DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 7-11, 13, 15, and 18-20 are currently pending.
Claims 2-6, 12, 14, and 16-17 have been cancelled.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/17/2024 and 06/20/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Drawings
Examiner agrees the current amendment overcomes the previous drawing objections. The objections are withdrawn.
Specification
Examiner agrees the amendment to the specification overcomes the previous specification objection. The objection is withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant argues the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Examiner disagrees.
First, Applicant argues that the claims recite a method which includes complex calculations which cannot be performed in the human mind. Specifically, Applicant argues that “a human cannot look at an image of a distorted grid of dots reflected on a mirror, mentally calculate a high-precision transformation matrix utilizing a localized k-d tree, and generate a sub-milliradian x and y surface slope error map.” See Remarks page 1. While Examiner agrees that a human cannot do those functions, those functions are not claimed. As discussed below and in the Examiner interview held 08/11/2026, the claims are currently written do encompass a mental process because these complex calculations are not claimed.
Second, Applicant argues the claims preclude a mental performance through express physical limitations and machine dependencies. Specifically, applicant argues that a “human cannot act as a camera moving along a track,” Examiner disagrees. A human could be on the track holding a camera and moving along the track, the human could be pushing a camera along a track. There area numerous examples of how a person could move along a track with the assistance of generic machine components. Applicant further states that a human cannot “extract sub-pixel edge coordinates from an image to solve for spatial camera coordinates.” Here, Examiner agrees, however this is once again a non-claimed feature. Therefore, this argument is also unpersuasive.
Finally, Applicant argues there is a significant technical improvement by achieving efficiencies beyond standard industry practices. However, these are unclaimed features and therefore not persuasive.
35 U.S.C. 102
Examiner agrees the current amendment overcomes the prior art of record, the rejections are withdrawn. The claims would be in condition for allowance if the rejections
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, 7-11, 13, 15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the mental process of determining a heliostat error without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, under step 2A prong 1, the claim recites the mental steps:
-creating, using a processor, a model for a target
-capturing, using a camera, an image of the target reflected on a face of a heliostat
-receiving, using the processor, the image;
-analyzing, using the processor, the image, and
- determining, using the processor, an error of the heliostat
-the positioning comprises moving the target to where it can be viewed by the camera in the face of the heliostat,
-the capturing comprises moving the camera along a track and aiming a camera at the heliostat,
-the solving comprises identifying a nonreflected feature in the image, and
-the nonreflected feature comprises at least one corner or the edge.
These steps could practically be performed by a person using a camera, traveling along a track to aim a camera at a heliostat reflecting the claimed target to determine a nonreflected feature.
Under step 2A prong 2, the claim recites additional elements:
-a heliostat comprises a corner, an edge and the face,
-the target comprises a plurality of dots on arranged on a surface.
These fail to integrate the claim into a practical application because these are both well understood conventional activities. Most heliostats comprise a corner, an edge and a face. Further, it is common in the technical field of image analysis to have a calibration pattern comprised of dots arranged on a surface. The claim recites no further limitations. Therefore, under step 2B, the claim taken as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 7-11 and 13 add the mental steps of identifying a model target point on the model near a reflected point. These fail to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Independent claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 1 and follows the same logic as discussed above.
Dependent claims 18-20 add the mental steps of identifying a model target point on the model near a reflected point. These fail to remedy the abstract idea of claim 15.
Allowable Subject Matter
The claims are not rejected under the prior art would be in condition for allowance if the above rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 were overcome.
Regarding claim 1, neither the closest known prior art, nor any reasonable combination thereof, teaches:
the target comprises a plurality of dots arranged on a surface,
the positioning comprises moving the target to where it can be viewed by the camera in the face of the heliostat,
the capturing comprises moving the camera along a track and aiming the camera at the heliostat,
the solving comprises identifying a nonreflected feature in the image, and
the nonreflected feature comprises at least one of the corner or the edge.
Claims 7-11 and 13 depend from claim 1 and would therefore also be allowed.
Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 1 and would be allowable for the reasons discussed above, claims 18-20 depend from claim 15 and would therefore also be allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Molly K Wilburn whose telephone number is (571)272-3589. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Emily Terrell can be reached at (571) 270-3717. 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.
/Molly Wilburn/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666
Prosecution Insights