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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/23/2026, with respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Beginning on page 8, Applicant remarks that the claims are not directed towards mental processes, specifically mentioning that the claims require a computer device to perform limitations that cannot be practically performed in the human mind. This is not persuasive because the computer is generally recited and merely used as a tool performing in its expected capacity (see 2106.05(f)(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.). The claim requires making determinations based on observations, using a computer to make those determinations, is not considered integration into a practical application. It is practically performable by the human mind to look at an image and determine solar panels, then use weather data to generate estimates of power generation by the panels.
Applicant then goes on to state that the claims provide improvements to technology or a technical field, specifically:
(i) “technology relating to electricity demand predictions and, more specifically, to forming solar power generation predictions” and “improves the operation of computers used to generate the electricity demand predictions, the computers process image data to more accurately identify the presence of solar panels in image data for a geographical area, as well as processing the image data to determine the positioning of individual solar panels, as the position of a solar panel relative to a light source affects the amount of solar power the individual solar panel generates”,
(ii) “the automatic generation of more accurate predictions of solar power generation for a geographic area where the distribution of solar power systems is unknown. As a result, the computing system employing the recited systems more accurately determine negative demand corresponding to the solar power generation estimate, thus resulting in a more accurate power demand prediction; the computer system can also make determinations for whether the existing infrastructure is capable of storing or distributing the amount of energy corresponding to the solar power generation estimate ”, and
(iii) “recommendations for infrastructure modifications for the geographic area, which provide tangible improvements to the electrical energy distribution infrastructure”.
These are not persuasive because:
(i) The claims, as written, does not reflect predicting an amount of electricity that needs to be distributed to that region. The claim only estimates an amount of solar power to be generated within a geographical region based on solar panel positions and meteorological conditions. Also the claim does not reflect an improvement in how a computer operates or processes, as neither the internal operation or processing as specifically done by the computer is disclosed.
(ii) The claim, as written does not reflect “an unknown distribution of solar power systems”. The first step of the claim requires determining positions for individual solar panels in an area. Additionally, “automatic” generation using a computer is not considered an improvement, as the computer is performing as a tool to automate a manual process of data analysis.
(iii) Recommendations for infrastructure modifications is not considered an improvement to energy prediction or distribution. Suggesting possible modifications is how infrastructure modifications begin. Working to improve a system is not considered an improvement on the steps to improve a system (e.g. determining that swapping to a larger battery would improve usage time, does not improve the steps and calculations for determining that a larger battery would improve usage time.).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3 and 5-22 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.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A method comprising:
identifying, by a computing device based on an image of a geographic region, a plurality of solar panels located within the geographic region;
processing, by the computing device, the image of geographic region to determine respective positions for individual solar panels included in the plurality of solar panels;
computing, by the computing device based on the respective positions and meteorological data for the geographical region, respective predicted solar power generation levels for the individual solar panels;
determining, by the computing device based on the respective predicted solar power generation levels for the individual solar panels, a solar power generation estimate for the geographical region; and
determining, by the computing device based on the solar power generation estimate for the geographical region and one or more properties of an electricity distribution infrastructure for the geographical region, one or more infrastructure modifications for the electricity distribution infrastructure.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, steps of “identifying, based on an image of a geographic region, a plurality of solar panels located within the geographic region (observation and analysis of an image);
processing, the image of geographic region to determine respective positions for individual solar panels included in the plurality of solar panels (further determination based on observation);
computing, based on the respective positions and meteorological data for the geographical region, respective predicted solar power generation levels for the individual solar panels (determination based on previous determination and data);
determining, based on the respective predicted solar power generation levels for the individual solar panels, a solar power generation estimate for the geographical region (determination based on data); and
determining based on the solar power generation estimate for the geographical region and one or more properties of an electricity distribution infrastructure for the geographical region, one or more infrastructure modifications for the electricity distribution infrastructure (determination based on previous determination)” are treated by the Examiner as belonging to mental process grouping.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 11 and 17.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
Claim 1: a computing device;
Claim 11: One or more non-transitory computer-readable media, one or more processors;
Claim 17: one or more processors, and one or more memories.
The additional elements of one or more non-transitory computer-readable media or a memories (generic memories) and computing device or a processor (generic processors) are generally recited and are not qualified as particular machines.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis).
The claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2, 3, 5-10, 12-16, and 18-22 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims.
The Examiner notes that there are still no prior art rejections for claims 1-3 and 5-21.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tobo et al. (JP 2012200097 A) discloses Power Generation Equipment Control Device, Power Generation Equipment Control Method, Power Generation Equipment Control Program, Power Calculation Device And Power Control Device. Tobo teaches identifying individual solar panels (Tobo [0033]-0039] The solar panel image extraction unit 211 is a processing unit that extracts images of solar panels from satellite images stored in the clear weather satellite image storage unit 110. There are various methods for extracting images from solar panels.), determining the total area of solar panels in the region (Tobo [0040] The solar panel area calculation unit 212 is a processing unit that estimates the total area of solar panels within a small region based on the images of solar panels extracted by the solar panel image extraction unit 211.), then using weather data such as irradiance to predict power generation (Tobo [0042] The solar irradiance calculation unit 220 is a processing unit that calculates the solar irradiance rate from the current satellite images currently stored in the satellite image storage unit 130. This solar irradiance calculation unit 220 includes an irradiation angle calculation unit 221, a cloud image extraction unit 222, a transmittance calculation unit 223, and an irradiance calculation unit 224, among others. And [0048] The solar panel power generation power calculation unit 240 is a processing unit that calculates the total area of the solar panels as calculated by the solar panel area calculation unit 210 and the actual power generation efficiency of the solar panels at the current point in time as calculated by the solar panel power generation efficiency calculation unit 230. Here, the calculated generated electricity is the total power generated by the solar panels in a small area managed by the power calculation unit 10.). Tobo, best understood by the Examiner does not seem to fairly teach or suggest determining, by the computing device based on the solar power generation estimate for the geographical region and one or more properties of an electricity distribution infrastructure for the geographical region, one or more infrastructure modifications for the electricity distribution infrastructure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN T BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)272-4194. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday and Alternate Fridays 7:00-4:30.
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, CATHERINE RASTOVSKI can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/CHRISTIAN T BRYANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights