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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 11-14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kremer (WO2014/025823).
With respect to claim 1, Kremer teaches a system for inspecting a heliostat, comprising: a platform (substrate or plate – see para. 24 at page 7, last few lines) for supporting an image capture device 164 (Para. 24). Kremer teaches the image capture device 164 captures a plurality of facets of the heliostat 108. Kremer teaches a computing apparatus (controller 162). Kremer teaches the camera (image capture device 164) for detecting at least first and second images. At least first and second images are assumed since Kremer teaches determining an average centroid of a reflector facet reading, see para. 7, lines 4-9 and para. 8, beginning at line 7. Kremer teaches wireless transmission from the image capturing device, see para. 23, lines 1-4 and para. 24, lines 12-15. The image capturing device 164 inherently stores information that is read by the CMOS or CCD array. In the alternative, Kremer teaches at para. 37, that one or more processes can be performed using software which includes the storage of obtained images. Kremer teaches the computing device (controller 162) determines between the averages, a misalignment parameter. The misalignment parameters are derived from the averages taken by the first and second images of the heliostat to formulate the average centroids taken by the image capture device 164, see para. 29, lines 1-5 and para. 31.
With respect to claim 2, Kremer teaches adjusting the position of the heliostat (see para. 22, lines 1-5 and para. 24, lines 4-6.
With respect to claim 3, Kremer teaches wherein the first and second image readings are images taken by the image capture device 164 while facing the surface of the facet of the heliostat, see para. 9, lines 1-8.
With respect to claim 6, Kremer illustrates by figure 1, a mirror 128 is mounted to a substrate or plate and the image capture device may be mounted to the substrate or plate – see para. 24, last few lines of page 7 of the Kremer references.
With respect to claim 11, Kremer teaches a method for inspecting a heliostat comprising: mounting a camera (capture device 164) on a substrate, see para. 24, last 4 lines of page 7 of the reference. Kremer teaches obtaining the average centroid value of image values taken of the reflective surface of the heliostat. The average image value assumes the taking of at least two images, including a first and second image. See also para. 28, lines 9-10, wherein Kremer teaches multiple images being extracted.
Kremer teaches storing first and second images in that the CCD or CMOS device is a storage device for capturing images. In the alternative, Kremer teaches at para. 37, that one or more processes can be performed using software.
Kremer teaches wireless transmission from the image capturing device, see para. 23, lines 1-4 and para. 24, lines 12-15. Kremer teaches the computing device (controller 162) more making a comparison between centroids of the first and second images. Kremer teaches using the comparison between the centroids to compute a misalignment parameter. The misalignment parameters are derived from the averages taken by the first and second images and are used as a correction parameter to correct for misalignments of the reflectors. See paragraph 22, see also para. 29, lines 1-5 and para. 31.
With respect to claim 12, Kremer teaches a first heliostat 108.
With respect to claim 13, Kremer teaches adjusting the position of the heliostat (see para. 22, lines 1-5 and para. 24, lines 4-6).
With respect to claim 14, Kremer teaches a plurality of heliostats wherein the first is on one side of tower 112 and at least a second of the other side of the tower such that it faces the first of a plurality of heliostats. See figure 1.
With respect to claim 20, Kremer teaches a computer program product as the claimed computer readable storage medium (described at paragraph 38) for executing instructions thereon for performing such acts, comprising: receiving multiple images paragraph 28, lines 8-10, which includes at least first and second images. At least first and second images are assumed since Kremer teaches determining an average centroid of a reflector facet reading, see para. 7, lines 4-9 and para. 8, beginning at line 7. Kremer teaches storing first and second images in that the CCD or CMOS device is a storage device for capturing images. In the alternative, Kremer teaches at para. 37, that one or more processes can be performed using software
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) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kremer in view of Hwan (KR20190140175).
With respect to claim 4, Kremer teaches a platform/substrate for housing the image capture device 164, see para 24, the bottom of page 7 of the reference). What is not taught is that the platform is associated with an unmanned vehicle, such as a drone.
Hwan teaches a drone having sensors for reading sloped surfaces of different objects.
Furthermore, Hwan teaches, obtaining additional spatial location information capable of acquiring a wide range of topographical displacements that are collected by the drone.
Since it is well known to use drones to read slopes of surfaces, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of Hwan with Kremer, to provide an alternative way of reading the slopes of the reflective surfaces of the heliostat for the purpose of determining the change in the reflection that optimizes the suns reflection on the tower or receiver of the sun’s energy. It would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the imager 164 on the substrate platform and exchange it with a drone on a platform having a sensor for sensing slopes of surfaces, such as the reflectors 108 of Kremer as suggested by the surfaces set forth by Hwan.
With respect to claim 5, Hwan teaches a drone as a platform having sensors for reading the surfaces of various objects. The motivation for the rejection is the same as that of claim 4.
Claims Objected to As Containing Allowable Matter
Claims 7-10 and 15-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 7 – 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base.
Claim 7 is objected to as containing allowable subject matter since the prior art does not teach or suggest in claimed combination, the reflectance estimated by summing intensities form the second image and for the direct image and computing the reflectance ratio as defined by the equation.
Claim 8 depends from claim 7 and would be allowed for similar reasons.
Claim 9 is objected to as containing allowable subject matter since the prior art does not teach or suggest in claimed combination, the first image superimposed on the second image and the computing apparatus configured to generate a canting error associated with each facet of one or more mirrored facet.
Claim 10 depends from claim 9 and would be allowed for similar reasons.
Claim 15 is objected to as containing allowable subject matter since the prior art does not teach or suggest in claimed combination, determining the performance parameter based on an angular reference derived from the respective position coordinates.
Claim 16 is objected to as containing allowable subject matter since the prior art does not teach or suggest in claimed combination, and determining a reflectance ratio or a facet position based on the angular reference derived from the respective position coordinates.
Claim 17 is objected to as containing allowable subject matter since the prior art does not teach or suggest in claimed combination, the reflectance estimated by summing intensities form the second image and for the direct image and computing the reflectance ratio as defined by the equation.
Claim 18 depends from claim 17 and would be allowed for similar reasons.
Claim 19 depends from claim 18 and would be allowed for similar reasons.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEROME GRANT II whose telephone number is (571)272-7463. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
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, Jennifer Mehmood can be reached at 571-272-2976. 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.
/JEROME GRANT II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2664