DETAILED ACTION
This is the final office action for 18/246,846, filed 1/30/2024, which claims priority to provisional application 63,442,380, filed 1/31/2023.
Claims 6-25 are pending. Claims 6-8 and 21-25 are considered herein.
In light of the terminal disclaimer filed 2/21/2026, the double patenting rejections of record are withdrawn.
In light of the claim amendments filed 2/21/2026, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn, and new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 102, and 103 are presented herein.
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 .
Additional Prior Art
The Examiner wishes to apprise the Applicant of the following references, which are not currently applied in a rejection.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0051086 A1: This reference teaches a solar tracking system with a system controller (Figs. 3 and 6).
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0006435 A1: This reference teaches a solar tracking system with an NCU (Fig. 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-25 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
New Claim 21 recites “one or more electrical parameters.” While the instant specification provides support for the data associated with the “health tiers” being voltage or current data, the instant specification does not provide support for the full scope of “electrical parameters,” which includes parameters not limited to voltage or current (e.g. resistivity, conductivity, presence/absence of electrical shorts, etc.)
Claims 22-25 and 6-8 depend from Claim 21, and therefore incorporate the new matter of Claim 21.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites “determining the health status tier.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, because there is no recitation of “a health status tier,” merely “a first health status tier” in Claim 21.
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 6-8 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 21 recites “receiving, by a system controller, a remote host, one or more network control units (NCUs), or one or more self-powered controllers (SPCs), data associated with a plurality of solar trackers of a solar array, the data including one or more electrical parameters; determining, by the system controller, the remote host, the one or more NCUs, or the one or more SPCs, a first health status tier applies to a first subset of solar trackers of the plurality of solar trackers based on the received data; assigning, by the system controller, the remote host, the one or more NCUs, or the one or more SPCs, the first health status tier to the first subset of solar trackers; and transmitting, via the system controller, the remote host, the one or more NCUs, or the one or more SPCs, an instruction to the first subset of solar trackers to cause the first subset of solar trackers to transition to a first predetermined position.”
The limitations of receiving electrical parameter data associated with a plurality of solar trackers of a solar array, determining a first health status tier applies to a first subset of solar trackers, based on the received data, assigning the first health status tier to the first subset of solar trackers, and transmitting an instruction to the first subset of solar trackers to cause them to move, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic system components.
That is, other than reciting “transmitting an instruction,” and generic system components (i.e. a system controller, a remote host, one or more network control units (NCUs), one or more self-powered controllers (SPCs), and generic solar trackers), nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “transmitting” language, “receiving,” “determining,” and “assigning” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally assessing and categorizing the health of the respective trackers. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites generic additional elements – instructing solar trackers to move, based on an assessment that they are in a “first health tier,” and generic system components (i.e. a system controller, a remote host, one or more network control units (NCUs), one or more self-powered controllers (SPCs), and generic solar trackers).
The instruction, system controller, remote host, network control units (NCUs), self-powered controllers (SPCs), and generic solar trackers are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., without specific method steps or structural details) such that the instruction step amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic solar trackers and generic system components. 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 using a tracker to receive instructions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic solar tracker and generic system components (i.e. a system controller, a remote host, one or more network control units (NCUs), one or more self-powered controllers (SPCs), and generic solar trackers). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic solar tracker and generic system components (i.e. a system controller, a remote host, one or more network control units (NCUs), one or more self-powered controllers (SPCs), and generic solar trackers) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 22 recites ”determining a second health status tier applies to a second subset of solar trackers within the plurality of solar trackers based on the received data; assigning the second health status tier to the second subset of solar trackers; and transmitting an instruction to the second subset of solar trackers to cause the second subset of solar tracker to transition to a second predetermined position.”
The limitations of determining a second health status tier applies to a second subset of solar trackers within the plurality of solar trackers based on the received data; assigning the second health status tier to the second subset of solar trackers; and transmitting an instruction to the second subset of solar trackers to cause the second subset of solar tracker to transition to a second predetermined position, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic system components.
