Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed 2/23/2025 has been considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings filed 8/30/2023 are approved by the examiner. 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 1-4, 7 -11, 14 and 17 , 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a mental process without significantly more. Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13, 14 and 17-20 recite: Claim 1: A method of determining solar access at a location within a digital model that includes one or more obstructions [ a model of a location is a me n tal process that can be done by a human making a 3D drawing ] , the method comprising: simulating one or more additional locations within the digital model representing a location of the sun [ the position of the sun can be simulated in a 3D drawing made by a human ] ; tracing one or more rays from the location to the one or more additional locations; determining whether at least one ray of the one or more rays intersects an obstruction of the one or more obstructions [ ray tracing can be done by a human on a 3D drawing ] ; and determining the solar access associated with the location based on whether the at least one ray intersects an obstruction of the one or more obstructions [ this can be done as a result of ray tracing by a human on a 3D drawing ] . Claim 2: The method of claim 1, wherein the digital model comprises a digital model of a three-dimensional environment [ this can be done by a human making a 3D drawing of a region ] . Claim 3: The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one ray comprises an elevation angle and an azimuth angle describing a vector from the location to the one or more additional locations [ the elevation and azimuth angle of the sun can be done by a human on a 3D drawing ] . Claim 4: The method of claim 1, further comprising calculating an amount of energy from the sun that will impinge on the location [ a flux calculation can be done by a human ] . Claim 7: The method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the at least one ray intersects the obstruction comprises determining whether at least one modeled ray intersects a modeled obstruction [ can be done by a human doing ray tracing on a 3D drawing ] . Claim 8: A method of determining solar access at a first three-dimensional coordinate on a modeled surface within a digital model of a three-dimensional (3D) region that includes one or more obstructions [ a model of a location is a me n tal process that can be done by a human making a 3D drawing ] , the method comprising: tracing one or more rays from the first 3D coordinate to one or more additional 3D coordinates within the digital model representing one or more simulated locations of the sun within the digital model [ the position of the sun can be simulated in a 3D drawing made by a human ] ; determining whether any of the rays of the one or more rays intersect an obstruction [ can be done by a human doing ray tracing on a 3D drawing ] ; and determining the solar access associated with the first 3D coordinate based on the determination of whether any of the rays of the one or more rays intersect the obstruction [ this can be done as a result of ray tracing by a human on a 3D drawing ] . Claim 9: The method of claim 8, wherein each ray of the one or more rays comprises an elevation angle and an azimuth angle describing a vector from the first 3D coordinate to a 3D coordinate of the one or more additional 3D coordinates [ the elevation and azimuth angle of the sun can be done by a human on a 3D drawing ] . Claim 10: The method of claim 8, further comprising calculating an amount of energy that will impinge on the first 3D coordinate based on the determined solar access associated with the first 3D coordinate [ a flux calculation can be done by a human ] . Claim 11: The method of claim 8, further comprising recording orientations of azimuth and elevation at which a ray of the one or more rays does not intersect at least one obstructio n [ this can be done as a result of ray tracing by a human on a 3D drawing ] . Claim 14: A method of determining solar access at coordinates within a digital model [ a model of a location is a me n tal process that can be done by a human making a 3D drawing ] , the method comprising: tracing a first ray from the coordinates to the sun at a first sun location [ can be done by a human doing ray tracing on a 3D drawing ] ; determining whether the first ray intersects a first obstruction [ can be done by a human doing ray tracing on a 3D drawing with objects ] ; tracing at least a second ray from the coordinates to the sun at at least one additional sun location [ can be done by a human doing ray tracing on a 3D drawing ] ; determining whether the at least a second ray intersects the first obstruction or a second obstruction [ can be done by a human doing ray tracing on a 3D drawing ] ; and calculating solar access at the coordinates based on whether the first ray intersects the obstruction and whether the at least a second ray intersects the first obstruction or the second obstruction [ this can be done as a result of ray tracing by a human on a 3D drawing ] . Claim 17: The method of claim 14, further comprising recording whether the first ray intersects the first obstruction and whether the at least a second ray intersects the first obstruction or the second obstruction [ can be done by a human doing ray tracing on a 3D drawing ] . Claim 19: The method of claim 14, wherein determining whether the first ray intersects the first obstruction comprises determining whether a modeled ray intersects a modeled obstruction [ can be done by a human doing ray tracing on a 3D drawing ] . Claim 20: The method of claim 14, further comprising: calculating an amount of energy from the sun at the first sun location that will impinge on the coordinates [ a flux calculation can be done by a human ] ; and calculating an amount of energy from the sun at at least one additional sun location that will impinge on the coordinates [ a flux calculation can be done by a human ] ; wherein calculating the solar access at the coordinates comprises calculating the solar access based on the amount of energy from the sun at the first sun location that will impinge on the coordinates and the amount of energy from the sun at at least one additional sun location that will impinge on the coordinates [ a flux calculation can be done by a human ] . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the subject matter of claims 14, 7-11, 14, 17, 19 and 20 uses a generic digital processor to do a 3D design and flux calculations that a human can do with a drawing and mathematical calculations . The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no further limitations are recited beyond creating a digital model . Effective Filing Date The claimed subject matter of the present application, which is a continuation of 14/197,210, is supp orted by figures 9-13. Application No. 14/197,210 has a provisional filing date of 3/4/2013. Therefore, the effective filing date for the subject matter of claims 1-20 is 3/4/2013. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 (b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States. Claim s 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 14, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 (b) as being anticipated by Augenbraun et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0035887) . With respect to claim 1, Augenbraun et al disclose: A method of determining solar access at a location within a digital model that includes one or more obstructions [ the abstract states, “… Systems and methods for shading analysis and creating a 3D model of a surface of interest are provided . Such systems and methods may include taking ray traces to determine light contact with the surface of interest. Shadow maps may be generated . Power flux calculations may also be performed…” ] , the method comprising: simulating one or more additional locations within the digital model representing a location of the sun [ taught by generating the solar path, as shown by figure 5 ] ; tracing one or more rays from the location to the one or more additional locations [ paragraph [0019] states, “… A ray trace from the sun to various points on the surface of interest may be performed based on the sun's position for various times of day or days of the year. This ray trace determines if sunlight would hit a particular point on the surface of interest or if the sunlight is blocked . This process may be repeated multiple times and for multiple points on the surface of interest…” ] ; determining whether at least one ray of the one or more rays intersects an obstruction of the one or more obstructions [ paragraph [0019] states , “… This ray trace determines if sunlight would hit a particular point on the surface of interest or if the sunlight is blocked …” ] ; and determining the solar access associated with the location based on whether the at least one ray intersects an obstruction of the one or more obstructions [ paragraph [0020} states, “… Statistical analysis can be performed over some or all of the surface of interest to provide information for percentage shading. Integration of the ray trace data over the entire time period may further yield the power flux from light striking the rooftop. The power flux may also be calculated from the output of individual ray trace calculations…” ] . Paragraph [0019] states, “…It is envisioned that users may be able to take a ray trace sample at every point in the 3D model and at multiple times per hour for every day of a year. The greater the number of samples, the more accurate the result will be…” ; thus, anticipating claim 2. Paragraph [0011] states, “…When the light source is the sun, the power flux may also be referred to as insolation. In either case, the power flux may be expressed in terms of average irradiance, either as power per unit area (e.g., Watts per square meter) or energy per unit area per unit time (e.g., kWh per square meter per day). For the purpose of this description, insolation and power flux may be used interchangeably…” ; thus, anticipating claim 4. The abstract states, “… . Such systems and methods may include taking ray traces to determine light contact with the surface of interest. Shadow maps may be generated …”; thus, anticipating claim 7 because a shadow results from the intersection of a ray with an obstruction. With respect to claim 8, Augenbraun et al disclose: A method of determining solar access at a first three-dimensional coordinate on a modeled surface within a digital model of a three-dimensional (3D) region that includes one or more obstructions [ the abstract states, “… Systems and methods for shading analysis and creating a 3D model of a surface of interest are provided. Such systems and methods may include taking ray traces to determine light contact with the surface of interest. Shadow maps may be generated. Power flux calculations may also be performed…” ] , the method comprising: tracing one or more rays from the first 3D coordinate to one or more additional 3D coordinates within the digital model representing one or more simulated locations of the sun within the digital model [ paragraph [0019] states, “… A ray trace from the sun to various points on the surface of interest may be performed based on the sun's position for various times of day or days of the year. This ray trace determines if sunlight would hit a particular point on the surface of interest or if the sunlight is blocked . This process may be repeated multiple times and for multiple points on the surface of interest…” ] ; determining whether any of the rays of the one or more rays intersect an obstruction [ paragraph [0019] states, “… This ray trace determines if sunlight would hit a particular point on the surface of interest or if the sunlight is blocked …” ] ; and determining the solar access associated with the first 3D coordinate based on the determination of whether any of the rays of the one or more rays intersect the obstruction [ paragraph [0020} states, “… Statistical analysis can be performed over some or all of the surface of interest to provide information for percentage shading. Integration of the ray trace data over the entire time period may further yield the power flux from light striking the rooftop. The power flux may also be calculated from the output of individual ray trace calculations…” ] . Paragraph [0011] states, “…When the light source is the sun, the power flux may also be referred to as insolation. In either case, the power flux may be expressed in terms of average irradiance, either as power per unit area (e.g., Watts per square meter) or energy per unit area per unit time (e.g., kWh per square meter per day). For the purpose of this description, insolation and power flux may be used interchangeably…” ; thus, anticipating claim 10. With respect to claim 14, Augenbraun et al disclose: A method of determining solar access at coordinates within a digital model [ the abstract states, “… Systems and methods for shading analysis and creating a 3D model of a surface of interest are provided. Such systems and methods may include taking ray traces to determine light contact with the surface of interest . Shadow maps may be generated. Power flux calculations may also be performed…” ] , the method comprising: tracing a first ray from the coordinates to the sun at a first sun location; determining whether the first ray intersects a first obstruction; tracing at least a second ray from the coordinates to the sun at at least one additional sun location; determining whether the at least a second ray intersects the first obstruction or a second obstruction [ paragraph [0019] states, “… A ray trace from the sun to various points on the surface of interest may be performed based on the sun's position for various times of day or days of the year. This ray trace determines if sunlight would hit a particular point on the surface of interest or if the sunlight is blocked . This process may be repeated multiple times and for multiple points on the surface of interest…” ; thus meeting the two limitations recited above because the surfaces if interest as shown by figure 5 includes multiple shading objects ] ; and calculating solar access at the coordinates based on whether the first ray intersects the obstruction and whether the at least a second ray intersects the first obstruction or the second obstruction [ paragraph [0020} states, “… Statistical analysis can be performed over some or all of the surface of interest to provide information for percentage shading. Integration of the ray trace data over the entire time period may further yield the power flux from light striking the rooftop. The power flux may also be calculated from the output of individual ray trace calculations…” ] . Paragraph [0019] states, “… This ray trace determines if sunlight would hit a particular point on the surface of interest or if the sunlight is blocked …” ; thus, anticipating claim 17. The abstract states. “… Systems and methods for shading analysis and creating a 3D model of a surface of interest are provided. Such systems and methods may include taking ray traces to determine light contact with the surface of interest …” ; thus, anticipating claim 19. [ paragraph [0019] states, “… A ray trace from the sun to various points on the surface of interest may be performed based on the sun's position for various times of day or days of the year. This ray trace determines if sunlight would hit a particular point on the surface of interest or if the sunlight is blocked. This process may be repeated multiple times and for multiple points on the surface of interest…” . This teaching anticipates claim 20 because the limitations recited read on repeating the process multiple times for multiple points on a surface of interest as, for example, shown by figure 5. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: (a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Clai ms 3, 9, 11 and 18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over by Augenbraun et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0035887) . With regard to claims 3 and 9, figure 2 and figure 5 of Augenbraun et al teach that the elevation angle and azimuthal angle of the sun are taken into account in order to perform a ray tracing. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in using an elevation and angle vector in the process disclosed by Augenbraun et al because ray tracing was a known form of vector processing, thus being required to implement the method. With regard to claims 11 and 18, paragraph [0019] of Augenbraun et al states, “… This ray trace determines if sunlight would hit a particular point on the surface of interest or if the sunlight is blocked …” – recording azimuth and elevation of rays not intersecting an obstruction reads on not hitting a particular point in the 3D model as the sun traverses the path in figure 5. Claim s 5, 12 and 15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over by Augenbraun et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0035887) in view of Courter (United States Patent No. 7,516,557). Claims 5, 12 and 15 further recites using a skyline detection device as a solar mapper to model the first ray. Figure 5 of Augenbraun et al required knowledge of the position of the sun as it traversed over the 3D model of a surface. Courter teaches that skyline detection device for solar mapping were known before the filing date of the present application. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in using a skyline detector as a solar mapper as part of the method disclosed by Augenbraun et al because the device disclosed by Courter provided the sun data required for the simulation. Clai ms 6, 13 and 16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over by Augenbraun et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0035887) in view of MacDonald (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0134268). Claims 6, 13 and 16 further recites using a laser rangefinder to generate an open sky matrix. Paragraph [0032] of MacDonald teaches that it was known before the filing date to have used a laser rangefinder to generate an open sky matrix pertaining to where the sun will appear over a terrain. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in using the method of providing open sky matrix data, as disclosed by MacDonald, in the simulation of Augenbraun et al because accurate sun position over a simulated terrain would have improved measurements. With regard to a virtual laser rangefinder (claim 16), 3D computer model simulation of a device that beams a ray with a defined vector would have been inferred from the concept of ray tracing needed to create the model disclosed by Augenbraun et al. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of USPN 11,748,946 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because : With respect to claim 1, the claims of USPN 11,748,946 teach or suggest: A method of determining solar access at a location within a digital model that includes one or more obstructions [ taught by lines 1-3 and line 7 of claim 1 of USPN 11,748,946 ] , the method comprising: simulating one or more additional locations within the digital model representing a location of then sun [ taught by 3D model utilizing a SAMD, as set forth by claim 1 of USPN 11,748,946 ] ; tracing one or more rays from the location to the one or more additional locations [ taught by lines 5-6 of claim 1 of USPN 11,748,946 ] ; determining whether at least one ray of the one or more rays intersects an obstruction of the one or more obstructions [ taught by line 7 of claim 1 of USPN 11,748,946 ] ; and determining the solar access associated with the location based on whether the at least one ray intersects an obstruction of the one or more obstructions [ taught by lines 8-10 of claim 1 of USPN 11,748,946 ] . Claim s 2 and 7 are taught by the 3D CAD model set forth by claim 1 of USPN 11,748,946. Claim 3 is taught by claim 4 of USPN 11,748,946. Claim 4 is taught by claim 5 of USPN 11,748,946. Claim 5 is taught by claim 2 of USPN 11,748,946. Claim 6 is taught by claim 3 of USPN 11,748,946. Claim 7 is suggested by claim 4 of USPN 11,748,946. With respect to claim 8, the claims of USPN 11,748,946 teach or suggest: A method of determining solar access at a first three-dimensional coordinate on a modeled surface within a digital model of a three-dimensional (3D) region that includes one or more obstructions [ taught by lines 1-3 and line 7 of claim 8 of USPN 11,748,946 ] , the method comprising: tracing one or more rays from the first 3D coordinate to one or more additional 3D coordinates within the digital model representing one or more simulated locations of the sun within the digital model [ taught by lines 4-8 of claim 8 of USPN 11,748,946 ] ; determining whether any of the rays of the one or more rays intersect an obstruction [ taught by line 7 of claim 8 of USPN 11,748,946 ] ; and determining the solar access associated with the first 3D coordinate based on the determination of whether any of the rays of the one or more rays intersect the obstruction [ taught by lines 13-16 of claim 8 of USPN 11,748,946 ] . Claim 9 is taught by claim 12 of USPN 11,748,946. Claim 10 is taught by lines 2-4 of claim 14 of USPN 11,748,946. Claim 11 is taught by claim 12 of USPN 11,748,946. Claim 12 is suggested by the use of the SAMD in claim 8 of USPN 11,748,946. Claim 13 is taught by claim 3 of USPN 11,748,946. Claim 14 is taught by claim 8 of USPN 11,748,946, as applied to claim 8 of the present application. Claim 15 is taught by claim 2 of USPN 11,748,946. Claim 16 is taught by claim 10 of USPN 11,748,946. Claim 17 is taught by lines 8-12 of claim 8 of USPN 11,748,946. Claim 18 is taught by claim 4 of USPN 11,748,946. Claim 19 is taught by claim 13 of USPN 11,748,946. Claim 20 is taught by claim 14 of USPN 11,748,946. Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to MARK HELLNER at telephone number (571)272-6981 . Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. /MARK HELLNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645