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 .
This is in response to Applicant’s communication filed on 12/18/23, wherein:
Claims 1-20 are currently 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) 1, 9, 17 as written recite “predicting operating parameters of the off-grid solar power system comprising one or more of: a solar panel power, a solar intensity, a load profile, a battery voltage over time based on the received information; comparison between one or more predicted operating parameters and one or more actual operating parameters” are the process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is other than reciting “by processing device”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind (e.g., including observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion). For example, but for the “machine learning model implementing on one or more processor” language, the step of “predicting…; comparing….”, the context of this limitation encompasses that a person can mentally observing/reading the received power generation information monthly. If the person observes the decrease/drop in energy output from the received information compare to the previous month. The person can be able to predict or forecast the abnormal performance of the solar panel. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under the 2A prong 1 analysist.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application with respect to the 2A prong 2 analysist. In particular, the claim using a machine learning model to implement on a processor to perform the abstract idea. This step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic processor ) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Further, receiving information…; and sending user notification” are not considered as significantly more than the abstract idea because they are merely data gathering and outputting the data. 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.
With respect to the 2B analysis, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discuss above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using generic computer components to perform all of the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component or other machinery .
In addition, receiving information…; and sending user notification are not considered as significantly more than the abstract idea because they are merely storing data in a memory and outputting the data which are considered as well understood routine conventional as it has been held by the court. Particularly in receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Noting that claim to a system is held ineligible for the same reason, e.g., the generically-recited computers add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. Therefore, the independents 1, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.
Dependent claims 2, 4-8, 10, 12-16 are merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claims 1 and 11 without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, they are rejected for the same rational and are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 9-10, 12-15, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by KIM ET AL (US 2024/0396498). Herein after KIM.
As for claim 1, KIM discloses a computer-implemented method for monitoring an off-grid solar power system {figures 1-2, 5-6} comprising:
receiving, by a first machine learning model implementing on one or more processors, information comprising one or more of: a solar panel current, a solar panel voltage, a battery current, a battery voltage, a load current, or a load voltage of the off-grid solar power system {at least figures 1, 2 and 3; pars.. 0054-0056, 0065-0066 discloses The electricity generation amount forecast unit 110 includes an electricity generation amount forecast model 111. The consumption amount forecast unit 120 includes a consumption amount forecast model 121 that receive the information regarding electricity generation amounts and consumption amount from the ESS device 200; par. 0071 discloses transmit and receiving data through communication with a power management system (PMS) of the energy storage apparatus (the ESS); par. 0076 discloses the input values include past electricity generation amounts, weather conditions (temperature, humidity, an amount of cloud, and the like), and energy electricity generation information (for example, solar light panel information and the like}
predicting, by the first machine learning model, operating parameters of the off-grid solar power system comprising one or more of: a solar panel power, a solar intensity, a load profile, a battery voltage over time based on the received information {see at least figure 3, step 310, pars. 0076, 0081, discloses e.g. the electricity generation amount forecast model 111 may output, as an output value, a time span-based forecast electricity generation amount, which can be generated on a per-time span basis, using, as input values, past electricity generation amounts, weather conditions (temperature, humidity, an amount of cloud, and the like), and energy electricity generation information (for example, solar light panel information and the like).;
receiving, by a second machine learning model implementing on the one or more processors, a comparison between one or more predicted operating parameters and one or more actual operating parameters {see at least figure 3, step 320-3040, pars. 0083-0091 e.g. detect the abnormality of the solar panel 300 based on the forecast electricity generation amount, which is forecasted on a per-time span basis, and the actually generated electricity generation amount};
and sending, by the second machine learning model, a user notification for an abnormal operating condition of the off-grid solar power system based on the comparison result {see at least figure 3, step 350, par. 0092 e.g. the control module 130 may provide a previously connected user terminal (or mobile terminal) with an alarm about the presence or absence of the abnormality of the solar panel 300 and the cause of the failure of the solar panel 300}.
As for claim 2, KIM discloses providing, by the second machine learning model, one or more maintenance recommendations based on the abnormal operating condition {see at least figure 5, item 4-2, pars. 0029, 0130, 0134}.
As for claim 4, KIM discloses the one or more maintenance recommendations comprise initiating a cleaning procedure for one or more solar panels {see at leastpars. 0029, 0130, 0134}.
As for claim 5, KIM discloses the one or more maintenance recommendations comprise reducing energy consumption by controlling active loads using a Battery Management System (BMS) {see at least pars. 0017-0018}.
As for claim 6, KIM discloses wherein the information further comprises one or more of: an air temperature, a wind speed, a wind direction, or a humidity {see at least par. 0045, 0076}.
As for claim 7, KIM discloses wherein the information further comprises one or more of: a battery charging level, or a battery temperature {see at least pars.0095, 0110-0111}.
As for claims 9-10, 12-15, 17-19, the limitations of these claims have been noted in the rejection above. They are therefore rejected for the same reason sets forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 8, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM as applied to claims above and in view of LINCHIEH ET AL (US 2024/0146060). Herein after LINCHIEH.
As for claims 8, 16 and 20, KIM discloses receiving information regarding energy electricity generation information (for example, solar panel information and the like) as indicated above. However, KIM does not explicitly disclose removing outliers from the information. However, such this known limitation has been taught in LINCHIEH reference as least in pars. 0085, 0099 e.g. “the data processor may perform other tasks such as identifying and removing outliers from the data, filling-in or removing gaps in any of data sources…. to make the training or inference processes more accurate”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective of filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of LINCHIEH into the system of KIM with a reasonable expectation of success in order to make the information/data more accurate.
Claim(s) 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM as applied to claims above and in view of JEONG (US 2022/0077820).
As for claims 3 and 11, KIM discloses claimed invention as indicated above except for the one or more maintenance recommendations comprise a flight path of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) for detecting a malfunctioning device in the off-grid solar power system. However, JEONG discloses the known teachings of suing unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) for detecting the malfunction of the solar photovoltaic panel as shown in abstract, 0033, 0123, 0126, 0139 and figure 4. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective of filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of JEONG into the system of KIM with a reasonable expectation of success for performing a malfunction area inspection/detection process for the solar photovoltaic paned when using UAV.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Clifton et al (US 2022/0012644): Method and system for monitoring remote system;
Rakshit et al (US 2024/0429857): receiving a combination of weather data, power output data, and solar image data to pin-point dust contours from the solar panel;
Shi et al (US 2023/0198258): Apparatus and method for optimizing carbon emissions in a power grid;
Balawi et al (US 2025/0062719): System and method for determination of soiling loss on solar panels of photovoltaic (PV) power plant;
Murugesan et al (US 2018/0131190): energy flow prediction for electric systems including photovoltaic solar systems;
Valerino (US 2024/0403977): Solar monitoring systems, devices, and methods.
Kim (US 2021/0305937): Device and method for determining whether power generation system is abnormal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kira Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-1614. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 9:00-5:00 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, Khoi Tran can be reached on 571-272-6919. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KIRA NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656