DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the Application filed on February 29, 2024, which is a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. §371 of International Application No. PCT/IB2022/058211, filed on September 1, 2022, and claims foreign priority to IN Application No. 202121039630, filed on September 1, 2021. An action on the merits follows. Claims 1-18 are pending on the application.
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “capture visual images and thermographic images of the at least one solar panel… receive visual images and thermographic images of the at least one solar panel of the solar power plant” in lines 3-9 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “visual images and thermographic images of the at least one solar panel of the solar power plant” recited in lines 8-9 of the claim correspond to the captured “visual images and thermographic images of the at least one solar panel” previously recited in lines 3-4 of the claim, or not, for example.
Therefore, based on above, for examination purposes the claimed “receive visual images and thermographic images of the at least one solar panel of the solar power plant” recited in lines 8-9 of the claim will be interpreted as “receive the captured visual images and thermographic images of the at least one solar panel of the solar power plant”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “capturing visual images and thermographic images of the at least one solar panel… receiving visual images and thermographic images of the at least one solar panel of the solar power plant” in lines 3-6 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “visual images and thermographic images of the at least one solar panel of the solar power plant” recited in lines 5-6 of the claim correspond to the captured “visual images and thermographic images of the at least one solar panel” previously recited in lines 3-4 of the claim, or not, for example.
Therefore, based on above, for examination purposes the claimed “receiving visual images and thermographic images of the at least one solar panel of the solar power plant” recited in lines 5-6 of the claim will be interpreted as “receiving the captured visual images and thermographic images of the at least one solar panel of the solar power plant”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: “system for performance monitoring… data processing arrangement is configured to: receive… stitch… create… using… identify… calculate”, “processing”, “configured to use”, “comparing”, “identifies”, in claims 1, 3-4, and 6-9, respectively.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Fig. 1; Par. [0080-82, 88-89] describe a programmed computing device or computer, including for example software, hardware, or a combination of hardware and software, capable of performing the described functionality.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “create at least one table with coordinates in the thermographic orthomosaic image, wherein the table comprises at least one string of solar panels” in lines 16-17 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “coordinates in the thermographic orthomosaic image” recited in lines 16-17 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to “coordinates in the thermographic orthomosaic image” of the claimed the “at least one solar panel of the solar power plant” previously recited in lines 1-2 the claim, or if the claimed “coordinates in the thermographic orthomosaic image” recited in lines 16-17 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to “coordinates in the thermographic orthomosaic image” of the claimed the “at least one string of solar panels” further recited in lines 16-17 the claim, for example. Additionally, it is not clear if the claimed “at least one string of solar panels” recited in line 17 of the claim encompass embodiments including the claimed the “at least one solar panel of the solar power plant” previously recited in lines 1-2 the claim, or if the claimed “at least one string of solar panels” recited in line 17 of the claim encompass embodiments that do not include the claimed the “at least one solar panel of the solar power plant” previously recited in lines 1-2 the claim, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “calculate energy loss in each of the at least one string of the solar panel in the solar plant for performance monitoring of the at least one solar panel” in lines 23-24 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed “the at least one string of the solar panel in the solar plant” limitation recited in lines 23-24 of the claim. Therefore, the lack of antecedent basis makes the scope of the claim indeterminate.
Claims 2-9 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected base claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “creating at least one table with coordinates in the thermographic orthomosaic image, wherein the table comprises at least one string of solar panels” in lines 13-14 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “coordinates in the thermographic orthomosaic image” recited in line 13 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to “coordinates in the thermographic orthomosaic image” of the claimed the “at least one solar panel of the solar power plant” previously recited in lines 1-2 the claim, or if the claimed “coordinates in the thermographic orthomosaic image” recited in line 13 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to “coordinates in the thermographic orthomosaic image” of the claimed the “at least one string of solar panels” further recited in line 14 the claim, for example. Additionally, it is not clear if the claimed “at least one string of solar panels” recited in line 14 of the claim encompass embodiments including the claimed the “at least one solar panel of the solar power plant” previously recited in lines 1-2 the claim, or if the claimed “at least one string of solar panels” recited in line 14 of the claim encompass embodiments that do not include the claimed the “at least one solar panel of the solar power plant” previously recited in lines 1-2 the claim, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 10 further recites the limitation “calculating energy loss in each of the at least one string of the solar panel in the solar plant for performance monitoring of the at least one solar panel” in lines 20-21 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed “the at least one string of the solar panel in the solar plant” limitation recited in lines 20-21 of the claim. Therefore, the lack of antecedent basis makes the scope of the claim indeterminate.
Claims 11-18 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected base claim 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objection(s) and rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUILLERMO M RIVERA-MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-4979. The examiner can normally be reached on 9 am to 5 pm.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached on 571-270-5183. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/GUILLERMO M RIVERA-MARTINEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677