DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1 – 11 are pending.
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.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is directed to a method which falls within the statutory category of a process. The claim(s) recite(s) the limitation of “comparing the photoluminescence signal measured at step b) to a reference signal”. The limitation of comparing…the signal falls within the enumerated grouping of mathematical concept of calculation, which can be illustrated from the relevant portion of the spec regarding Fig. 4. Also, it should be noted that the calculation can be performed by the user during the procedure, thus this step can be accomplished visually/mentally on the fly. The formula does not have to be in the claim to have the limitation directed to an abstract concept.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim recites providing a wear detection signal to a user if a value is exceeded. Note that mere data gathering and output are recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more because the additional elements considered individually and in combination do not qualify significant more because they are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
As such, claim 1 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Dependent Claims(s) 2 – 11, when analyzed as a whole are held to be ineligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the additional recited limitations(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim is not directed to an abstract idea because the additional limitations(s) are no more than a field of use or merely involve insignificant extra-solution activity as data gathering and calculation.
Particularly:
Regarding Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, the limitation is considered more than an abstract limitation, but not a practical application because it is considered pre-solution activity necessary for the data gathering.
The claims have been considered ineligible under 35 USC 101 by reviewing both the limitations themselves and as ordered combinations of elements which do not amount to a practical application of the abstract limitations.
Regarding Claim 8, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is directed to a system which falls within the statutory category of an apparatus. The claim(s) recite(s) the limitation of “compare the photoluminescence signal measured at step b) to a reference signal”. The limitation of compare…the signal falls within the enumerated grouping of mathematical concept of calculation, which can be illustrated from the relevant portion of the spec regarding Fig. 4. Also, it should be noted that the calculation can be performed by the user during the procedure, thus this step can be accomplished visually/mentally on the fly. The formula does not have to be in the claim to have the limitation directed to an abstract concept.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim recites providing a wear detection signal to a user if a value is exceeded. Note that mere data gathering and output are recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more because the additional elements considered individually and in combination do not qualify significant more because they are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
As such, claim 8 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Dependent Claims(s) 9 – 11, when analyzed as a whole are held to be ineligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the additional recited limitations(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim is not directed to an abstract idea because the additional limitations(s) are no more than a field of use or merely involve insignificant extra-solution activity as data gathering and calculation.
Particularly:
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, the limitation is considered more than an abstract limitation, but not a practical application because it is considered pre-solution activity necessary for the data gathering.
Regarding Claim 11, the computer is recited at a high level of generality. The computer is used to perform an abstract idea, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claims have been considered ineligible under 35 USC 101 by reviewing both the limitations themselves and as ordered combinations of elements which do not amount to a practical application of the abstract limitations.
Comments
The prior art of record found as a result of the search, does not teach alone or in combination all of the elements recited in claims 1 and 8. Therefore, no prior art rejection for claims 1 and 8 is presented in this action. However, Claims 1 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Seigneur et al. (US 2024/0235475 A1) suggests a method for determining damage to a photovoltaic cell, sub-string, module, string, or subarray in a photovoltaic array using electroluminescence, the method comprising: using a device connected to a current generating photovoltaic cell, substring, module, string, subarray, or array, the device electrically, magnetically, or otherwise connected to the current generating photovoltaic cell, substring, module, string, subarray, or array to increase the voltage of the current generating photovoltaic cell, substring, module (see claim 1).
Sun et al. (US 2019/0199284 A1) discloses a method for testing mechanical tolerance of a photovoltaic module, comprising sequential steps of: step S1, according to a predetermined appearance inspection standard, performing an appearance defect inspection on the photovoltaic module; step S2, testing a light attenuation rate of the photovoltaic module (see claim 1).
Gostein et al. (US 9,564,853 B2) teaches a system for measuring electrical output loss in a photovoltaic array due to soiling, comprising: a pair of photovoltaic reference devices placed substantially proximate to the photovoltaic array and substantially co-planar to modules forming the array, said pair of photovoltaic reference devices comprising: a first reference device, designated as a soiled reference device, comprising a photovoltaic module representative of a portion of the photovoltaic array, wherein the soiled reference device is allowed to accumulate soiling at a rate representative of the rate of soiling of the photovoltaic array; a second reference device, designated as a clean reference device (see claim 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIOVANNI ASTACIO-OQUENDO whose telephone number is (571)270-5724. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, HUY PHAN can be reached on 571-272-7924. 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.
/GIOVANNI ASTACIO-OQUENDO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858 8/9/2025