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 .
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.
Claim 15 is 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 15 recites "the unmanned aerial vehicle" in lines 5, 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claim 16 is also rejected for the same reason due to its dependency on claim 15.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 13 recites limitations which are a substantial duplicate of those in claim 1. Therefore, this claim fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 14-20 are also rejected for the same reason due to their dependency on claim 13
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 5-14, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 13 similarly recite a power station operation and maintenance system, wherein the power station operation and maintenance system is applicable to a photovoltaic power station, the photovoltaic power station comprises a photovoltaic string, and the power station operation and maintenance system comprises: a data processing system, and a communication system; the data processing system is configured to: determine a faulty module and a normal module based on module data of each photovoltaic module in the photovoltaic string, and obtain first power generation data of the faulty module and second power generation data of the normal module; the data processing system is further configured to: determine an annual lost energy yield of the faulty module based on the first power generation data, the second power generation data, and a preset energy yield of the photovoltaic power station, and obtain a target operation and maintenance measure from a plurality of operation and maintenance measures based on the annual lost energy yield; and the communication system is configured to notify, based on the target operation and maintenance measure, an operation and maintenance user of the photovoltaic power station to perform operation and maintenance on the faulty module, to increase an energy yield.
The limitations of determine a faulty module and a normal module based on module data of each photovoltaic module in the photovoltaic string; the data processing system is further configured to: determine an annual lost energy yield of the faulty module based on the first power generation data, the second power generation data, and a preset energy yield of the photovoltaic power station, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes but from the recitation of implementing them on generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the limitations pertaining to the “determine” steps, in the context of this claim, encompass the user judging faulty and normal modules and judging an annual energy lost yield. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of – a power station operation and maintenance system, wherein the power station operation and maintenance system is applicable to a photovoltaic power station, the photovoltaic power station comprises a photovoltaic string, and the power station operation and maintenance system comprises: a data processing system, and a communication system; the data processing system is configured to: and obtain first power generation data of the faulty module and second power generation data of the normal module; the data processing system is further configured to: and obtain a target operation and maintenance measure from a plurality of operation and maintenance measures based on the annual lost energy yield; and the communication system is configured to notify, based on the target operation and maintenance measure, an operation and maintenance user of the photovoltaic power station to perform operation and maintenance on the faulty module, to increase an energy yield. The power stations, photovoltaic power station, photovoltaic string, data processing system, communication system, photovoltaic module, photovoltaic string, faulty module and normal module are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer/solar devices performing generic computer functions) and do not meaningfully limit the claim. The additional elements pertaining to “obtain”, “obtain”, and “notify” represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception and the obtaining limitations are mere data gathering steps. Accordingly, these additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2).
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 elements pertaining to “obtain”, “obtain”, and “notify” represent insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activities in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information) and/or storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and/or presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Therefore, these limitations, both individually and in combination, fail to amount to an inventive concept because they merely append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, and thus, do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (Step 2B). Accordingly, claims 1 ,13 are not patent eligible.
Claims 2, 5-12, 14, 17-20 depend on claims 1, 13 and include all the limitations of these claims. Therefore, these claims are directed to the same abstract idea and the analysis must proceed to (Step 2A, Prong 2).
Claims 2, 14 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to obtain, determine, obtain, and obtain. The additional element pertaining to “determine” represents further mental process step of judging a target location. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional limitations pertaining to “obtain” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and merely represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception and are mere data gathering steps. The claim also recites generic computing/solar components performing generic computing functions. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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 elements represent further mental process steps and/or well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Therefore, these additional elements do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 5, 17 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to collect, collect, determine, determine, determine, and determine. The additional elements pertaining to “determine” represent further mental process step of judging a first and second peak power. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional limitations pertaining to “collect” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and merely represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception and are mere data gathering steps. The claim also recites generic computing/solar components performing generic computing functions. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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 elements represent further mental process steps and/or well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Therefore, these additional elements do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 6, 18 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to collect, collect, collect, determine, and determine. The additional elements pertaining to “determine” represent further mental process step of judging a peak power and energy yield. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional limitations pertaining to “collect” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and merely represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception and are mere data gathering steps. The claim also recites generic computing/solar components performing generic computing functions. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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 elements represent further mental process steps and/or well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Therefore, these additional elements do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 7, 19 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to collect, collect, collect, determine, and determine. The additional elements pertaining to “determine” or “is determined” represent further mental process step of judging an operation and a smallest operation and maintenance evaluation value, and judging of various parameters by an annual energy yield. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional limitations pertaining to “obtain” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and merely represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception and are mere data gathering steps. The claim also recites generic computing/solar components performing generic computing functions. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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 elements represent further mental process steps and/or well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Therefore, these additional elements do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 8-12, 20 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to notifying the operation and maintenance user. These additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and merely represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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 elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Therefore, these additional elements do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3-4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chang (US 2023/0179144) discloses recognizing operating state of photovoltaic string;
Michini (US 2018/0003656) discloses inspecting solar panels using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs);
White (US 2020/0279367) discloses drone inspection analytics for asset defect detection;
Weng (US 2020/0201333) discloses locating faulty photovoltaic panel, and unmanned aerial vehicle;
McBrearty (US 2018/0196092) discloses estimate energy losses due to partial equipment failure;
Uetaki (US 2017/0184524) discloses solar power panel failure search and detect system to search and detect malfunctioning or failed sites of a solar power panel;
Abusorrah (US 10,826,428) discloses monitoring and fault detection method and system for photovoltaic plants;
Anderegg (US 11,146,212) discloses solar panel performance modeling and monitoring;
Jeong (US 2022/0077820) discloses soar photovoltaic power station monitoring.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM P BARTLETT whose telephone number is (469)295-9085. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 11:30-8:30, F 11-3.
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, Sherief Badawi can be reached on 571-272-9782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM P BARTLETT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights