits (pgs. 13-14, par. [0107], pg. 14, par. [0111], and pg. 19, par. [0129]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to modify the teaching of Allen in view of Lindsey to include the addition of the limitation of said software application for monitoring energy while the vehicle is in motion monitors location as determined by the GPS while the vehicle is in motion to advantageously assist a utility with a low energy supply or supply of operating reserves (Forbes: pgs. 13-14, par. [0107]).
As per claim 22, Allen does not expressly teach said photovoltaic array mounted on a vehicle is capable of uploading identifying data wirelessly identifying energy created while the vehicle is in motion.
However Lindsey, in analogous art of photovoltaic modules (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitation said photovoltaic array mounted on the structure (pg. 4, par. [0112], pg. 6, par. [0136], and Fig. 3, element 310; i.e. a photovoltaic module comprising of an array of photovoltaic cells and [0112]: “Photovoltaic cells/modules may be installed on the roofs or walls of existing buildings or may be incorporated into structures of new buildings.”) is capable of uploading identifying data wirelessly identifying energy (pg. 1, par. [0009], pg. 3, par. [0061] and [0062], pg. 7, par. [0148], and pg. 8, par. [0168]-[0170]; i.e. [0148]: “Any receiving device, such as those described herein may communicate with a central system … via a wireless card to allow direct communication with a Wi-Fi or other network.”, [0169]: “The data relating to the power generated by each module may also be transmitted to the appropriate consumer based on the identifier transmitted with the data.”, and [0170]: “Data relating to the power generated by each module or group of modules may also be transmitted to a utility company so that each consumer can be reimbursed appropriately for their contribution to the power generation.”) for the purpose of associating data with a photovoltaic module for consumer reimbursement for generated energy (pg. 6, par. [0136] and pg. 8, par. [0169]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to modify the teaching of Allen to include the addition of the limitation of said photovoltaic array mounted on the structure is capable of uploading identifying data wirelessly identifying energy to advantageously monitor individual operations or photovoltaic modules remotely (Lindsey: pg. 1, par. [0009]).
Allen in view of Lindsey does not expressly teach said photovoltaic array mounted on a vehicle is capable of uploading identifying data while the vehicle is in motion.
However Forbes, in an analogous art of rechargeable powered vehicles (pg. 13, par. [0107]), teaches the missing limitation of the vehicle is capable of uploading data while the vehicle is in motion (pg. 5, par. [0050], pgs. 13-14, par. [0107], and pg. 19, par. [0129]; i.e. [0129]: “The information transmitted to the electric vehicle from the ALMS 10 (e.g., ALD 100) via M2M connections provides the electric vehicle with a regularly-updated status of the grid condition, market prices, and the need for operating reserves while the electric vehicle is in motion, at its home charging station, or at a foreign charging station. … Additionally, the electric vehicle may include a control device that sends M2M information packets to the ALD 100 informing the ALD 100 of its location, current state of charge, and other parameters. … The information supplied by the electric vehicles may also provide the ALD 100 with an opportunity to negotiate the dispatch of electric power from electric vehicles with excess capacity (e.g., more capacity than required to reach a target destination or which are currently immobile), which are located in utility service areas in need of capacity (e.g., operating reserve)”) for the purpose of dispatching electric power from electric vehicles to earn net carbon credits (pgs. 13-14, par. [0107], pg. 14, par. [0111], and pg. 19, par. [0129]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to modify the teaching of Allen in view of Lindsey to include the addition of the limitation of the vehicle is capable of uploading data while the vehicle is in motion to advantageously assist a utility with a low energy supply or supply of operating reserves (Forbes: pgs. 13-14, par. [0107]).
Allen in view of Lindsey in further view of Forbes does not expressly teach said photovoltaic array mounted on a vehicle.
However Muller, in an analogous art of solar power energy vehicles (pg. 1, lines 63-67 and col. 3, lines 55-66), teaches the missing limitation of said photovoltaic array mounted on the vehicle (col. 3, lines 55-64 and col. 6, lines 21-28; i.e. col. 3, lines 64-66: “… connect the solar cell lengths 5 to one another in a waterproof and detachable manner. ” and col. 6, lines 21-24: “… a tractor and trailer combination of the type commonly referred to as a semi-trailer combination …”) for the purpose of supplying energy (col. 1, lines 7-8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to modify the teaching of Allen in view of Lindsey in further view of Forbes to include the addition of the limitation of said photovoltaic array mounted on the vehicle to advantageously provide energy that is environmentally beneficial and emissions free (Muller: col. 6, lines 43-48).
As per claim 25, Allen does not expressly teach identifying data permits obtainment of at least a portion of a Solar Renewable Energy Credit.
However Lindsey, in analogous art of photovoltaic modules (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitation identifying data permits obtainment of at least a portion of a Solar Renewable Energy Credit (pg. 8, par. [0170] and [0174]; i.e. [0170]: “Data relating to the power generated by each module or group of modules may also be transmitted to a utility company so that each consumer can be reimbursed appropriately for their contribution to the power generation.” and [0174]: “Enabling the power generated by each photovoltaic module to be monitored and recorded may allow the sale or leasing of individual modules or groups of modules in an installation.”) for the purpose of associating data with a photovoltaic module for consumer reimbursement for generated energy (pg. 6, par. [0136] and pg. 8, par. [0169]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to modify the teaching of Allen to include the addition of the limitation of identifying data permits obtainment of at least a portion of a Solar Renewable Energy Credit to advantageously monitor individual operations or photovoltaic modules remotely (Lindsey: pg. 1, par. [0009]).
As per claim 26, Allen teaches data is transmitted via wireless cellular (pg. 4, par. [0047]; i.e. “… means for sending data to and receiving data from an internet connected networking device is 802.11 wireless transceiver 210. means for sending data to and receiving data from an internet connected networking device could be through …a mobile device 3G or 4G-protocol.”).
Not explicitly taught is identifying data is transmitted.
However Lindsey, in analogous art of photovoltaic modules (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitation identifying data is transmitted (pg. 1, par. [0009], pg. 3, par. [0061] and [0062], pg. 7, par. [0148], and pg. 8, par. [0168]-[0170]; i.e. [0148]: “Any receiving device, such as those described herein may communicate with a central system … via a wireless card to allow direct communication with a Wi-Fi or other network.”, [0169]: “The data relating to the power generated by each module may also be transmitted to the appropriate consumer based on the identifier transmitted with the data.”, and [0170]: “Data relating to the power generated by each module or group of modules may also be transmitted to a utility company so that each consumer can be reimbursed appropriately for their contribution to the power generation.”) for the purpose of associating data with a photovoltaic module for consumer reimbursement for generated energy (pg. 6, par. [0136] and pg. 8, par. [0169]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to modify the teaching of Allen to include the addition of the limitation of identifying data is transmitted to advantageously monitor individual operations or photovoltaic modules remotely (Lindsey: pg. 1, par. [0009]).
Claims 11, 27, and 28 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Allen in view of Lindsey in further view of Forbes, Muller, Kirsch, and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0170886 A1 (hereinafter Plishner).
As per claim 11, Allen in view of Lindsey does not expressly teach a modular subscriber system that permits a plurality of vehicles to be plugged into a local host to create a modular array that provides power to one of a local facility and an electrical grid.
However Forbes, in an analogous art of rechargeable powered vehicles (pg. 13, par. [0107]), teaches the missing limitation of a subscriber system that permits the vehicle to be plugged into a local host that provides power to one of a local facility and an electrical grid (pgs. 13-14, par. [0107] and [0111]; i.e. [0111]: “When the power storage device 62 is used to send or dispatch energy into the power grid, the active load client 300 at the service point at which the power storage device 62 is currently located notifies the ALD 100 with the device ID of the power storage device 62.”) for the purpose of dispatching electric power from electric vehicles to earn net carbon credits (pgs. 13-14, par. [0107], pg. 14, par. [0111], and pg. 19, par. [0129]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to modify the teaching of Allen in view of Lindsey to include the addition of the limitation of a subscriber system that permits the vehicle to be plugged into a local host that provides power to one of a local facility and an electrical grid to advantageously assist a utility with a low energy supply or supply of operating reserves (Forbes: pgs. 13-14, par. [0107]).
Allen in view of Lindsey in view of Forbes does not expressly teach a modular subscriber system that permits a plurality of vehicles to be plugged into a local host to create a modular array that provides power to one of a local facility and an electrical grid.
Allen in view of Lindsey in further view of Forbes and Muller does not expressly teach a modular subscriber system that permits a plurality of vehicles to be plugged into a local host to create a modular array that provides power to one of a local facility and an electrical grid.
Allen in view of Lindsey in further view of Forbes, Muller, and Kirsch does not expressly teach a modular subscriber system that permits a plurality of vehicles to be plugged into a local host to create a modular array that provides power to one of a local facility and an electrical grid.
However Plishner, in an analogous art of a solar power generation device on a vehicle (pg. 1, par. [0001] and pg. 2, par. [0018]), teaches the missing limitation of a modular subscriber system (Fig. 3, element 32; i.e. a docking facility) that permits a plurality of vehicles (Fig. 3, element 11; i.e. a plurality of vehicles) to be plugged into a local host to create a modular array that provides power to one of a local facility and an electrical grid (pg. 5, par. [0040] and [0042]) for the purpose of transferring power to make it available commercially (pg. 3, par. [0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to modify the teaching of Allen in view of Lindsey in further view of Forbes, Muller, and Kirsch to include the addition of the limitation of a modular subscriber system that permits a plurality of vehicles to be plugged into a local host to create a modular array that provides power to one of a local facility and an electrical grid to provide a more robust grid (Plishner: pg. 1, par. [0003]).
As per claim 27, Allen in view of Lindsey does not expressly teach a modular subscriber system that permits a plurality of vehicles to be plugged into a local host to create a modular array that provides power to one of a local facility and an electrical grid.
However Forbes, in an analogous art of rechargeable powered vehicles (pg. 13, par. [0107]), teaches the missing limitation of a subscriber system that permits the vehicle to be plugged into a local host that provides power to one of a local facility and an electrical grid (pgs. 13-14, par. [0107] and [0111]; i.e. [0111]: “When the power storage device 62 is used to send or dispatch energy into the power grid, the active load client 300 at the service point at which the power storage device 62 is currently located notifies the ALD 100 with the device ID of the power storage device 62.”) for the purpose of dispatching electric power from electric vehicles to earn net carbon credits (pgs. 13-14, par. [0107], pg. 14, par. [0111], and pg. 19, par. [0129]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to modify the teaching of Allen in view of Lindsey to include the addition of the limitation of a subscriber system that permits the vehicle to be plugged into a local host that provides power to one of a local facility and an electrical grid to advantageously assist a utility with a low energy supply or supply of operating reserves (Forbes: pgs. 13-14, par. [0107]).
Allen in view of Lindsey in view of Forbes does not expressly teach a modular subscriber system that permits a plurality of vehicles to be plugged into a local host to create a modular array that provides power to one of a local facility and an electrical grid.
Allen in view of Lindsey in further view of Forbes and Muller does not expressly teach a modular subscriber system that permits a plurality of vehicles to be plugged into a local host to create a modular array that provides power to one of a local facility and an electrical grid.
Allen in view of Lindsey in further view of Forbes, Muller, and Kirsch does not expressly teach a modular subscriber system that permits a plurality of vehicles to be plugged into a local host to create a modular array that provides power to one of a local facility and an electrical grid.
However Plishner, in an analogous art of a solar power generation device on a vehicle (pg. 1, par. [0001] and pg. 2, par. [0018]), teaches the missing limitation of a modular subscriber system (Fig. 3, element 32; i.e. a docking facility) that permits a plurality of vehicles (Fig. 3, element 11; i.e. a plurality of vehicles) to be plugged into a local host to create a modular array that provides power to one of a local facility and an electrical grid (pg. 5, par. [0040] and [0042]) for the purpose of transferring power to make it available commercially (pg. 3, par. [0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to modify the teaching of Allen in view of Lindsey in further view of Forbes, Muller, and Kirsch to include the addition of the limitation of a modular subscriber system that permits a plurality of vehicles to be plugged into a local host to create a modular array that provides power to one of a local facility and an electrical grid to provide a more robust grid (Plishner: pg. 1, par. [0003]).
As per claim 28, Allen in view of Lindsey does not expressly teach a network adapted to track individual contributions of the vehicle and to allocate a credit to an owner of the vehicle.
However Forbes, in an analogous art of rechargeable powered vehicles (pg. 13, par. [0107]), teaches the missing limitation of a network adapted to track individual contributions of the vehicle and to allocate a credit to an owner of the vehicle (pgs. 13-14, par. [0107] and [0111]; i.e. [0111]: “When the power storage device 62 is used to send or dispatch energy into the power grid, the active load client 300 at the service point at which the power storage device 62 is currently located notifies the ALD 100 with the device ID of the power storage device 62. … The ALD 100 logs the amount of power dispatched and the time period of the dispatch activity in the ALD database 124. The ALD 100 may also determine the carbon footprint and the carbon credits associated with the dispatch activity as disclosed in U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 20100235008 A1.”) for the purpose of dispatching electric power from electric vehicles to earn net carbon credits (pgs. 13-14, par. [0107], pg. 14, par. [0111], and pg. 19, par. [0129]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to modify the teaching of Allen in view of Lindsey to include the addition of the limitation of a network adapted to track individual contributions of the vehicle and to allocate a credit to an owner of the vehicle to advantageously assist a utility with a low energy supply or supply of operating reserves (Forbes: pgs. 13-14, par. [0107]).
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Allen in view of Lindsey in further view of Forbes, Muller, Kirsch, and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0022741 A1 (hereinafter Moore).
As per claim 23, Allen does not expressly teach the identifying data comprises location as determined by the GPS while the vehicle is in motion, a time stamp of the vehicle in motion, and an identification code.
However Lindsey, in analogous art of photovoltaic modules (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitation of the identifying data comprises an identification code (pg. 1, par. [0009], pg. 3, par. [0061] and [0062], pg. 7, par. [0148], and pg. 8, par. [0168]-[0170]; i.e. [0148]: “Any receiving device, such as those described herein may communicate with a central system … via a wireless card to allow direct communication with a Wi-Fi or other network.”, [0169]: “The data relating to the power generated by each module may also be transmitted to the appropriate consumer based on the identifier transmitted with the data.”, and [0170]: “Data relating to the power generated by each module or group of modules may also be transmitted to a utility company so that each consumer can be reimbursed appropriately for their contribution to the power generation.”) for the purpose of associating data with a photovoltaic module for consumer reimbursement for generated energy (pg. 6, par. [0136] and pg. 8, par. [0169]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to modify the teaching of Allen to include the addition of the limitation of the identifying data comprises an identification code to advantageously monitor individual operations or photovoltaic modules remotely (Lindsey: pg. 1, par. [0009]).
Allen in view of Lindsey does not expressly teach the identifying data comprises location as determined by the GPS while the vehicle is in motion and a time stamp of the vehicle in motion.
However Forbes, in an analogous art of rechargeable powered vehicles (pg. 13, par. [0107]), teaches the missing limitation of identifying data comprises location as determined by the GPS while the vehicle is in motion (pg. 5, par. [0050], pgs. 13-14, par. [0107], and pg. 19, par. [0129]; i.e. [0107]: “… the power storage device 62, such as an electric vehicle or a hybrid electric vehicle, may be implemented with wireless access technology such that the power storage device 62 may communicate its relevant information (e.g., type of device, state of charge, device parameters or specifications, location (e.g., where the power storage device 62 further includes location determination functionality, such as GPS), time since last recharge, and so forth) directly to the ALD 100 over a wide area wireless network via the communications interface 308.” and [0129]: “The information transmitted to the electric vehicle from the ALMS 10 (e.g., ALD 100) via M2M connections provides the electric vehicle with a regularly-updated status of the grid condition, market prices, and the need for operating reserves while the electric vehicle is in motion, at its home charging station, or at a foreign charging station. … Additionally, the electric vehicle may include a control device that sends M2M information packets to the ALD 100 informing the ALD 100 of its location, current state of charge, and other parameters. … The information supplied by the electric vehicles may also provide the ALD 100 with an opportunity to negotiate the dispatch of electric power from electric vehicles with excess capacity (e.g., more capacity than required to reach a target destination or which are currently immobile), which are located in utility service areas in need of capacity (e.g., operating reserve).”) for the purpose of dispatching electric power from electric vehicles to earn net carbon credits (pgs. 13-14, par. [0107], pg. 14, par. [0111], and pg. 19, par. [0129]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to modify the teaching of Allen in view of Lindsey to include the addition of the limitations of identifying data comprises location as determined by the GPS while the vehicle is in motion to advantageously assist a utility with a low energy supply or supply of operating reserves (Forbes: pgs. 13-14, par. [0107]).
Allen in view of Lindsey in further view of Forbes does not expressly teach the identifying data comprises a time stamp of the vehicle in motion.
Allen in view of Lindsey in further view of Forbes and Muller does not expressly teach the identifying data comprises a time stamp of the vehicle in motion.
Allen in view of Lindsey in further view of Forbes, Muller, and Kirsch does not expressly teach the identifying data comprises a time stamp of the vehicle in motion.
However Moore, in an analogous art of collecting data from traveling solar powered vehicles (pg. 2, par. [0014] and [0015]), teaches the missing limitation of identifying data comprises a time stamp of a vehicle in motion (pgs. 3-4, par. [0025] and pg. 5, par. [0035]; i.e. [0025]: “… the primary information associated with the mobile vehicle 102 may include identification, velocity, direction, position or other information associated with the mobile vehicle 102.” and par. [0035]: “… the metadata or metainformation may include, time stamps, location, velocity, direction, an emergency indication of the mobile vehicle 102, user identification and information, mobile vehicle identification information, max-hop counter, priority level, or other information or data associated with the messages.”) for the purpose of transmitting information associated with a traveling vehicle (pg. 2, par. [0014] and [0015]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to modify the teaching of Allen in view of Lindsey in further view of Forbes, Muller, and Kirsch to include the addition of the limitation of identifying data comprises a time stamp of a vehicle in motion to advantageously establish and maintain a wireless communication link with a traveling vehicle that provides a user with flexibility and convenience (Moore: pg. 1, par. [0001] and [0011]).
As per claim 24, Allen teaches data is transmitted via wireless cellular (pg. 4, par. [0047]; i.e. “… means for sending data to and receiving data from an internet connected networking device is 802.11 wireless transceiver 210. means for sending data to and receiving data from an internet connected networking device could be through …a mobile device 3G or 4G-protocol.”).
Not explicitly taught is identifying data is transmitted.
However Lindsey, in analogous art of photovoltaic modules (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitation identifying data is transmitted (pg. 1, par. [0009], pg. 3, par. [0061] and [0062], pg. 7, par. [0148], and pg. 8, par. [0168]-[0170]; i.e. [0148]: “Any receiving device, such as those described herein may communicate with a central system … via a wireless card to allow direct communication with a Wi-Fi or other network.”, [0169]: “The data relating to the power generated by each module may also be transmitted to the appropriate consumer based on the identifier transmitted with the data.”, and [0170]: “Data relating to the power generated by each module or group of modules may also be transmitted to a utility company so that each consumer can be reimbursed appropriately for their contribution to the power generation.”) for the purpose of associating data with a photovoltaic module for consumer reimbursement for generated energy (pg. 6, par. [0136] and pg. 8, par. [0169]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to modify the teaching of Allen to include the addition of the limitation of identifying data is transmitted to advantageously monitor individual operations or photovoltaic modules remotely (Lindsey: pg. 1, par. [0009]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to energy/power systems.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0238195 A1 discloses distributed maximum power point tracking systems, structures, and processes for power generation structures, such as for but not limited to solar panel arrays.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0149403 A1 discloses a roadway system for energy generation and distribution.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0320827 A1 discloses a solar array tracker controller including an operator programmable micro-processor electronically connected to drive motors in a solar panel array or other solar device array.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0141201 A1 discloses a method for delivering energy to an electric vehicle that includes a charging controller and a battery.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0235008 A1 discloses a load management system controller employs a method for determining carbon credits earned as a result of a control event in which power is reduced to at least one service point serviced by a utility.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L NORTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 p.m..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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.
/JENNIFER L NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117