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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on a European application EP22208077.2 filed on November 17, 2022.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1 and 6 contain the element (clt), but it is unknown why there needs to be an abbreviation of verb collecting or collected. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1 and 6 contain the element (rn), but it is unknown why there needs to be an abbreviation of verb running. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1 and 6 contain the element (mtc), but it is unknown why there needs to be an abbreviation of verb match or matching. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1 and 6 contain the element (idf), but it is unknown why there needs to be an abbreviation of verb identify. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1, 6, and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1 and 6 contain the element (grt), but it is unknown why there needs to be an abbreviation of verb generate. Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner’s Note – these abbreviations above may not be an exhaustive list and to prevent delay in examination of the application a thorough review of the claims is required.
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1 and 6 contain the element: “irradiation measurement signal.” This element is defined in the first two instances in the claims as: “I(t) (IMS); however, the second instant in the claims label the “irradiation measurement signal” as “I.sub.GMT(t) (IMS.sub.GMT).” One having ordinary skill would not understand the inconsistencies of abbreviations. Appropriate action is required.
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1 and 6 contain the element: “power production measurement signal.” This element is defined in the first instance in the claims as: “Pest(t,K )(PPMSest)”; however, the second instant in the claims label the “power production measurement signal” as “(P(t) (PPMS).” One having ordinary skill would not understand the inconsistencies of abbreviations. Appropriate action is required.
Examiner’s Note – these two inconsistencies above may not be an exhaustive list and to prevent delay in examination of the application a thorough review of the claims is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Independent claims 1 - 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception {i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1 and 6 are directed to a computer-implemented method or tool for energy balancing solar power plants.
Step 1: The claims recite a method or tool for balancing solar power plants. The claims recite a series of steps a) – c) of matching, running, and calculating measurement values. The final step is to determine a value for energy loss (E.sub.loss) by an integral calculation of power difference (PD). Thus, the claims are directed to a process and a system of solar panels, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: Abstract ideas have been identified by the courts by way of example, including fundamental economic practices, certain methods of organization of human activities, an idea 'of itself,' and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355 - 56. Claims 1 and 6 recites limitations of: -a) matching for a recoding time the power production signal; b) run a fitting algorithm for the at least one good matching time (GMT); c) calculate for the recording time based on values ,<1> - <3>, a value of energy loss (E.sub.loss) by an integral calculation. The matching, running an algorithm, and calculating, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical relationship but for the recitation of generic power components. Claims 1 and 6 rely upon mathematical concepts, and the limitations set forth or describe mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas, or equations using words or mathematical symbols. Even though the claims recite a method or tool for “energy balancing solar power plants” the claims overall is based upon mathematical relationships, formulas or calculations. But for the “energy balancing solar power plants” language in the preamble, and determine a value or energy loss (E.sub.loss) in the final step, the claim encompasses several mathematical equations and relationships. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites in the preamble balancing solar power plants. The steps of balancing and determine an energy loss are recited at a high level of generality. These limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using an unknown structure and these steps could be performed as a mathematical process. Accordingly, these elements in the preamble and conclusion do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step (2B): The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and do not provide an inventive concept. In this instance, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the balancing and determining amounts to no more than mere mental steps and/or mathematical concepts to apply the exception using unknown or solar components. Mere generalities of balancing and determining to apply an exception using a generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patently eligible.
Thus the claim is not drawn to patent eligible subject matter as it is directed to the same abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 2 – 4 also add mathematical relationship or formulas, do not add anything significantly more and are also rejected under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claims 7 – 9 also do not add anything significantly more and are also rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claims 5 and 10 recite the element of “a control information (CINF) is generated and used to control reductions of impacts concerning the calculated energy loss (E.sub.loss) on the solar power plant (SPP)” but does this does not give a practical application or additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 11 recite the element of “A power plant control device (PPCD) for energy balancing solar power plants with a control unit (CU) connected to a solar power plant (SPP, INV, PVS, MDV) for controlling the solar power plant (SPP))” but does this does not give a practical application or additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 12 recite the element of “which is controlled to adapt setpoints of the plant or to optimize a maintenance schedule of the plant, wherein a power plant control device (PPCD) for energy balancing solar power plants according to claim 11, which in the course to control the solar power plant (SPP, INV, PVS, MDV)” but does this does not give a practical application or additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Thus all claims are not patently eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation "solar power plant (SPP, INV, PVS, MDV);” however, the acronyms INV, PVS, and MDV were not previously defined in the claim. Without a timely analysis of the specification, it is unknown the meaning of INV, PVS, and MDV and how the elements of the SPP fit in the meaning of the first instance of solar power plant and how this differs from the third instance of solar power plant (INV, PVS, and MDV) in line 11 of claim 1 and line 6 of claim 6, which does not include “SPP” in the element of “solar power plant.” The dependent claims 2 – 5 and 7 – 12 depend from claims 1 and 6 and therefore are also objected to. Appropriate action is required.
Examiner's Statement of Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 1 – 12 are allowable pending resolving all intervening issues such as the Claim objections, 35 U.S.C. §101 rejections, and 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejections above. Reasons for allowance will be held in abeyance pending final recitation of the claims. The prior art does not disclose the complex method and computer-implemented tool that teach the steps of matching, running and calculating as in a) – c) in independent claims 1 and 6. The claimed invention is distinguished over the following prior art:
Irish et al. (US PG Pub. No. 20220021850) teaches balancing solar power system wherein only some of the elements taught in the instant application are taught in Irish such as solar illumination intensity (Par. 0086) and solar power production at any given time Par. 0025). Irish does not teach the complex mathematics and relationships as in the instant application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD G ERDMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0177. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7am - 3pm or 4pm EST..
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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/CHAD G ERDMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116