DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to the application filed on 04/12/2024 and the Amendment & Remark filed on 10/16/2025.
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 § 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) 1-5, 7- 12, 14-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steven et al (US 2014/0039965) in view of Peterson et al (US 2007/0137141).
As per claim 1, Steven teaches a system comprising:
an electrical component coupled to at least one PV device and configured to collect, from the at least one PV device an electrical output generated by the at least one PV device; (See Steven Paragraph 0101 and 0122)
a controller communicatively coupled to the electrical component, the controller configured to generate, based, at least in part, upon the collected electrical output, a solar profile of a structure including at least one PV device, (See Steven Paragraph 0101 and 0122)
at least one computing device comprising at least one processor and at least one memory device, the at least one computing device communicatively coupled to the controller and configured to:
receive, from the controller, the solar profile; and display the solar profile and information representing an environment sounding the structure on a user interface of the at least one computing device. (See Steven Paragraph 0101, 0144, 0122, 0138 and 0225, the solar profile include energy generation from photovoltaic (PV) power generation, which is information representing the environment sounding the structure.)
Steven does not teach that PV is Impact Resistant Photovoltaic Window.
However, Peterson teaches Photovoltaic window that has impact resistance quality. (See Peterson Paragraph 0005, 0020 and 0021)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the energy profile generating system taught by Steven with teaching from Peterson to generate an energy profile of IRPV window. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated as analyzing the energy output of IRPV window increases the system’s applicability.
As per claim 8, Steven teaches a method comprising:
generating, by the controller based, at least in part, upon the collected electrical output, the solar profile of the structure including the at least one PV device; (See Steven Paragraph 0101, 0144, 0122 and 0138)
interconnecting the at least one computing device to the controller, wherein the at least one computing device is configured to (i) receive, from the controller, the solar profile, and (ii) display the solar profile and information representing an environment sounding the structure on a user interface of the at least one computing device. (See Steven Paragraph 0101, 0144, 0122, 0138 and 0225, the solar profile include energy generation from photovoltaic (PV) power generation, which is information representing the environment sounding the structure.)
Steven does not teach that PV is Impact Resistant Photovoltaic Window.
However, Peterson teaches Photovoltaic window that has impact resistance quality. (See Peterson Paragraph 0005, 0020 and 0021)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the energy profile generating system taught by Steven with teaching from Peterson to generate an energy profile of IRPV window. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated as analyzing the energy output of IRPV window increases the system’s applicability.
As per claim 15, Steven teaches non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable instructions embodied when executed by a controller, the computer-executable instructions cause the controller to:
generating, by the controller based, at least in part, upon the collected electrical output, the solar profile of the structure including the at least one PV device; (See Steven Paragraph 0101, 0144, 0122 and 0138)
interconnecting the at least one computing device to the controller, wherein the at least one computing device is configured to (i) receive, from the controller, the solar profile, and (ii) display the solar profile and information representing an environment sounding the structure on a user interface of the at least one computing device. (See Steven Paragraph 0101, 0144, 0122, 0138 and 0225, the solar profile include energy generation from photovoltaic (PV) power generation, which is information representing the environment sounding the structure.) Steven does not teach that PV is Impact Resistant Photovoltaic Window.
However, Peterson teaches Photovoltaic window that has impact resistance quality. (See Peterson Paragraph 0005, 0020 and 0021)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the energy profile generating system taught by Steven with teaching from Peterson to generate an energy profile of IRPV window. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated as analyzing the energy output of IRPV window increases the system’s applicability.
As per claims 2 and 9, Steven in view of Peterson teaches:
wherein the electrical component is electrically coupled to an energy output of the at least one IRPV window. (See Steven Paragraph 0480 and Peterson Paragraph 0005, 0020 and 0021)
As per claims 3, 10 and 16, Steven in view of Peterson teaches:
wherein the electrical component is further configured to collect the electrical output from the energy output of the at least one IRPV window. (See Steven Paragraph 0480 and Peterson Paragraph 0005, 0020 and 0021)
As per claims 4, 11 and 17, Steven in view of Peterson teaches:
wherein the electrical component includes an inverter. (See Steven Paragraph 0480)
As per claims 5, 12 and 18, Steven in view of Peterson teaches:
wherein the computing device is configured to receive the solar profile of the structure, wherein the solar profile indicates the electrical output of the at least one IRPV window. (See Steven Paragraph 0480 and Peterson Paragraph 0005, 0020 and 0021)
As per claims 7, 14 and 20, Steven in view of Peterson teaches:
wherein the controller is further configured to communicate with a user computing device, and cause the solar profile to be displayed on a user interface of the user computing device. (See Steven Paragraph 0300)
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 13 and 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that Steven in view of Petersen does not teach “display the solar profile and information representing an environment surrounding the structure on a user interface of the at least one computing device”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Steven teaches the displaying of the energy generation profile of an asset, which includes photovoltaic (PV) power generation. Since the photovoltaic (PV) power generation of an asset reflects the solar energy environment (how much sunlight is available to generate energy) surrounding the asset, Steven’s teaching on displaying energy generation profile teaches “display the solar profile and information representing an environment surrounding the structure on a user interface of the at least one computing device”.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHO KWONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7955. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm EST M-F.
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, MICHAEL W ANDERSON can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/CHO YIU KWONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights