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 .
Status of Claims
• This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/214, 976 filed on 06/27/2023.
• Claims 4-7, 24-27 are cancelled, and claims 35-36 are added.
• Claims 1-3, 8-12, 23, 28-30, 35-36 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made FINAL in response to the “Amendment” and “Remarks” filed on 08/19/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/16/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following: Claim 10 is directed towards a method of operating the unmanned aerial system (UAS) but it is dependent on claim 1 which is directed towards an unmanned aerial system (UAS). Therefore, claim 10 appears to be directed towards two separate (but not distinct) inventions. It is recommended that the claim 10 should be re-write so that it is in independent form and includes all the limitations from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 10-12, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lacaze (US20220329201A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 10:
Lacaze teaches:
An unmanned aerial system (UAS) for regulating operation of a solar energy system, the solar energy system comprising a plurality of photovoltaic (PV) modules and one or more drive systems configured to pivot the plurality of PV modules through respective ranges of orientations, the UAS comprising (Lacaze, abstract, “Systems and methods for autonomous drone-based solar panel maintenance may utilize drone positioning, image analysis, and processing to determine solar panel angle and clarity”, and para[28], “the solar panel 202 may be mounted to a pole 206 (as depicted) and/or may be reoriented and/or adjusted (e.g., the angle “A” may be changed) via a coupling 208.”)
a. an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) programmable to fly in proximity to one or more PV modules, the proximity being in accordance with at least one of an imaging range and a communications range; (Lacaze, para[20], “the inspection drone 110 … is operable to follow one or more predefined and/or automatically computed navigational routes that place the inspection drone 110 in proximity to the solar panel”, para[36], “a drone 310 flying near the solar panel 302 may capture an image 344 of the solar panel”, and para[19], “communication links between the inspection drone 110 and the solar panel”)
b. an imaging device, borne by the UAV and configured to capture one or more images, respectively, of each of the one of more PV modules; (Lacaze, para[63],” A camera on the drone may, for example, photograph the solar panel”)
and c. a communications device, borne by the UAV and configured to transmit a command to a controller of the solar energy system to change an operating parameter of at least one of the one or more PV modules, the operating parameter comprising at least one of (i) a tracking state parameter, (ii) a logical parameter and (iii) a mechanical and/or electrical parameter of the one or more PV modules. (Lacaze, para[19], “communication links between the inspection drone 110 and the solar panel”, and para[64],” the drone may communicate with the solar panel system and send an instruction to re-set and/or adjust the orientation based on the computed orientation”) Examiner note: Lacaze teaches the drone communicate with the solar panel system and send an instruction to re-set and/or adjust the orientation of the PV modules which is (iii) a mechanical and/or electrical parameter of the one or more PV modules.
Regarding Claim 8:
Lacaze, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Lacaze teaches:
The UAS of claims 1, additionally comprising one or more non-imaging sensors borne by the UAV and configured to receive information from a component of the solar-energy system, the one or more non-imaging sensors comprising at least one of: an altimeter, a distance measure, an orientation sensor including an accelerometer and/or a gyroscope), a location sensor, an audio sensor, and an RFID tag reader. (Lacaze, para[71], “ a BLE and/or RF receiver device … that acquires data from descriptive of a location” ) Examiner note: Lacaze teaches the drone comprising one or more non-imaging location sensor of a BLE and/or RF receiver device and configured to receive location information from a component of the solar-energy system.
Regarding Claim 11:
Lacaze, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 10. Lacaze teaches:
The method of claim 10, wherein the capturing the one or more images includes capturing, while at least one PV module is pivoting, multiple images of the at least one PV module at different respective orientations. (Lacaze, para[63],” A camera on the drone may, for example, photograph the solar panel”, para[31], “this is a two degree (2°) of freedom error measurement and can be corrected automatically if the panel is motorized, e.g., via the coupling 208 (in either or both pan and tilt)”) Examiner Note: Lacaze does not explicitly disclose the drone captures multiple images of the solar panel at different orientations. However, this feature is considered to be straightforward and obvious implementation details which come within the scope of the design choice.
Regarding Claim 12:
Lacaze, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 10. Lacaze teaches:
The method of claim 11, wherein the capturing is while the at least one PV module is pivoting in response to the transmitting of the command. (Lacaze, para[63],” A camera on the drone may, for example, photograph the solar panel”, para[31], “this is a two degree (2°) of freedom error measurement and can be corrected automatically if the panel is motorized, e.g., via the coupling 208 (in either or both pan and tilt)”) Examiner Note: Lacaze does not explicitly disclose the drone captures image of the solar panel while the at least one PV module is pivoting in response to the transmitting of the command. However, this feature is considered to be straightforward and obvious implementation details which come within the scope of the design choice.
Regarding Claim 30:
Lacaze teaches:
A method of regulating operation of a solar energy system using an unmanned aerial system (UAS), the UAS comprising an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) and respective imaging and communications devices borne by the UAV, the solar energy system comprising a plurality of photovoltaic (PV) modules and one or more drive systems configured to pivot the plurality of PV modules through respective ranges of orientations, the method comprising (Lacaze, abstract, “Systems and methods for autonomous drone-based solar panel maintenance may utilize drone positioning, image analysis, and processing to determine solar panel angle and clarity” and para[28], “the solar panel 202 may be mounted to a pole 206 (as depicted) and/or may be reoriented and/or adjusted (e.g., the angle “A” may be changed) via a coupling 208.”)
a. an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) programmable to fly in proximity to one or more PV modules, the proximity being in accordance with at least one of an imaging range and a communications range; (Lacaze, para[20], “the inspection drone 110 … is operable to follow one or more predefined and/or automatically computed navigational routes that place the inspection drone 110 in proximity to the solar panel”, para[36], “a drone 310 flying near the solar panel 302 may capture an image 344 of the solar panel”, and para[19], “communication links between the inspection drone 110 and the solar panel”)
b. accessing a three-dimensional representation corresponding to a design of at least a portion of the solar energy system; (Lacaze, para[51],” the second reflection “R2” substantially extends to cover the entire surface 502-1 of the solar panel 502 (at least in the given dimension depicted; in three dimensions”)
and c. a communications device, borne by the UAV and configured to transmit a command to a controller of the solar energy system to change an operating parameter of at least one of the one or more PV modules. (Lacaze, para[19], “communication links between the inspection drone 110 and the solar panel”, and para[64],” the drone may communicate with the solar panel system and send an instruction to re-set and/or adjust the orientation based on the computed orientation”)
d. creating, from the one or more captured images, a three-dimensional representation of the at least a portion of the solar energy system (Lacaze, para[32],” measurements (e.g., directly measured via LiDAR and/or derived from object recognition techniques”)Examiner note: Lacaze teaches measure the PV modules utilizing LiDAR sensor which is a mapping technology that uses laser light to measure the distance to a target surface. it's generating a 3D map of anything from a room to large areas of terrain with stunning accuracy as explained by Artec 3D (https://www.artec3d.com/learning-center/what-is-lidar)
PNG
media_image1.png
488
1184
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and e. comparing the created three-dimensional representation to the accessed three-dimensional representation to identify one or more divergences from the design. (Lacaze, para[32],” measurements (e.g., directly measured via LiDAR and/or derived from object recognition techniques) may be compared to stored measurement and/or location data and/or to each other to determine whether (and by what amount) the solar panel 202 is out of alignment”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacaze (US20220329201A1) in view of Trujillo (US20160047877A1).
Regarding Claim 2:
Lacaze, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Lacaze does not explicitly teach, but Trujillo teaches:
The UAS of claim 1, wherein the operating parameter comprises a tracking state parameter, and the tracking state parameter comprises either tracking on-son or pivoting to an angle away from an on-sun position. (Trujillo, para[01], “This invention relates generally to optical tracking and tracking systems and methods for ensuring on-sun orientation of a solar surface, and more precisely to systems deploying differential refractometers to determine and track on-sun orientation.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the autonomous drone-based solar panel maintenance method of Lacaze to include these above aforementioned teachings from Trujillo in order to include wherein the operating parameter comprises a tracking state parameter, and the tracking state parameter comprises either tracking on-son or pivoting to an angle away from an on-sun position. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “efficient tracking of the sun as it traverses its daily trajectory in the sky.”( Trujillo, Description).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacaze (US20220329201A1) in view of Sharan (US 5632823 A).
Regarding Claim 3:
Lacaze, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Lacaze does not explicitly teach, but Sharan teaches:
The UAS of claim 1, wherein the operating parameter comprises a mechanical and/or electrical parameter of the respective component, and the mechanical and/or electrical parameter comprise at least one of a rate of motor movement pulses, a number of motor movement pulses, and a pivot arc limit. (Sharan, Col.4, lines 45-56, “the motor can be programmed to track the sun… The pulse rates to the motor by the controller have to be accordingly adjusted”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the autonomous drone-based solar panel maintenance method of Lacaze to include these above aforementioned teachings from Sharan in order to include wherein the operating parameter comprises a mechanical and/or electrical parameter of the respective component, and the mechanical and/or electrical parameter comprise at least one of a rate of motor movement pulses, a number of motor movement pulses, and a pivot arc limit. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “provide a solar tracking system which is accurate and yet requires minimum energy input and is simple and inexpensive to build and operate.”( Sharan, Description).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacaze (US20220329201A1) in view of Cosola (US 20220169401 A1).
Regarding Claim 9:
Lacaze, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Lacaze does not explicitly teach, but Cosola teaches:
The UAS of claims 1, wherein the solar energy system comprises a meteorological system, and the communications device borne by the UAV is configured to be in communication with one or more components of the meteorological system.(Cosola, para[128], “solar panel”, para[108], “ meteorological, networking, and operating systems equipment on the SDAS drone-port/airport”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the autonomous drone-based solar panel maintenance
method of Lacaze to include these above aforementioned teachings from Cosola in order to include wherein the solar energy system comprises a meteorological system, and the communications device borne by the UAV is configured to be in communication with one or more components of the meteorological system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “improve performance …within the operation environment”(Cosola, Description).
Claim(s) 23, 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacaze (US20220329201A1) in view of in view of Michini (US20180003656A1).
Regarding Claim 23:
Lacaze teaches:
A method of regulating operation of a solar energy system using an unmanned aerial system (UAS), the UAS comprising an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) and respective imaging and communications devices borne by the UAV, the solar energy system comprising a plurality of photovoltaic (PV) modules and one or more drive systems configured to pivot the plurality of PV modules through respective ranges of orientations, the method comprising: (Lacaze, abstract, “Systems and methods for autonomous drone-based solar panel maintenance may utilize drone positioning, image analysis, and processing to determine solar panel angle and clarity”)
a. flying the UAV in proximity to one or more PV modules, the proximity being in accordance with at least one of an imaging range and a communications range; (Lacaze, para[20], “the inspection drone 110 … is operable to follow one or more predefined and/or automatically computed navigational routes that place the inspection drone 110 in proximity to the solar panel”, para[36], “a drone 310 flying near the solar panel 302 may capture an image 344 of the solar panel”, and para[19], “communication links between the inspection drone 110 and the solar panel”)
b. pivoting the one or more PV modules to a plurality of respective orientations; (Lacaze, para[28], “the solar panel 202 may be mounted to a pole 206 (as depicted) and/or may be reoriented and/or adjusted (e.g., the angle “A” may be changed) via a coupling 208.”)
c. during the pivoting, capturing one or more images, respectively, of each of the one of more PV modules at different orientations, the capturing being by the imaging device borne by the UAV. (Lacaze, para[63],” A camera on the drone may, for example, photograph the solar panel”)
Lacaze does not explicitly teach, but Michini teaches:
d. analyzing the captured images to identify an environmental obstacle interfering with a pivoting movement of a PV module ( Michini, para[36], “obtained from a database , or system that stores or configured to access property boundary information ) , obstacles associated with the location ( e . g . , nearby trees”, and para[38], “the flight description module 210 can analyze the obtained imagery associated with the entered location information, and identify … obstructions (e.g., trees).”) Examiner note: Michini discloses “obtained from a database , or system that stores or configured to access property boundary information ) , obstacles associated with the location ( e . g . , nearby trees” in para [36]. Furthermore, Michini teaches analyzing the captured images to identify an environmental obstacle in para[38], “the flight description module 210 can analyze the obtained imagery associated with the entered location information, and identify … obstructions (e.g., trees)”. These teachings establish that the UAV are used to detect and identify trees or similar obstructions that may interfere with the operation, inspection or orientation of the solar panels. Since the claimed “ pivoting movement of a PV module” depended on unobstructed environmental space for optimal solar tracking, Michini reference of using UAV to identify trees or other nearby object that could block the movement of PV module inherently serves to detect an environmental obstacle interfering with a pivoting movement of a PV module. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use UAV from Michini not only to inspect solar panel conditions but also to identify environmental obstacles such as trees that could interfere with the pivoting movement of PV module tracking system. Therefore, Michini’s teaching render the claimed feature “identify an environmental obstacle interfering with a pivoting movement of a PV module” in claim 23 obvious.
wherein the analyzing is performed by a controller of the UAS. (Lacaze, para[15], “The inspection drone 110 may comprise, for example, a processing device 112”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the autonomous drone-based solar panel maintenance method of Lacaze to include these above aforementioned teachings from Michini in order to include additionally comprising: analyzing the captured images to identify an environmental obstacle interfering with a pivoting movement of a PV module, wherein the analyzing is performed by a controller of the UAS. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so “a solar panel user may timely replace or repair damaged or failed panels.”( Michini, Description).
Regarding Claim 28:
Lacaze in view of Michini, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 23. Lacaze teaches:
The method of claim 23 , wherein the pivoting is in response to receiving a command transmitted by the communications device borne by the UAV to a controller of the solar energy system. (Lacaze, para[31], “this is a two degree (2°) of freedom error measurement and can be corrected automatically if the panel is motorized, e.g., via the coupling 208 (in either or both pan and tilt)”)
Regarding Claim 29:
Lacaze in view of Michini, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 28. Lacaze teaches:
The method of claim 28, wherein the command is formulated by the controller of the UAS in response to an analysis, performed by the controller of the UAS borne by the UAV during the flying, of the respective one or more captured images. (Lacaze, para[75], “location data 744-1, movement data 744-2, sensor data 744-3, and/or astrological data 744-4 may be fed by the processor 712 through one or more mathematical and/or statistical formulas and/or models in accordance with the alignment instructions 742-2 to automatically compute solar panel orientation values/attributes”)
Claim(s) 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacaze (US20220329201A1) in view of CARTER (EP4123864A1).
Regarding Claim 35:
Lacaze, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Lacaze does not explicitly teach, but CARTER teaches:
The UAS of claim 1, wherein the operating parameter comprises a logical parameter that regulates a behavior of the PV modules in a given situation.( CARTER, para[40], “the logic parameters define instructions or values for changing the behaviour of the optimisation calculations performed by the local control system to achieve an efficient control strategy for controlling its associated energy devices”, and para [52], “energy-generating devices (such as solar PV panels”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the autonomous drone-based solar panel maintenance
method of Lacaze to include these above aforementioned teachings from CARTER in order to include wherein the operating parameter comprises a logical parameter that regulates a behavior of the PV modules in a given situation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “ achieve an efficient control strategy for controlling its associated energy devices”( CARTER, Description).
Claim(s) 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacaze (US20220329201A1) in view of CARTER (EP4123864A1), further in view of Trujillo (US20160047877A1).
Regarding Claim 36:
Lacaze in view of CARTER, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 35. Lacaze in view of CARTER does not explicitly teach, but Trujillo teaches:
The UAS of claim 35, wherein the logical parameter comprise regulates a behavior of the PV modules for a tracking state parameter that comprises either tracking on-sun or pivoting to an angle away from an on-sun position.( Trujillo, para[16], “the system can track the movement of the sun by automatically adjusting its orientation so as to follow or track the gain produced by the differential amplifier in the position when the system was calibrated to its on-sun orientation.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the autonomous drone-based solar panel maintenance method of Lacaze in view of CARTER to include these above aforementioned teachings from Trujillo in order to include wherein the logical parameter comprise regulates a behavior of the PV modules for a tracking state parameter that comprises either tracking on-sun or pivoting to an angle away from an on-sun position. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “efficient tracking of the sun as it traverses its daily trajectory in the sky.”( Trujillo, Description).
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Objections. Applicants argued that in order to avoid excess claim fees, Applicant instead amends the claim 10 herewith in other ways to overcome the objections. Applicant argued that the instant amendment resolves the ambiguity referenced by the Examiner.
Rejections under 35 USC §102(a) claim 1. Applicants argued that nothing in Lacaze enables or anticipates communicating with a drone as recited in claim 1.
Rejections under 35 USC §102(a) claim 2. Applicants argued that Lacaze does not teach the amended limitation of “the tracking state parameter comprises either tracking on-son or pivoting to an angle away from an on-sun position”.
Rejections under 35 USC §102(a) claim 8. Applicants argued that Lacaze does not teach the feature of “comprising one or more non-imaging sensors borne by the UAV and configured to receive information from a component of the solar-energy system”.
Rejections under 35 USC §103 claim 23. Applicants argued that Lacaze in view of Michini does not teach the amended limitation of “identify an environmental obstacle interfering with a pivoting movement of a PV module”.
Rejections under 35 USC §102 claim 30. Applicants argued that Lacaze does not teach the feature of “ d. creating, from the one or more captured images, a three-dimensional representation of the at least a portion of the solar energy system” and “e. comparing the created three-dimensional representation to the accessed three-dimensional representation to identify one or more divergences from the design”.
In response of A). The examiner respectively disagrees. Claim 10 is directed towards a method of operating the unmanned aerial system (UAS) but it is dependent on claim 1 which is directed towards an unmanned aerial system (UAS). Therefore, claim 10 appears to be directed towards two separate (but not distinct) inventions. It is recommended that the claim 10 should be re-write so that it is in independent form and includes all the limitations from claim 1. Claim objection of claim 10 is maintained.
In response of B). The examiner respectively disagrees. Lacaze explicitly teaches the drone communicate with the solar panel system in para[19], “communication links between the inspection drone 110 and the solar panel”, and send an instruction to re-set and/or adjust the orientation of the PV modules in para [64] which adjusting the orientation of the PV module is under the category (iii) a mechanical and/or electrical parameter of the one or more PV modules.
In response of C). Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response of D). The examiner respectively disagrees. Lacaze teaches the drone comprising one or more non-imaging location sensor of a BLE and/or RF receiver device in para[71], “ a BLE and/or RF receiver device … that acquires data from descriptive of a location” from the solar panel. Therefore, Lacaze teaches each and every limitation of “comprising one or more non-imaging sensors borne by the UAV and configured to receive information from a component of the solar-energy system”.
In response of E). The examiner respectively disagrees. Michini discloses “obtained from a database , or system that stores or configured to access property boundary information ) , obstacles associated with the location ( e . g . , nearby trees” in para [36]. Furthermore, Michini teaches analyzing the captured images to identify an environmental obstacle in para[38], “the flight description module 210 can analyze the obtained imagery associated with the entered location information, and identify … obstructions (e.g., trees)”. These teachings establish that the UAV are used to detect and identify trees or similar obstructions that may interfere with the operation, inspection or orientation of the solar panels. Since the claimed “ pivoting movement of a PV module” depended on unobstructed environmental space for optimal solar tracking, Michini reference of using UAV to identify trees or other nearby object that could block the movement of PV module inherently serves to detect an environmental obstacle interfering with a pivoting movement of a PV module. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use UAV from Michini not only to inspect solar panel conditions but also to identify environmental obstacles such as trees that could interfere with the pivoting movement of PV module tracking system. Therefore, Michini’s teaching render the claimed feature “identify an environmental obstacle interfering with a pivoting movement of a PV module” in claim 23 obvious.
In response of F). The examiner respectively disagrees. Lacaze teaches in para[32],” measurements (e.g., directly measured via LiDAR ”of solar panel. Lacaze teaches measure the PV modules utilizing LiDAR sensor which is a mapping technology that uses laser light to measure the distance to a target surface. it's generating a 3D map of anything from a room to large areas of terrain with stunning accuracy as explained by Artec 3D (https://www.artec3d.com/learning-center/what-is-lidar). Therefore, Lacaze teaches limitation of “d. creating, from the one or more captured images, a three-dimensional representation of the at least a portion of the solar energy system”. Furthermore, Lacaze teaches in para[32],” measurements (e.g., directly measured via LiDAR and/or derived from object recognition techniques) may be compared to stored measurement and/or location data and/or to each other to determine whether (and by what amount) the solar panel 202 is out of alignment”. Thus, Lacaze teaches the claimed feature of “e. comparing the created three-dimensional representation to the accessed three-dimensional representation to identify one or more divergences from the design” as well.
PNG
media_image1.png
488
1184
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAI NMN WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5633. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0800-1700.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached on (571) 272-5109. 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.
/KAI NMN WANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667