That is, other than reciting “transmitting an instruction,” and generic system components (i.e. a system controller, a remote host, one or more network control units (NCUs), one or more self-powered controllers (SPCs), and generic solar trackers), nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “transmitting” language, “determining,” and “assigning” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally assessing and categorizing the health of the respective trackers. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites generic additional elements – instructing solar trackers to move, based on an assessment that they are in a “second health tier,” and generic system components (i.e. a system controller, a remote host, one or more network control units (NCUs), one or more self-powered controllers (SPCs), and generic solar trackers).
The instruction, system controller, remote host, network control units (NCUs), self-powered controllers (SPCs), and generic solar trackers are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., without specific method steps or structural details) such that the instruction step amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic solar trackers and generic system components. 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 using a tracker to receive instructions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic solar tracker and generic system components (i.e. a system controller, a remote host, one or more network control units (NCUs), one or more self-powered controllers (SPCs), and generic solar trackers). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic solar tracker and generic system components (i.e. a system controller, a remote host, one or more network control units (NCUs), one or more self-powered controllers (SPCs), and generic solar trackers) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 23 recites that the second predetermined position is different than the first predetermined position.
Claim 23 does not recite any additional elements that cause Claim 23 to be more than the non-patent-eligible matter of Claim 22. The same reasoning recited in the rejection of Claim 22 applies to Claim 23.
Claim 24 recites that assigning the first health status tier to the first subset of solar trackers comprises assigning the first health status tier to one or more controllers associated with the first subset of solar trackers.
The limitation of assigning the first health status tier to one or more controllers associated with the first subset of solar trackers is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic components. That is, other than reciting “assigning health.. to controllers,” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “controller” language, “assigning” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally assigning an assessed health tier to a solar tracker. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – a controller that receives assigned information. The assignment and controller are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., without specific method steps or structural details) such that the instruction step amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic controllers. 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.
The claim does 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 using a controller to receive health tier data amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic controller. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic controller cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 25 recites that the one or more NCUs are coupled to the one or more controllers, and the one or more NCUs transmit the instruction to the one or more controllers to transition the first subset of solar trackers to the first predetermined position.
The limitation of assigning the first health status tier to one or more controllers associated with the first subset of solar trackers is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic components. That is, other than reciting “NCUs” and “controllers,” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “NCU” and “controller” language, “transmit” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally assigning an assessed health tier to a solar tracker. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites two additional elements – NCUs and controllers that receive information. The instruction, controllers, and NCUs are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., without specific method steps or structural details) such that the instruction step amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic NCUs and controllers. Accordingly, these additional elements 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 an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 using NCUs to instruct controllers amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic NCUs and controllers. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic controller cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 recites that each respective solar tracker of the plurality of solar trackers is coupled to an energy storage, and the one or more electrical parameters include a voltage of each energy storage.
The limitation of receiving a voltage of energy storages connected to solar trackers is a processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic energy storage and tracker components. That is, other than reciting “energy storage,” and “tracker,” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “energy storage” and “tracker” language, “receiving electrical parameter data” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally receiving data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites two additional elements –energy storages and solar trackers. The energy storages and trackers are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., without specific method steps or structural details) such that the “receiving electrical parameter/voltage data” step amounts no more than mere application of the exception using generic energy storages and trackers. 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 receiving voltage data from an energy storage amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic storages and trackers. Mere application of an exception using generic energy storages and trackers cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 recites that each respective solar tracker of the plurality of solar trackers is coupled to a drive assembly, and the one or more electrical parameters include a current of each drive assembly.
The limitation of receiving a current of a drive assembly operably coupled to a solar tracker is a processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of drive assembly and tracker components. That is, other than reciting “drive assembly” and “tracker,” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “drive assembly” and “tracker” language, “receiving an electrical parameter/current” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally receiving data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites two additional elements – a drive assembly and a solar tracker. The drive assembly and tracker are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., without specific method steps or structural details) such that the “receiving electrical parameter/current” step amounts no more than mere application of the exception using a drive assembly and tracker. 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 receiving current data from a drive assembly amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic storage medium and tracker. Mere application of an exception using a generic storage medium and drive assembly cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 recites determining the first heath status tier applies to the first subset of solar trackers when the current of its respective drive assembly is less than a first predetermined threshold, determining a second heath status tier applies to a second subset of solar trackers when the current of its respective drive assembly is greater than the first predetermined threshold and less than a second predetermined threshold, and determining a third heath status tier applies to a third subset of solar trackers when the current of its respective drive assembly is greater than the second predetermined threshold.
The limitations of assigning health status tiers to the solar trackers, based on received current data and predetermined current thresholds are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic drive assembly components. That is, other than reciting “current” and “drive assembly,” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally assessing and categorizing the current data of the respective trackers. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – receiving electrical current data from drive assemblies of solar trackers. The drive assembly solar trackers are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., without specific method steps or structural details) such that the receiving step amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic solar trackers and drive assemblies. 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.
The claim does 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 receiving current data from drive assemblies of solar trackers amounts to no more than mere application of the exception using generic solar trackers and drive assemblies. Mere application of y an exception using generic drive assemblies and solar trackers cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ma, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0341951 A1).
In reference to Claim 21, Ma teaches a method in which a solar trackers in an array are separately adjusted, based on data from a performance module (Figs. 1-2, paragraphs [0020]-[0032]).
In the method of Ma, self-powered controllers (SPCs) associated with each module are controlled by a network control unit (NCU), and incorporate data from a performance model that includes weather data and topography (Fig. 2, paragraphs [0029]-[0030]).
Ma additionally teaches that the performance model uses voltage measurements from the self-powered controllers (paragraphs [0054]-[0055]).
Therefore, Ma teaches the limitations of Claim 21, of a method for assessing health of solar trackers in a solar tracker array comprising receiving, by one or more network control units (NCUs), data associated with a plurality of solar trackers of a solar array, the data including one or more electrical parameters.
This disclosure further teaches the limitations of Claim 21, wherein the method comprises determining, by the one or more NCUs, a first health status tier applies to a first subset of solar trackers of the plurality of solar trackers based on the received data (i.e. that the orientation of a row of solar trackers is not ideal and should be adjusted, paragraphs [0029]-[0030]).
This disclosure further teaches the limitations of Claim 21, wherein the method comprises assigning, by the one or more NCUs, the first health status tier to the first subset of solar trackers (i.e. a “tier” indicating that the trackers are not in the correct position, paragraphs [0029]-[0030]).
This disclosure further teaches the limitations of Claim 21, wherein the method comprises transmitting, via the one or more NCUs, an instruction to the first subset of solar trackers to cause the first subset of solar trackers to transition to a first predetermined position (paragraph [0030]).
In reference to Claim 22, Ma teaches that the position of each solar tracker is adjusted regularly (e.g. every hour), by comparison to the performance model and collected data from the trackers themselves (paragraphs [0029]-[0030]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 22, wherein the method comprises determining a second health status tier applies to a second subset of solar trackers within the plurality of solar trackers (i.e. one or more modules) based on the received data; assigning the second health status tier to the second subset of solar trackers; and transmitting an instruction to the second subset of solar trackers to cause the second subset of solar tracker to transition to a second predetermined position.
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 23, wherein the second predetermined position is different than the first predetermined position.
In reference to Claim 24, Ma teaches that assigning the first health status tier to the first subset of solar trackers comprises assigning the first health status tier to one or more controllers associated with the first subset of solar trackers (i.e. sending instructions from the NCU to the SPCs to control orientation of the solar trackers, paragraph [0023]).
In reference to Claim 25, Ma teaches that the one or more NCUs are coupled to the one or more controllers, and the one or more NCUs transmit the instruction to the one or more controllers to transition the first subset of solar trackers to the first predetermined position (paragraph [0023] and [0029]-[0030]).
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bailey, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0260619 A1).
In reference to Claim 21, Bailey teaches a method in which a solar trackers in an array are separately adjusted, based on a predetermined sun location schedule and information from a sun location sensor (Figs. 1-2, paragraphs [0034]-[0039]).
Bailey further teaches that the heliostat system of his invention comprises two-way communications between the controller 210 of each heliostat and the remote system controller 224, and that the remote system controller receives information about the status of the power supply (which is taught to be a battery, paragraph [0010]) of each heliostat, the positioning mechanism of each heliostat, and the controller 210 of each heliostat (paragraph [0038]).
Finally, Bailey teaches that the remote system controller transmits the sun location to the controller of each heliostat, causing the heliostats to move (paragraphs [0034]-[0039]).
Therefore, Bailey teaches the limitations of Claim 21, of a method for assessing health of solar trackers in a solar tracker array comprising receiving, by one or more system controllers, data associated with a plurality of solar trackers of a solar array, the data including one or more electrical parameters (e.g. the status of the power supply/battery).
This disclosure further teaches the limitations of Claim 21, wherein the method comprises determining, by the one or more system controller, a first health status tier applies to a first subset of solar trackers of the plurality of solar trackers based on the received data (i.e. the position of a heliostat and the status of its associated battery/power supply 214, paragraphs [0034]-[0039]).
This disclosure further teaches the limitations of Claim 21, wherein the method comprises assigning, by the one or more system controllers, the first health status tier to the first subset of solar trackers (i.e. a “tier” indicating that the heliostat needs to be moved, paragraphs [0034]-[0039]).
This disclosure further teaches the limitations of Claim 21, wherein the method comprises transmitting, via the one or more system controllers, an instruction to the first subset of solar trackers to cause the first subset of solar trackers to transition to a first predetermined position (i.e. to track the sun, paragraphs [0034]-[0039]).
In reference to Claim 22, Bailey teaches that the position of each heliostat is adjusted throughout the day, by repeating the tracking method (paragraphs [0034]-[0039]).
He further teaches that each tracker is separately positioned by communicating with the system controller, depending on its location (paragraphs [0034]-[0039]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 22, wherein the method comprises determining a second health status tier applies to a second subset of solar trackers within the plurality of solar trackers (i.e. one or more modules) based on the received data; assigning the second health status tier to the second subset of solar trackers; and transmitting an instruction to the second subset of solar trackers to cause the second subset of solar tracker to transition to a second predetermined position.
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 23, wherein the second predetermined position is different than the first predetermined position.
In reference to Claim 24, Bailey teaches that assigning the first health status tier to the first subset of solar trackers comprises assigning the first health status tier to one or more controllers associated with the first subset of solar trackers (i.e. sending instructions from the system controller to the individual heliostat controllers to control orientation of the heliostats, paragraphs [0034]-[0039]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0260619 A1).
In reference to Claim 6, Bailey teaches that each respective solar tracker of the plurality of solar trackers is coupled to an energy storage, i.e. a battery, paragraph [0010]).
Bailey teaches that the one or more electrical parameters includes a status of the battery/energy storage (paragraph [0038]).
He does not teach that the one or more electrical parameters includes a voltage of each energy storage. He is silent regarding the data communicated as the “status” of the battery/energy storage (paragraph [0038]).
However, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have included any battery data as the communicated “status” data, including the battery voltage, because there is a finite number of possibilities for data that indicates the status of the battery/energy storage.
In reference to Claim 7, Bailey teaches that each respective solar tracker of the plurality of solar trackers is coupled to a drive assembly, i.e. the positioner 208 (Fig. 2A, paragraph [0032]).
Bailey teaches that the one or more communicated parameters includes a status of the positioning mechanism (paragraph [0038]).
He does not teach that the one or more electrical parameters includes a current of each drive assembly. He is silent regarding the data communicated as the “status” of the drive assembly/positioning mechanism (paragraph [0038]).
However, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have included any positioning mechanism/drive assembly data as the communicated “status” data, including the current of the drive assembly/positioning mechanism, because there is a finite number of possibilities for data that indicates the status of the positioning mechanism/drive assembly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
The Applicant’s arguments regarding the double patenting rejections are persuasive. These rejections are withdrawn in light of the filed terminal disclaimer.
The Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of record under 35 U.S.C. 101 are not persuasive. The Examiner respectfully maintains the position that the amendments are insufficient to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101. The rejections have been modified herein.
The Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are persuasive. These rejections are withdrawn in light of the claim amendments.
The Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, these rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new prior art rejections, necessitated by the claim amendments, are presented herein.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 SADIE WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-3245. The examiner can normally be reached 6am-2:30pm ET.
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, Allison Bourke, can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights